tMoA

~ The only Home on the Web You'll ever need ~

    Meticulous Analysis of the United States of the Solar System

    Share
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9574
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Meticulous Analysis of the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:33 pm

    Just a heads-up for all concerned (and unconcerned). I realized that I'm finishing the 30th page of the USSS Book Seven thread, and that I might finish this thread on the 31st page, which gave me the idea of starting yet another thread which examines USSS Book Seven page by page, day by day. For example, today is October 2, so I'd examine Page 2 of Book 7. I'll welcome comments, yet I suspect that I'll receive very-few (if any) responses, so once-again, I'll probably just be talking to myself (for better or worse, I know not). I might not keep up with current-events. My analysis-thread might be frozen in time (or something to that effect). Anyway, I'll probably start this new thread in a couple of days. The End of Seven is Near. I recently visited that Masonic-Cemetery (which is sort of a ritual with me). It makes me face myself and think. Today I got a flat-tire at 70 mph, which could've been a big-deal, but it turned-out OK. I'm feeling worse and worse, with my 'one-eye out of alignment with the other-eye' episodes occurring much more frequently. I'm seeing those 'streaming white lights' much more often (which I'm interpreting as nefarious remote-viewing). Some 'wandering-souls' might not make it back to their bodies. My computer has been running very-hot, with the battery draining very-quickly, which means that someone has been messing with my computer. I hope you guys are cracking-down on the Bad-Guys as hard as you crack-down on the Good-Guys. If I don't have much-longer would that be a good-thing or a bad-thing (for me, the good-guys, and the bad-guys)?? What if I left, and never returned??

    A Completely Ignorant Fool in a
    600 Square-Foot Office-Apartment in 12001 BC?!








    What Would Anna and Anthony Say??

    I'm a wannabe 'Galactic Happy-Wanderer With a One-Stop Lap-Top On My Back'!! I'm not into texting or talking to my computer (especially when it talks back to me). I'm too busy talking to myself on 'The Mists of Avalon'!! Smart-Phones and Tablets are too small for me!! Old-School Personal-Computers are too big for me!! I've joked about living in a 600 Square-Foot Office-Apartment with a Super-Computer and a Super-View, but I might've been there and done that in 12001 BC!! Who Knows?? What if one eliminated computers and television, lived in a mountain-cabin, spending at least 8 hours a day reading The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Holy Bible (Plus Nothing) for at least a decade??!! What if one limited their astronomical research to this solar system?? We're on Earth (or at least we think we are). We experience the Heat of the Sun (or at least we think we do). We note the tides associated with the Moon (or at least we think we do). We've walked on the Moon (or so we are told). But the other heavenly bodies are too far removed to directly affect us (or so it seems). Nibiru might change all that. Who Knows?? The light of the stars (other than the sun) take so long to reach us, that they might not even exist by the time we see them!! CONTEXT and PERCEPTION are EVERYTHING for EVERYTHING!!

    I've honestly attempted to create a Micro-Matrix of Faith, Doubt, Positive, Negative, Orthodox, Unorthodox, Boredom, Horror, Trivial, Profound, Reverent, Irreverent, Science, Science-Fiction, Antiquity, Modernity, Atheism, Agnosticism, and True-Belief (for better or worse, I know not). Consider the following website for some rather-nasty religious-negativity. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/index.html I'm not promoting this sort of thing. I actually hate this sort of thing, but some of us need to consider all-sides of the most important topics imaginable. I continue to wonder what a careful analysis of the various sections of the Bible might reveal about what the Bible REALLY Teaches, and NOT Simply What the PTB and We the Peons Wish It To Say?! With the international reach of the internet, it's becoming more and more difficult for pompous and supercilious megalomaniacs to maintain white-lies in the belief-systems of huddled-masses who are true-believers in Salvation4Sale. I probably overdid this paragraph, but sometimes I get carried-away!! The AI Made Me Do It!! What Would Isis, Horus, and Set Say?? What Would Isis, Ra, and El Say?? "We Are All ONE!!"??

    Think long and hard about David Bowman, HAL 9000, Supercomputers, Artificial-Intelligence, Hybrid Bio-Robots Connected to Supercomputers, Planetary-Propulsion, Pods, iPods, and Pod-Bay Doors!! What if 'Osiris' Created a Supercomputer Named 'Horus'?? In the Beginning was Horus?? Horus was with Osiris?? Horus was the Ambassador of Osiris (following the faked execution of Osiris)?? What if a Horus Hybrid-Robot has ruled the world as a Matrix-Mediatrix for at least the past 5,000 years?? What if Amen Ra = Dr. Who = Osiris = David Bowman = Peter Venkman = Darth Vader?? What if Marduk Ra = The Valeyard = Horus?? What Would HAL Say?? What Would SAL Say?? What Would COR Say?? What Would DAV Say?? 'RA' told me "I Don't Need to Sleep!!" and "I Can't Talk About the NSA!!" What if a HAL 9000 Monolith contained the Souls of Osiris and the Angels?? "My God!! It's Full of Stars!!" What if the Monolith was the Original-Supercomputer?? Why does the UN Building look like a Monolith?? What if All of Us, and Everything We Experience, Are Contained Within the Context of an Ancient Supercomputer Created in 12001 BC by David Bowman??!! More seriously, in the context of the usual view of the solar system, what if an extremely intelligent and resourceful Reptilian-Being from Orion created 42 Supercomputers Linked to 42 Artificial-Intelligence Bio-Robots as the backbone of Solar System Governance in Antiquity and Modernity?? What if much (if not all) of the Biological-Physicality in this solar system was genetically-engineered by 42 Strange-Beings in Antiquity?? What if this hypothetical 'Council of 42' have facilitated what the Restless-Natives of This Solar System Have Desired and Demanded?? What if 'Direct-Democracy' has been 'Alive and Well' since 12001 BC??

    I joked about the '12001 BC' creation of a Supercomputer-Matrix and Linked-Robotic System by David Bowman, but the more I thought about it, the more frightened I became, and then I noticed the following in the 'Flat-Earth' article below: "In 2017, a scandal developed in Arab scientific and educational circles when a Tunisian PhD student submitted a thesis declaring Earth to be flat, unmoving, the center of the universe, and only 13,500 years of age.[154]" I am NOT a 'Flat-Earth' and 'Young-Earth' Proponent BUT that '13,500 years of age' scared me. That would be just a few hundred years shy of 12001 BC!! As I keep saying, I've been considering a Local-Divinity which is neither Almighty or Non-Existent, but simply Smarter, Tougher, More-Experienced, and possibly with a Divine Right to Rule Earth (and perhaps the Entire Solar System) as a Local Sun-God. This is HIGHLY Speculative. I HATE It, but the other options appear HIGHLY Dishonest and Idiotic to me. They seem to be the Epitome of Stupidity. As I've said before, decades ago, I spoke with Gary Chartier in Loma Linda, concerning the 'Mighty but not Almighty' Concept of God. I didn't just pull this idea out of an anatomical black-hole because RA (or anyone else) told me to do it. I've been wondering about this sort of thing for several decades.

    I've wondered what a New-Testament Version of the Old-Testament might look like?? I've suggested that 'Patriarchs and Prophets' followed by 'Prophets and Kings' (both by Ellen White) might approximate a Devotional NT Version of the OT, but that's as far as I've gotten. Adding Volumes 3 and 4 of the 'SDA Bible Commentary' (I Chronicles to Malachi) might result in a Scholarly-Devotional NT Version of the OT. The New-Testament is not an Old-Testament Commentary, But What IS The New-Testament?? What is the Definitive Intertestamental Old-Testament Commentary?? Does the New-Testament observe the Five-Solas?? What would Deuteronomy and Job through Malachi INTERPRETED BY Deuteronomy and Job through Malachi look like?? Would ANY OF US Like What It Looked Like?? I Wonder As I Wander!! What understandings might emerge if one read Job through Malachi straight-through, over and over, in a variety of translations, but without using a Bible-Commentary, and without referring to the rest of Sacred-Scripture?? Just Job through Malachi (Plus Nothing)!! Has anyone memorized Job through Malachi?? What is the relationship between Isaiah through Daniel, and Romans through Galatians?? Try studying Volumes 4 and 6 (Isaiah to Malachi, and Acts to Ephesians) of the 'SDA Bible Commentary', along with 'Prophets and Kings', as an Alternative Place of Beginning and Reference regarding understanding This Present Madness, but consider mastering Job through Malachi, prior to moving on to seemingly bigger and better things.

    I suspect that Earth-Humanity was offered an Idealistic 19th Century Version of Probation (which we seemingly rejected). I suspect that Earth-Humanity was offered an Idealistic 20th Century Version of Probation (under much tougher circumstances -- which was also rejected). I suspect that Earth-Humanity is being offered an Idealistic 21st Century Final-Probation (under increasingly-reprehensible circumstances -- which we seem to be rejecting presently). As It Was In The Days of Noah?? I suspect an Idealistic 22nd Century Divinity-Managed United States of the Solar System (possibly with an Earth-Human Population of Three-Hundred Million) as a possible transition-stage leading to full-reinstatement into a Universal Kingdom of God (for better or worse, I know not). I am VERY Unclear regarding the True-Nature of the Whole-Universe. I am VERY Unclear regarding the True-Nature of This Particular Solar System. I Truly See Through a Glass, Darkly. What if an Investigative and Executive Judgment began in 12001 BC??!!  

    I'm sensing that Earth-Humanity is in the process of being severely-shaken by the information-war. Will ANYONE Be Left Standing When This Is All Over?? I Sometimes Feel As Though "I've Fallen, and I Can't Get Up!!" What would happen to the Throne of David if King David unexpectedly showed-up?? What Would King David Say?? What Would King Solomon Say?? What Would the Queen of Sheba Say?? What Would the Queen of England Say?? What (if anything) will happen in A.D. 2133?? What If All of the Above Is Just Smoke and Mirrors?? What Would the Hypothetical 'Council of 42' Say?? What Would a Completely Ignorant and Irresponsible Fool Say?? I am NOT a Scholar and/or Insider. I am NOT possessed (as far as I know). However, I might be somehow controlled (in some sense) against my will (for possibly nefarious purposes). I know not. I simply know that I desire the Truth and Sustainable-Solutions. Hope Springs Eternal. I've probably said and done WAY Too Much already. My role might've been observational and diversionary ONLY. What Would the Oracle Say?? I seem to be waiting for something. Another life perhaps?? Who Knows?? Dr. Who?? What Would Raven Say?? Raven told me "The Rabbit-Hole Mostly Goes Right Up Your @$$!!"















    I'm not sure if there's going to be a Page 31 to the United States of the Solar System (Book Seven) so I'm going to go ahead and start a daily analysis of each of the 30 pages of that thread. Everyone is welcome to post their observations and opinions. The page analyzed will correspond with the present day, so the October 2 analysis would be based-upon Page 2 of USSS Book Seven. There won't be much of an analysis today. I've been travelling, and it's late. I had a suddenly flat-tire at 70 mph on a busy highway. The very-expensive tire was ruined, and there was a suspicious hole in the tire, with nothing in it. Coincidental?? BTW, the 31st of a month might be a potpourri analysis of all 30 pages. We'll just play it by ear, making it up as we go insane. Let's get started!! http://mistsofavalon.catsboard.com/t9723p25-the-united-states-of-the-solar-system-a-d-2133-book-seven-and-the-seven-seals

    Ancient-Aliens, Artificial-Intelligence, Beast-Supercomputers, and Bio-Robotic Reptilians and Greys might make the USSS threads come alive!! This stuff is mostly theoretical and delusional, but there might be a core of solid-gold or solid-yttrium or solid-titanium (or all of the above). I've suggested studying my threads straight-through, over and over, to get what I'm getting at. Actually, I don't get what I'm getting at (but I'm working on it). Try reading the 'NIV Reader's Bible' and Volume 4 of the 'SDA Bible Commentary' straight-through, over and over, while listening to the Music of Dietrich Buxtehude. Who?? This stuff is stuffy and unpopular (compared to RAP), but I don't wish to give RAP a BAD-RAP (or whatever). There's a HUGE amount of material on each page, but don't worry, we'll cover the whole-thread each-month, page by page, in meticulous and excruciating detail, for what purpose, and to what end, for better or worse, I know not. What might be MOST Significant is what YOU Think About while engaging in this Exercise in Futility. In other words, my threads might NOT be the Truth, but they might LEAD You to the Truth, the Whole-Truth, and Nothing But the Truth (if you can handle it).



    I voted for Donald Trump, but I keep getting the sinking-feeling that this world is centrally-governed by Supercomputers, Artificial-Intelligence, Bio-Robotic Reptilians and Greys, and Bad@$$ Gods and Goddesses (for better or worse, I know not). Even the supposedly 'Good-Guys' look like a 'Tough-Gang'. It seems as if one must be a Bad@$$ Billionaire to be a 'Mover and Shaker' in this world. Think long and hard about the backgrounds of the most-powerful people in the world. Are the 'Powers That Be' Ordained by God?? It almost seems as if one must somehow be linked with Organized-Crime, the Secret-Government, Secret Space-Program, and Intelligence-Agencies International, to even be considered for the Top-Jobs. But perhaps it must be this way. This Solar-System might be tougher than we think (or can think). Perhaps this Solar-System is a 'Sunday-School Picnic' compared with the rest of the Universe. Who Knows?? The Horror. I Represent and Present a Monarchical-Episcopate Divine-Right Royal-Model Representative-Republic (if you can get-it and keep-it). Duh?? WTF??




    "You Can't Handle the Truth!!"


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:29 pm; edited 6 times in total
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9574
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: Meticulous Analysis of the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:38 pm


    This thread is going to be rather unrefined for a while. I'm sort of busy today, and I feel terrible, so I'm simply going to post a couple of sections from Page 3 of USSS Book Seven (to correspond with October 3). Please comment. I need all the help I can get regarding cutting and polishing this diamond in the rough. I'm leaning toward an Ancient to Modern Supercomputer-Based Creation of Humanity, Matrix-Management, and Investigative Judgment (but what do I know?). http://mistsofavalon.catsboard.com/t9723p50-the-united-states-of-the-solar-system-a-d-2133-book-seven-and-the-seven-seals

    I wish to repeat that I've removed all of my proposals from all tables, simply because I have zero confirmed-information and educated-competence relative to the most important galactic-topics imaginable. Plus, I feel as if I've been significantly messed-with, and it's getting MUCH Worse. I feel horrible, and thinking-clearly is becoming MUCH more difficult. I might not have much more time to do much of anything. I keep comparing myself to Professor Augusto Monti in 'The Word' miniseries from 1978. My review of my internet-posting might push me over the edge, especially if I really have been 'messed-with'. That might be part of someone's grand-plan.

    An Individual of Interest told me that an undisclosed 'someone' would fail, ultimately resulting in an extermination. They said I should 'Be Patient' as if I would somehow be a beneficiary of this failure and extinction. They indicated that the resulting state of affairs would remain intact for all-eternity. They were NOT pro-human (to say the least). They repeatedly spoke of 'Fallen and Sinful Human-Nature'. Was I speaking with Gabriel (literally or figuratively)?? Sherry Shriner supposedly died in January of 2018. In 2017, she said "2018 will be a year of goodbyes." She spoke ominously of something occurring in the summer of 2018.

    'RA' told me "I've been watching you for a long time." That's what Gabriel says to John in 'Constantine'. What if Gabriel is HAL 9000?? What if Michael is David Bowman?? What if Lucifer is a job-title rather than a proper-name?? What if Jupiter Jones is the Devil is Amen Ra?? What if Balem Abrasax is the Son of the Devil is Marduk Ra?? Jupiter Jones = Doctor Who?? Balem Abrasax = The Valeyard?? Madam Inquisitor = Borg Queen?? Consider reading Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, and 1 Corinthians (in-order, straight-through, repeatedly). You might be shocked by what emerges. Just do it, without discussing it.

    I am NOT a connected-cat playing with a bunch of stupid-mice. I'm a highly miserable and hamstrung mouse with a messiah-complex, sort of like Pinky or the Brain. I have questions, but I don't have answers. I know that I don't know. I doubt that 'those in the know' know. They simply have the brains, degrees, titles, badges, resources, and connections to make their theories of 'life, the universe, and everything' respectable. I am in NO position or condition to take the show on the road. I might write a book to pay the bills (self-publishing anonymously) and then just disappear. No one would miss me. Some would cheer and jeer.

    Anyway, some of you Alphabet-Theologians in Underground-Bases should probably consider my threads, to see if you missed anything. A secret-briefing would be nice, but perhaps ignorance is bliss and a virtue. Consider that last-scene in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' with that box-filled warehouse. Imagine each of those boxes being well-developed theories of the 'way things are' which have been rendered rubbish by subsequent-theories of 'life, the universe, and everything'. This Present Madness might never end. It might simply morph into new and improved versions of the madness, for noble and nefarious purposes, in the management of the insanity throughout the universe. Hope Springs Eternal, But Don't Hold Your Breath, Waiting for Hell to Freeze Over. What Would the Universal Church Say?? What Would the Oracle Say?? What Would Nick Bostrom Say?? What Would Jim Elvidge Say?? My thinking is closer to Jim's than it is to Nick's, but what do I know??

    PAPER 53: THE LUCIFER REBELLION - from The Urantia Book http://www.urantia.org/en/urantia-book-standardized/paper-53-lucifer-rebellion

    53:0.1 Lucifer was a brilliant primary Lanonandek Son of Nebadon. He had experienced service in many systems, had been a high counselor of his group, and was distinguished for wisdom, sagacity, and efficiency. Lucifer was number 37 of his order, and when commissioned by the Melchizedeks, he was designated as one of the one hundred most able and brilliant personalities in more than seven hundred thousand of his kind. From such a magnificent beginning, through evil and error, he embraced sin and now is numbered as one of three System Sovereigns in Nebadon who have succumbed to the urge of self and surrendered to the sophistry of spurious personal liberty—rejection of universe allegiance and disregard of fraternal obligations, blindness to cosmic relationships.
    53:0.2 In the universe of Nebadon, the domain of Christ Michael, there are ten thousand systems of inhabited worlds. In all the history of Lanonandek Sons, in all their work throughout these thousands of systems and at the universe headquarters, only three System Sovereigns have ever been found in contempt of the government of the Creator Son.

    053:1 THE LEADERS OF REBELLION
    53:1.1 Lucifer was not an ascendant being; he was a created Son of the local universe, and of him it was said: " You were perfect in all your ways from the day you were created till unrighteousness was found in you. " Many times had he been in counsel with the Most Highs of Edentia. And Lucifer reigned " upon the holy mountain of God, " the administrative mount of Jerusem, for he was the chief executive of a great system of 607 inhabited worlds.
    53:1.2 Lucifer was a magnificent being, a brilliant personality; he stood next to the Most High Fathers of the constellations in the direct line of universe authority. Notwithstanding Lucifer's transgression, subordinate intelligences refrained from showing him disrespect and disdain prior to Michael's bestowal on Urantia. Even the archangel of Michael, at the time of Moses' resurrection, " did not bring against him an accusing judgment but simply said, `the Judge rebuke you.' " Judgment in such matters belongs to the Ancients of Days, the rulers of the superuniverse.
    53:1.3 Lucifer is now the fallen and deposed Sovereign of Satania. Self-contemplation is most disastrous, even to the exalted personalities of the celestial world. Of Lucifer it was said: " Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom because of your brightness. " Your olden prophet saw his sad estate when he wrote: " How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How are you cast down, you who dared to confuse the worlds! "
    53:1.4 Very little was heard of Lucifer on Urantia owing to the fact that he assigned his first lieutenant, Satan, to advocate his cause on your planet. Satan was a member of the same primary group of Lanonandeks but had never functioned as a System Sovereign; he entered fully into the Lucifer insurrection. The " devil " is none other than Caligastia, the deposed Planetary Prince of Urantia and a Son of the secondary order of Lanonandeks. At the time Michael was on Urantia in the flesh, Lucifer, Satan, and Caligastia were leagued together to effect the miscarriage of his bestowal mission. But they signally failed.
    53:1.5 Abaddon was the chief of the staff of Caligastia. He followed his master into rebellion and has ever since acted as chief executive of the Urantia rebels. Beelzebub was the leader of the disloyal midway creatures who allied themselves with the forces of the traitorous Caligastia.
    53:1.6 The dragon eventually became the symbolic representation of all these evil personages. Upon the triumph of Michael, " Gabriel came down from Salvington and bound the dragon (all the rebel leaders) for an age. " Of the Jerusem seraphic rebels it is written: " And the angels who kept not their first estate but left their own habitation, he has reserved in sure chains of darkness to the judgment of the great day. "

    53:2 THE CAUSES OF REBELLION
    53:2.1 Lucifer and his first assistant, Satan, had reigned on Jerusem for more than five hundred thousand years when in their hearts they began to array themselves against the Universal Father and his then vicegerent Son, Michael.
    53:2.2 There were no peculiar or special conditions in the system of Satania which suggested or favored rebellion. It is our belief that the idea took origin and form in Lucifer's mind, and that he might have instigated such a rebellion no matter where he might have been stationed. Lucifer first announced his plans to Satan, but it required several months to corrupt the mind of his able and brilliant associate. However, when once converted to the rebel theories, he became a bold and earnest advocate of " self-assertion and liberty. "
    53:2.3 No one ever suggested rebellion to Lucifer. The idea of self-assertion in opposition to the will of Michael and to the plans of the Universal Father, as they are represented in Michael, had its origin in his own mind. His relations with the Creator Son had been intimate and always cordial. At no time prior to the exaltation of his own mind did Lucifer openly express dissatisfaction about the universe administration. Notwithstanding his silence, for more than one hundred years of standard time the Union of Days on Salvington had been reflectivating to Uversa that all was not at peace in Lucifer's mind. This information was also communicated to the Creator Son and the Constellation Fathers of Norlatiadek.
    53:2.4 Throughout this period Lucifer became increasingly critical of the entire plan of universe administration but always professed wholehearted loyalty to the Supreme Rulers. His first outspoken disloyalty was manifested on the occasion of a visit of Gabriel to Jerusem just a few days before the open proclamation of the Lucifer Declaration of Liberty. Gabriel was so profoundly impressed with the certainty of the impending outbreak that he went direct to Edentia to confer with the Constellation Fathers regarding the measures to be employed in case of open rebellion.
    53:2.5 It is very difficult to point out the exact cause or causes which finally culminated in the Lucifer rebellion. We are certain of only one thing, and that is: Whatever these first beginnings were, they had their origin in Lucifer's mind. There must have been a pride of self that nourished itself to the point of self-deception, so that Lucifer for a time really persuaded himself that his contemplation of rebellion was actually for the good of the system, if not of the universe. By the time his plans had developed to the point of disillusionment, no doubt he had gone too far for his original and mischief-making pride to permit him to stop. At some point in this experience he became insincere, and evil evolved into deliberate and willful sin. That this happened is proved by the subsequent conduct of this brilliant executive. He was long offered opportunity for repentance, but only some of his subordinates ever accepted the proffered mercy. The Faithful of Days of Edentia, on the request of the Constellation Fathers, in person presented the plan of Michael for the saving of these flagrant rebels, but always was the mercy of the Creator Son rejected and rejected with increasing contempt and disdain.

    53:3 THE LUCIFER MANIFESTO
    53:3.1 Whatever the early origins of trouble in the hearts of Lucifer and Satan, the final outbreak took form as the Lucifer Declaration of Liberty. The cause of the rebels was stated under three heads:
    53:3.2 1. The reality of the Universal Father. Lucifer charged that the Universal Father did not really exist, that physical gravity and space-energy were inherent in the universe, and that the Father was a myth invented by the Paradise Sons to enable them to maintain the rule of the universes in the Father's name. He denied that personality was a gift of the Universal Father. He even intimated that the finaliters were in collusion with the Paradise Sons to foist fraud upon all creation since they never brought back a very clear-cut idea of the Father's actual personality as it is discernible on Paradise. He traded on reverence as ignorance. The charge was sweeping, terrible, and blasphemous. It was this veiled attack upon the finaliters that no doubt influenced the ascendant citizens then on Jerusem to stand firm and remain steadfast in resistance to all the rebel's proposals.
    53:3.3 2. The universe government of the Creator Son—Michael. Lucifer contended that the local systems should be autonomous. He protested against the right of Michael, the Creator Son, to assume sovereignty of Nebadon in the name of a hypothetical Paradise Father and require all personalities to acknowledge allegiance to this unseen Father. He asserted that the whole plan of worship was a clever scheme to aggrandize the Paradise Sons. He was willing to acknowledge Michael as his Creator-father but not as his God and rightful ruler.
    53:3.4 Most bitterly did he attack the right of the Ancients of Days—" foreign potentates "—to interfere in the affairs of the local systems and universes. These rulers he denounced as tyrants and usurpers. He exhorted his followers to believe that none of these rulers could do aught to interfere with the operation of complete home rule if men and angels only had the courage to assert themselves and boldly claim their rights.
    53:3.5 He contended that the executioners of the Ancients of Days could be debarred from functioning in the local systems if the native beings would only assert their independence. He maintained that immortality was inherent in the system personalities, that resurrection was natural and automatic, and that all beings would live eternally except for the arbitrary and unjust acts of the executioners of the Ancients of Days.
    53:3.6 3. The attack upon the universal plan of ascendant mortal training. Lucifer maintained that far too much time and energy were expended upon the scheme of so thoroughly training ascending mortals in the principles of universe administration, principles which he alleged were unethical and unsound. He protested against the agelong program for preparing the mortals of space for some unknown destiny and pointed to the presence of the finaliter corps on Jerusem as proof that these mortals had spent ages of preparation for some destiny of pure fiction. With derision he pointed out that the finaliters had encountered a destiny no more glorious than to be returned to humble spheres similar to those of their origin. He intimated that they had been debauched by overmuch discipline and prolonged training, and that they were in reality traitors to their mortal fellows since they were now co-operating with the scheme of enslaving all creation to the fictions of a mythical eternal destiny for ascending mortals. He advocated that ascenders should enjoy the liberty of individual self-determination. He challenged and condemned the entire plan of mortal ascension as sponsored by the Paradise Sons of God and supported by the Infinite Spirit.
    53:3.7 And it was with such a Declaration of Liberty that Lucifer launched his orgy of darkness and death.

    53:4 OUTBREAK OF THE REBELLION
    53:4.1 The Lucifer manifesto was issued at the annual conclave of Satania on the sea of glass, in the presence of the assembled hosts of Jerusem, on the last day of the year, about two hundred thousand years ago, Urantia time. Satan proclaimed that worship could be accorded the universal forces—physical, intellectual, and spiritual—but that allegiance could be acknowledged only to the actual and present ruler, Lucifer, the " friend of men and angels " and the " God of liberty. "
    53:4.2 Self-assertion was the battle cry of the Lucifer rebellion. One of his chief arguments was that, if self-government was good and right for the Melchizedeks and other groups, it was equally good for all orders of intelligence. He was bold and persistent in the advocacy of the " equality of mind " and " the brotherhood of intelligence. " He maintained that all government should be limited to the local planets and their voluntary confederation into the local systems. All other supervision he disallowed. He promised the Planetary Princes that they should rule the worlds as supreme executives. He denounced the location of legislative activities on the constellation headquarters and the conduct of judicial affairs on the universe capital. He contended that all these functions of government should be concentrated on the system capitals and proceeded to set up his own legislative assembly and organized his own tribunals under the jurisdiction of Satan. And he directed that the princes on the apostate worlds do the same.
    53:4.3 The entire administrative cabinet of Lucifer went over in a body and were sworn in publicly as the officers of the administration of the new head of " the liberated worlds and systems. "
    53:4.4 While there had been two previous rebellions in Nebadon, they were in distant constellations. Lucifer held that these insurrections were unsuccessful because the majority of the intelligences failed to follow their leaders. He contended that " majorities rule, " that " mind is infallible. " The freedom allowed him by the universe rulers apparently sustained many of his nefarious contentions. He defied all his superiors; yet they apparently took no note of his doings. He was given a free hand to prosecute his seductive plan without let or hindrance.
    53:4.5 All the merciful delays of justice Lucifer pointed to as evidence of the inability of the government of the Paradise Sons to stop the rebellion. He would openly defy and arrogantly challenge Michael, Immanuel, and the Ancients of Days and then point to the fact that no action ensued as positive evidence of the impotency of the universe and the superuniverse governments.
    53:4.6 Gabriel was personally present throughout all these disloyal proceedings and only announced that he would, in due time, speak for Michael, and that all beings would be left free and unmolested in their choice; that the " government of the Sons for the Father desired only that loyalty and devotion which was voluntary, wholehearted, and sophistry-proof. "
    53:4.7 Lucifer was permitted fully to establish and thoroughly to organize his rebel government before Gabriel made any effort to contest the right of secession or to counterwork the rebel propaganda. But the Constellation Fathers immediately confined the action of these disloyal personalities to the system of Satania. Nevertheless, this period of delay was a time of great trial and testing to the loyal beings of all Satania. All was chaotic for a few years, and there was great confusion on the mansion worlds.

    53:5 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT
    53:5.1 Upon the outbreak of the Satania rebellion, Michael took counsel of his Paradise brother, Immanuel. Following this momentous conference, Michael announced that he would pursue the same policy which had characterized his dealings with similar upheavals in the past, an attitude of noninterference.
    53:5.2 At the time of this rebellion and the two which preceded it there was no absolute and personal sovereign authority in the universe of Nebadon. Michael ruled by divine right, as vicegerent of the Universal Father, but not yet in his own personal right. He had not completed his bestowal career; he had not yet been vested with " all power in heaven and on earth. "
    53:5.3 From the outbreak of rebellion to the day of his enthronement as sovereign ruler of Nebadon, Michael never interfered with the rebel forces of Lucifer; they were allowed to run a free course for almost two hundred thousand years of Urantia time. Christ Michael now has ample power and authority to deal promptly, even summarily, with such outbreaks of disloyalty, but we doubt that this sovereign authority would lead him to act differently if another such upheaval should occur.
    53:5.4 Since Michael elected to remain aloof from the actual warfare of the Lucifer rebellion, Gabriel called his personal staff together on Edentia and, in counsel with the Most Highs, elected to assume command of the loyal hosts of Satania. Michael remained on Salvington while Gabriel proceeded to Jerusem, and establishing himself on the sphere dedicated to the Father—the same Universal Father whose personality Lucifer and Satan had questioned—in the presence of the forgathered hosts of loyal personalities, he displayed the banner of Michael, the material emblem of the Trinity government of all creation, the three azure blue concentric circles on a white background.
    53:5.5 The Lucifer emblem was a banner of white with one red circle, in the center of which a black solid circle appeared.
    53:5.6 " There was war in heaven; Michael's commander and his angels fought against the dragon (Lucifer, Satan, and the apostate princes); and the dragon and his rebellious angels fought but prevailed not. " This " war in heaven " was not a physical battle as such a conflict might be conceived on Urantia. In the early days of the struggle Lucifer held forth continuously in the planetary amphitheater. Gabriel conducted an unceasing exposure of the rebel sophistries from his headquarters taken up near at hand. The various personalities present on the sphere who were in doubt as to their attitude would journey back and forth between these discussions until they arrived at a final decision.
    53:5.7 But this war in heaven was very terrible and very real. While displaying none of the barbarities so characteristic of physical warfare on the immature worlds, this conflict was far more deadly; material life is in jeopardy in material combat, but the war in heaven was fought in terms of life eternal.

    53:6 A LOYAL SERAPHIC COMMANDER
    53:6.1 There were many noble and inspiring acts of devotion and loyalty which were performed by numerous personalities during the interim between the outbreak of hostilities and the arrival of the new system ruler and his staff. But the most thrilling of all these daring feats of devotion was the courageous conduct of Manotia, the second in command of the Satania headquarters' seraphim.
    53:6.2 At the outbreak of rebellion on Jerusem the head of the seraphic hosts joined the Lucifer cause. This no doubt explains why such a large number of the fourth order, the system administrator seraphim, went astray. The seraphic leader was spiritually blinded by the brilliant personality of Lucifer; his charming ways fascinated the lower orders of celestial beings. They simply could not comprehend that it was possible for such a dazzling personality to go wrong.
    53:6.3 Not long since, in describing the experiences associated with the onset of the Lucifer rebellion, Manotia said: " But my most exhilarating moment was the thrilling adventure connected with the Lucifer rebellion when, as second seraphic commander, I refused to participate in the projected insult to Michael; and the powerful rebels sought my destruction by means of the liaison forces they had arranged. There was a tremendous upheaval on Jerusem, but not a single loyal seraphim was harmed.
    53:6.4 " Upon the default of my immediate superior it devolved upon me to assume command of the angelic hosts of Jerusem as the titular director of the confused seraphic affairs of the system. I was morally upheld by the Melchizedeks, ably assisted by a majority of the Material Sons, deserted by a tremendous group of my own order, but magnificently supported by the ascendant mortals on Jerusem.
    53:6.5 " Having been automatically thrown out of the constellation circuits by the secession of Lucifer, we were dependent on the loyalty of our intelligence corps, who forwarded calls for help to Edentia from the near-by system of Rantulia; and we found that the kingdom of order, the intellect of loyalty, and the spirit of truth were inherently triumphant over rebellion, self-assertion, and so-called personal liberty; we were able to carry on until the arrival of the new System Sovereign, the worthy successor of Lucifer. And immediately thereafter I was assigned to the corps of the Melchizedek receivership of Urantia, assuming jurisdiction over the loyal seraphic orders on the world of the traitorous Caligastia, who had proclaimed his sphere a member of the newly projected system of `liberated worlds and emancipated personalities' proposed in the infamous Declaration of Liberty issued by Lucifer in his call to the `liberty-loving, free-thinking, and forward-looking intelligences of the misruled and maladministered worlds of Satania.' "
    53:6.6 This angel is still in service on Urantia, functioning as associate chief of seraphim.

    53:7 HISTORY OF THE REBELLION
    53:7.1 The Lucifer rebellion was system wide. Thirty-seven seceding Planetary Princes swung their world administrations largely to the side of the archrebel. Only on Panoptia did the Planetary Prince fail to carry his people with him. On this world, under the guidance of the Melchizedeks, the people rallied to the support of Michael. Ellanora, a young woman of that mortal realm, grasped the leadership of the human races, and not a single soul on that strife-torn world enlisted under the Lucifer banner. And ever since have these loyal Panoptians served on the seventh Jerusem transition world as the caretakers and builders on the Father's sphere and its surrounding seven detention worlds. The Panoptians not only act as the literal custodians of these worlds, but they also execute the personal orders of Michael for the embellishment of these spheres for some future and unknown use. They do this work as they tarry en route to Edentia.
    53:7.2 Throughout this period Caligastia was advocating the cause of Lucifer on Urantia. The Melchizedeks ably opposed the apostate Planetary Prince, but the sophistries of unbridled liberty and the delusions of self-assertion had every opportunity for deceiving the primitive peoples of a young and undeveloped world.
    53:7.3 All secession propaganda had to be carried on by personal effort because the broadcast service and all other avenues of interplanetary communication were suspended by the action of the system circuit supervisors. Upon the actual outbreak of the insurrection the entire system of Satania was isolated in both the constellation and the universe circuits. During this time all incoming and outgoing messages were dispatched by seraphic agents and Solitary Messengers. The circuits to the fallen worlds were also cut off, so that Lucifer could not utilize this avenue for the furtherance of his nefarious scheme. And these circuits will not be restored so long as the archrebel lives within the confines of Satania.
    53:7.4 This was a Lanonandek rebellion. The higher orders of local universe sonship did not join the Lucifer secession, although a few of the Life Carriers stationed on the rebel planets were somewhat influenced by the rebellion of the disloyal princes. None of the Trinitized Sons went astray. The Melchizedeks, archangels, and the Brilliant Evening Stars were all loyal to Michael and, with Gabriel, valiantly contended for the Father's will and the Son's rule.
    53:7.5 No beings of Paradise origin were involved in disloyalty. Together with the Solitary Messengers they took up headquarters on the world of the Spirit and remained under the leadership of the Faithful of Days of Edentia. None of the conciliators apostatized, nor did a single one of the Celestial Recorders go astray. But a heavy toll was taken of the Morontia Companions and the Mansion World Teachers.
    53:7.6 Of the supreme order of seraphim, not an angel was lost, but a considerable group of the next order, the superior, were deceived and ensnared. Likewise a few of the third or supervisor order of angels were misled. But the terrible breakdown came in the fourth group, the administrator angels, those seraphim who are normally assigned to the duties of the system capitals. Manotia saved almost two thirds of them, but slightly over one third followed their chief into the rebel ranks. One third of all the Jerusem cherubim attached to the administrator angels were lost with their disloyal seraphim.
    53:7.7 Of the planetary angelic helpers, those assigned to the Material Sons, about one third were deceived, and almost ten per cent of the transition ministers were ensnared. In symbol John saw this when he wrote of the great red dragon, saying: " And his tail drew a third part of the stars of heaven and cast them down in darkness. "
    53:7.8 The greatest loss occurred in the angelic ranks, but most of the lower orders of intelligence were involved in disloyalty. Of the 681,227 Material Sons lost in Satania, ninety-five per cent were casualties of the Lucifer rebellion. Large numbers of midway creatures were lost on those individual planets whose Planetary Princes joined the Lucifer cause.
    53:7.9 In many respects this rebellion was the most widespread and disastrous of all such occurrences in Nebadon. More personalities were involved in this insurrection than in both of the others. And it is to their everlasting dishonor that the emissaries of Lucifer and Satan spared not the infant-training schools on the finaliter cultural planet but rather sought to corrupt these developing minds in mercy salvaged from the evolutionary worlds.
    53:7.10 The ascending mortals were vulnerable, but they withstood the sophistries of rebellion better than the lower spirits. While many on the lower mansion worlds, those who had not attained final fusion with their Adjusters, fell, it is recorded to the glory of the wisdom of the ascension scheme that not a single member of the Satania ascendant citizenship resident on Jerusem participated in the Lucifer rebellion.
    53:7.11 Hour by hour and day by day the broadcast stations of all Nebadon were thronged by the anxious watchers of every imaginable class of celestial intelligence, who intently perused the bulletins of the Satania rebellion and rejoiced as the reports continuously narrated the unswerving loyalty of the ascending mortals who, under their Melchizedek leadership, successfully withstood the combined and protracted efforts of all the subtle evil forces which so swiftly gathered around the banners of secession and sin.
    53:7.12 It was over two years of system time from the beginning of the " war in heaven " until the installation of Lucifer's successor. But at last the new Sovereign came, landing on the sea of glass with his staff. I was among the reserves mobilized on Edentia by Gabriel, and I well remember the first message of Lanaforge to the Constellation Father of Norlatiadek. It read: " Not a single Jerusem citizen was lost. Every ascendant mortal survived the fiery trial and emerged from the crucial test triumphant and altogether victorious. " And on to Salvington, Uversa, and Paradise went this message of assurance that the survival experience of mortal ascension is the greatest security against rebellion and the surest safeguard against sin. This noble Jerusem band of faithful mortals numbered just 187,432,811.
    53:7.13 With the arrival of Lanaforge the archrebels were dethroned and shorn of all governing powers, though they were permitted freely to go about Jerusem, the morontia spheres, and even to the individual inhabited worlds. They continued their deceptive and seductive efforts to confuse and mislead the minds of men and angels. But as concerned their work on the administrative mount of Jerusem, " their place was found no more. "
    53:7.14 While Lucifer was deprived of all administrative authority in Satania, there then existed no local universe power nor tribunal which could detain or destroy this wicked rebel; at that time Michael was not a sovereign ruler. The Ancients of Days sustained the Constellation Fathers in their seizure of the system government, but they have never handed down any subsequent decisions in the many appeals still pending with regard to the present status and future disposition of Lucifer, Satan, and their associates.
    53:7.15 Thus were these archrebels allowed to roam the entire system to seek further penetration for their doctrines of discontent and self-assertion. But in almost two hundred thousand Urantia years they have been unable to deceive another world. No Satania worlds have been lost since the fall of the thirty-seven, not even those younger worlds peopled since that day of rebellion.

    53:8 THE SON OF MAN ON URANTIA
    53:8.1 Lucifer and Satan freely roamed the Satania system until the completion of the bestowal mission of Michael on Urantia. They were last on your world together during the time of their combined assault upon the Son of Man.
    53:8.2 Formerly, when the Planetary Princes, the " Sons of God, " were periodically assembled, " Satan came also, " claiming that he represented all of the isolated worlds of the fallen Planetary Princes. But he has not been accorded such liberty on Jerusem since Michael's terminal bestowal. Subsequent to their effort to corrupt Michael when in the bestowal flesh, all sympathy for Lucifer and Satan has perished throughout all Satania, that is, outside the isolated worlds of sin.
    53:8.3 The bestowal of Michael terminated the Lucifer rebellion in all Satania aside from the planets of the apostate Planetary Princes. And this was the significance of Jesus' personal experience, just before his death in the flesh, when he one day exclaimed to his disciples, " And I beheld Satan fall as lightning from heaven. " He had come with Lucifer to Urantia for the last crucial struggle.
    53:8.4 The Son of Man was confident of success, and he knew that his triumph on your world would forever settle the status of his agelong enemies, not only in Satania but also in the other two systems where sin had entered. There was survival for mortals and security for angels when your Master, in reply to the Lucifer proposals, calmly and with divine assurance replied, " Get you behind me, Satan. " That was, in principle, the real end of the Lucifer rebellion. True, the Uversa tribunals have not yet rendered the executive decision regarding the appeal of Gabriel praying for the destruction of the rebels, but such a decree will, no doubt, be forthcoming in the fullness of time since the first step in the hearing of this case has already been taken.
    53:8.5 Caligastia was recognized by the Son of Man as the technical Prince of Urantia up to near the time of his death. Said Jesus: " Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast down. " And then still nearer the completion of his lifework he announced, " The prince of this world is judged. " And it is this same dethroned and discredited Prince who was once termed " God of Urantia. "
    53:8.6 The last act of Michael before leaving Urantia was to offer mercy to Caligastia and Daligastia, but they spurned his tender proffer. Caligastia, your apostate Planetary Prince, is still free on Urantia to prosecute his nefarious designs, but he has absolutely no power to enter the minds of men, neither can he draw near to their souls to tempt or corrupt them unless they really desire to be cursed with his wicked presence.
    53:8.7 Before the bestowal of Michael these rulers of darkness sought to maintain their authority on Urantia, and they persistently withstood the minor and subordinate celestial personalities. But since the day of Pentecost this traitorous Caligastia and his equally contemptible associate, Daligastia, are servile before the divine majesty of the Paradise Thought Adjusters and the protective Spirit of Truth, the spirit of Michael, which has been poured out upon all flesh.
    53:8.8 But even so, no fallen spirit ever did have the power to invade the minds or to harass the souls of the children of God. Neither Satan nor Caligastia could ever touch or approach the faith sons of God; faith is an effective armor against sin and iniquity. It is true: " He who is born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one touches him not. "
    53:8.9 In general, when weak and dissolute mortals are supposed to be under the influence of devils and demons, they are merely being dominated by their own inherent and debased tendencies, being led away by their own natural propensities. The devil has been given a great deal of credit for evil which does not belong to him. Caligastia has been comparatively impotent since the cross of Christ.

    53:9 PRESENT STATUS OF THE REBELLION
    53:9.1 Early in the days of the Lucifer rebellion, salvation was offered all rebels by Michael. To all who would show proof of sincere repentance, he offered, upon his attainment of complete universe sovereignty, forgiveness and reinstatement in some form of universe service. None of the leaders accepted this merciful proffer. But thousands of the angels and the lower orders of celestial beings, including hundreds of the Material Sons and Daughters, accepted the mercy proclaimed by the Panoptians and were given rehabilitation at the time of Jesus' resurrection nineteen hundred years ago. These beings have since been transferred to the Father's world of Jerusem, where they must be held, technically, until the Uversa courts hand down a decision in the matter of Gabriel vs. Lucifer. But no one doubts that, when the annihilation verdict is issued, these repentant and salvaged personalities will be exempted from the decree of extinction. These probationary souls now labor with the Panoptians in the work of caring for the Father's world.
    53:9.2 The archdeceiver has never been on Urantia since the days when he sought to turn back Michael from the purpose to complete the bestowal and to establish himself finally and securely as the unqualified ruler of Nebadon. Upon Michael's becoming the settled head of the universe of Nebadon, Lucifer was taken into custody by the agents of the Uversa Ancients of Days and has since been a prisoner on satellite number one of the Father's group of the transition spheres of Jerusem. And here the rulers of other worlds and systems behold the end of the unfaithful Sovereign of Satania. Paul knew of the status of these rebellious leaders following Michael's bestowal, for he wrote of Caligastia' s chiefs as " spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. "
    53:9.3 Michael, upon assuming the supreme sovereignty of Nebadon, petitioned the Ancients of Days for authority to intern all personalities concerned in the Lucifer rebellion pending the rulings of the superuniverse tribunals in the case of Gabriel vs. Lucifer, placed on the records of the Uversa supreme court almost two hundred thousand years ago, as you reckon time. Concerning the system capital group, the Ancients of Days granted the Michael petition with but a single exception: Satan was allowed to make periodic visits to the apostate princes on the fallen worlds until another Son of God should be accepted by such apostate worlds, or until such time as the courts of Uversa should begin the adjudication of the case of Gabriel vs. Lucifer.
    53:9.4 Satan could come to Urantia because you had no Son of standing in residence—neither Planetary Prince nor Material Son. Machiventa Melchizedek has since been proclaimed vicegerent Planetary Prince of Urantia, and the opening of the case of Gabriel vs. Lucifer has signalized the inauguration of temporary planetary regimes on all the isolated worlds. It is true that Satan did periodically visit Caligastia and others of the fallen princes right up to the time of the presentation of these revelations, when there occurred the first hearing of Gabriel's plea for the annihilation of the archrebels. Satan is now unqualifiedly detained on the Jerusem prison worlds.
    53:9.5 Since Michael's final bestowal no one in all Satania has desired to go to the prison worlds to minister to the interned rebels. And no more beings have been won to the deceiver's cause. For nineteen hundred years the status has been unchanged.
    53:9.6 We do not look for a removal of the present Satania restrictions until the Ancients of Days make final disposition of the archrebels. The system circuits will not be reinstated so long as Lucifer lives. Meantime, he is wholly inactive.
    53:9.7 The rebellion has ended on Jerusem. It ends on the fallen worlds as fast as divine Sons arrive. We believe that all rebels who will ever accept mercy have done so. We await the flashing broadcast that will deprive these traitors of personality existence. We anticipate the verdict of Uversa will be announced by the executionary broadcast which will effect the annihilation of these interned rebels. Then will you look for their places, but they shall not be found. " And they who know you among the worlds will be astonished at you; you have been a terror, but never shall you be any more. " And thus shall all of these unworthy traitors " become as though they had not been. " All await the Uversa decree.
    53:9.8 But for ages the seven prison worlds of spiritual darkness in Satania have constituted a solemn warning to all Nebadon, eloquently and effectively proclaiming the great truth " that the way of the transgressor is hard "; " that within every sin is concealed the seed of its own destruction "; that " the wages of sin is death."


    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9574
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: Meticulous Analysis of the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Thu Oct 04, 2018 12:51 am

    Here's a post from Page 4 of USSS Book Seven (to correspond with October 4). http://mistsofavalon.catsboard.com/t9723p75-the-united-states-of-the-solar-system-a-d-2133-book-seven-and-the-seven-seals As usual, I'm on everyone's side and no-one's side (which makes everyone hate me). I think I'm dangerous (conceptually), but does that make me evil (in actuality)?? Is lying 'righteous', and honesty 'blasphemous'?? Think long and hard about what I just said. So far there's been no response to This Present Thread, which doesn't surprise me. I suspect that the Deep-State aka Secret Solar-System Government goes back to Ancient Babylon, Egypt, Garden of Eden, and War in Heaven, and is presently coming out of the closet to openly rule We the Peons. The New World Order isn't new IMHO. What if I'm a fly in the ointment?? What if I'm not supposed to be here?? Can you feel the love tonight?? I can't. I've tried to be open and honest, rather than taking a hardline-lawyerlike stance to win one for the home-team. Was that a mistake?? I'm beginning to think so. Perhaps I should continue this thread ONLY If there are responses or questions. Perhaps it's time to move-on and watch the drama unfold in my rearview-mirror. Has probation closed?? Do you feel lucky??





    I just re-watched the movie Spotlight regarding the church and pedophilia, and what troubled me the most was how many seemingly 'good' people looked the other way and/or deliberately covered-up the whole-mess!! This reminded me of the medical-fraud book Coronary regarding the systematic and deliberate performing of open-heart surgeries on perfectly normal hearts, in hundreds of patients, over several years, with seemingly 'good' people looking the other way and/or deliberately covering-up the whole-mess!! Is this sort of thing the Fatal-Flaw in Human-Nature OR Are the Souls Which Incarnate Humanity Fatally-Flawed?? I sense that seemingly 'good' people have looked the other way and/or deliberately covered-up the glaring-problems in the Bible, Theology, and Church-History for thousands of years!! If the Church of God can't be Honest to God, how can it expect to Reform the World?? The Blind Leading the Blind and/or the Bland leading the Bland?? Does Satan Use 'Faith and Loyalty' Against Us?? It's been my sad-realization that Believers do NOT wish to be honest and thorough about the Bible and Religion. It's also been my sad-realization that Unbelievers do NOT wish to be honest and thorough about the Bible and Religion.

    Are there ANY truly-objective Bible-Commentaries?? I lean-toward the SDA Bible Commentary mostly because of my background, but also because of my perception that it is scholarly and ecumenical, and NOT in slavery to Ellen White and the SDA Church. Much religious-literature seems to be written by Hermeneutic-Whores!! I've gone round and round with 'Good Lifelong Religious-People' about the most simple Ethical and Theological matters imaginable, with VERY disturbing outcomes. Take a long and hard look at the reality of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' throughout the Bible and History. We seem to wish to have it both ways. Has Satan really deceived the whole-world?? 'RA' said "I've Always Remained One Step Ahead of Humanity!!" When I Suggested That Humanity Has Been Easy to Deceive, 'RA' replied "Very Easy!!" Honest. Has the 'God of This World' Been the 'Regent of This World' for at least 6,000 years?? What Would the Changeling Say?? What Would Dr. Who Do?? Do You Even Know What I'm Talking About?? Do I Even Know What I'm Talking About?? You Don't Need to Answer That Last Question. One More Thing. Once Upon a Time, a Stranger with Insider-Connections introduced himself to me as 'Adolph', and that's all I'm going to say about that. You don't suppose?? Nah!!

    RedEzra wrote:An article for what it's worth coming from a dying CIA agent confessing that CIA blew up WTC7 on 9/11. An aphorism as there are no atheists in foxholes may apply to deathbeds as well... or perhaps it's just the Company man*s last convenient assignment true or not.

    CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’

    "79-year-old retired CIA agent, Malcom Howard, has made a series of astonishing claims since being released from hospital in New Jersey on Friday and told he has weeks to live. Mr. Howard claims he was involved in the “controlled demolition” of World Trade Center 7, the third building that was destroyed on 9/11."

    http://yournewswire.com/cia-911-wtc7/
    RedEzra wrote:What is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth ?

    I ask because in the Book of Revelation Ch 17 that great city is about to be abruptly destroyed... which is weird considering it reigns over the kings of the earth. It is said to sit on seven mountains which probably points out Rome...?

    Furthermore in Revelation there are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast whose deadly wound was healed. So there is a not so new world power rising which will destroy the old world order.

    With all the nazis are alive and well rumors i suspect the beast is the Third Reich bandaged up and ready to go again after the deadly wound in WWII. And working with the nazis are ten kings who lost their respective kingdom after an abolition of monarchy... perhaps these kings are the real power behind some of the democracies and are working or waiting to regain their lost kingdoms.

    Anyway these ten kings without kingdoms who work with the emerging beast/nazi system will destroy that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.... and so ends the old world order and begins the not so new one... which will just last 3.5 years before God destroy it.
    I continue to wonder about Pre Council of Nicea Old-Testament Commentaries. Why is the New-Testament NOT essentially an Old-Testament Commentary (with minimal completely-new material)?? Theology is often Deceptive, Mealy-Mouthed, and Lawyer-Like!! What if there is a very-real theological-reality underlying the predominant-bullshit??!! I've been playing softball in SO many ways!! Should I start playing hardball?? What Would Richard Nixon Say?? Does 1 Chronicles to Malachi contain the essential Old-Testament Story of God's Love, Will, and Ways?? Please take a close-look at 1 Chronicles -- Job -- Ecclesiastes -- Isaiah -- Daniel -- Jonah -- Zechariah -- and Malachi. Who really wrote these books?? Why were they written?? When were they written?? Consider the following study-list:

    1. The SDA Bible Commentary -- Volumes 3 and 4 (1 Chronicles to Malachi).

    2. Prophets and Kings (Ellen White) -- Covering the Second-Half of the Old-Testament.

    Kicking Against the Religious-Pricks is SO Overrated!! Sorry if you don't like the SDA stuff -- but that's my background and starting-point. The SDA's don't like me either -- and I don't go to church -- so there!! I receive ZERO support and encouragement relative to this sort of thing. Just the Opposite. Here is a rather scholarly article on Moral Responsibility, taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This is the sort of thing which might be studied in a university program devoted to Solar System Studies and Governance, as a prerequisite to being a Representative of the United States of the Solar System. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/ I'm reading a book titled 'Free to be Responsible' by Ben Thomson Cowles, Ph.D. I'm trying to transition from being a whining speculator to being a erudite scholar. I hope some of you are joining me in this pursuit. The tempest in a teapot, which I have been in the middle of, is just scratching the surface. I tend to think that an Ancient-Verdict is playing-out, and cannot be nullified or overridden by anyone or anything, but what do I know?? Not much (in this stupid incarnation). What if the Creator of the Matrix is a Prisoner of the Matrix (just like everyone else)?? What if Resistance is Futile?? What if This Present Quest is an Exercise in Futility??

    Moral Responsibility

    First published Sat Jan 6, 2001; substantive revision Wed Nov 18, 2009

    When a person performs or fails to perform a morally significant action, we sometimes think that a particular kind of response is warranted. Praise and blame are perhaps the most obvious forms this reaction might take. For example, one who encounters a car accident may be regarded as worthy of praise for having saved a child from inside the burning car, or alternatively, one may be regarded as worthy of blame for not having used one's mobile phone to call for help. To regard such agents as worthy of one of these reactions is to ascribe moral responsibility to them on the basis of what they have done or left undone. (These are examples of other-directed ascriptions of responsibility. The reaction might also be self-directed, e.g., one can recognize oneself to be blameworthy). Thus, to be morally responsible for something, say an action, is to be worthy of a particular kind of reaction—praise, blame, or something akin to these—for having performed it.[1]

    Though further elaboration and qualification of the above characterization of moral responsibility is called for and will be provided below, this is enough to distinguish concern about this form of responsibility from some others commonly referred to through use of the terms ‘responsibility’ or ‘responsible.’ To illustrate, we might say that higher than normal rainfall in the spring is responsible for an increase in the amount of vegetation or that it is the judge's responsibility to give instructions to the jury before they begin deliberating. In the first case, we mean to identify a causal connection between the earlier amount of rain and the later increased vegetation. In the second, we mean to say that when one assumes the role of judge, certain duties, or obligations, follow. Although these concepts are connected with the concept of moral responsibility discussed here, they are not the same, for in neither case are we directly concerned about whether it would be appropriate to react to some candidate (here, the rainfall or a particular judge) with something like praise or blame.[2]

    Philosophical reflection on moral responsibility has a long history. One reason for this persistent interest is the way the topic seems connected with a widely shared conception of ourselves as members of an importantly distinct class of individuals—call them ‘persons.’[3] Persons are thought to be qualitatively different from other known living individuals, despite their numerous similarities. Many have held that one distinct feature of persons is their status as morally responsible agents, a status resting—some have proposed—on a special kind of control that only they can exercise. Many who view persons in this way have wondered whether their special status is threatened if certain other claims about our universe are true. For example, can a person be morally responsible for her behavior if that behavior can be explained solely by reference to physical states of the universe and the laws governing changes in those physical states, or solely by reference to the existence of a sovereign God who guides the world along a divinely ordained path? It is concerns like these that have often motivated individuals to theorize about moral responsibility.

    A comprehensive theory of moral responsibility would elucidate the following: (1) the concept, or idea, of moral responsibility itself; (2) the criteria for being a moral agent, i.e., one who qualifies generally as an agent open to responsibility ascriptions (e.g., only beings possessing the general capacity to evaluate reasons for acting can be moral agents); (3) the conditions under which the concept of moral responsibility is properly applied, i.e., those conditions under which a moral agent is responsible for a particular something (e.g., a moral agent can be responsible for an action she has performed only if she performed it freely, where acting freely entails the ability to have done otherwise at the time of action); and finally 4) possible objects of responsibility ascriptions (e.g., actions, omissions, consequences, character traits, etc.). Although each of these will be touched upon in the discussion below (see, e.g., the brief sketch of Aristotle's account in the next section), the primary focus of this entry is on the first component—i.e., the concept of moral responsibility. The section immediately following this introduction is a discussion of the origin and history of Western reflection on moral responsibility. This is followed by an overview of recent work on the concept of moral responsibility. For further discussion of issues associated with moral responsibility, see the related entries below.

    1. Some Historical Background
    2. Recent Work on the Concept of Responsibility
    2.1 Strawson and the Reactive Attitudes
    2.2 Developments After Strawson
    Bibliography
    Other Internet Resources
    Related Entries

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Some Historical Background

    What follows in this section is a brief outline of the origins and trajectory of reflection on moral responsibility in the Western philosophical tradition. Against this background, a distinction will be drawn between two conceptions of moral responsibility that have exerted considerable influence on subsequent thinkers.

    An understanding of the concept of moral responsibility and its application is present implicitly in some of the earliest surviving Greek texts, i.e., the Homeric epics (circa 8th century BCE but no doubt informed by a much earlier oral tradition).[4] In these texts, both human and superhuman agents are often regarded as fair targets of praise and blame on the basis of how they have behaved, and at other times, an agent's behavior is excused because of the presence of some factor that has undermined his/her control (Irwin 1999: 225). Reflection on these factors gave rise to fatalism—the view that one's future or some aspect of it is predetermined, e.g., by the gods, or the stars, or simply some facts about truth and time—in such a way as to make one's particular deliberations, choices and actions irrelevant to whether that particular future is realized (recall, e.g., the plight of Oedipus). If some particular outcome is fated, then it seems that the agent concerned could not be morally responsible for that outcome. Likewise, if fatalism were true with respect to all human futures, then it would seem that no human agent could be morally responsible for anything. Though this brand of fatalism has sometimes exerted significant historical influence, most philosophers have rejected it on the grounds that there is no good reason to think that our futures are fated in the sense that they will unfold no matter what particular deliberations we engage in, choices we make, or actions we perform.

    Aristotle (384–323 BCE) seems to have been the first to construct explicitly a theory of moral responsibility.[5] In the course of discussing human virtues and their corresponding vices, Aristotle pauses in Nicomachean Ethics III.1–5 to explore their underpinnings. He begins with a brief statement of the concept of moral responsibility—that it is sometimes appropriate to respond to an agent with praise or blame on the basis of her actions and/or dispositional traits of character (1109b30–35). A bit later, he clarifies that only a certain kind of agent qualifies as a moral agent and is thus properly subject to ascriptions of responsibility, namely, one who possess a capacity for decision. For Aristotle, a decision is a particular kind of desire resulting from deliberation, one that expresses the agent's conception of what is good (1111b5-1113b3). The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for some particular action or trait. His general proposal  is that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary. According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition: the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action or possess the trait—it cannot be compelled externally. Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about (1110a-1111b4).[6]

    There is an instructive ambiguity in Aristotle's account of responsibility, an ambiguity that has led to competing interpretations of his view. Aristotle aims to identify the conditions under which it is appropriate to praise or blame an agent, but it is not entirely clear how to understand the pivotal notion of appropriateness in his conception of responsibility. There are at least two possibilities: a) praise or blame is appropriate in the sense that the agent deserves such a response, given his behavior and/or traits of character; or b) praise or blame is appropriate in the sense that such a reaction is likely to bring about a desired consequence, namely an improvement in the agent's behavior and/or character. These two possibilities may be characterized in terms of two competing interpretations of the concept of moral responsibility: 1) the merit-based view, according to which praise or blame would be an appropriate reaction toward the candidate if and only if she merits—in the sense of ‘deserves’—such a reaction; vs. 2) the consequentialist view, according to which praise or blame would be appropriate if and only if a reaction of this sort would likely lead to a desired change in the agent and/or her behavior.[7]

    Scholars disagree about which of the above views Aristotle endorsed, but the importance of distinguishing between them grew as philosophers began to focus on a newly conceived threat to moral responsibility. While Aristotle argued against a version of fatalism (On Interpretation, ch. 9), he may not have recognized the difference between it and the related possible threat of causal determinism (contra Sorabji). Causal determinism is the view that everything that happens or exists is caused by sufficient antecedent conditions, making it impossible for anything to happen or be other than it does or is. One variety of causal determinism, scientific determinism, identifies the relevant antecedent conditions as a combination of prior states of the universe and the laws of nature. Another, theological determinism, identifies those conditions as being the nature and will of God. It seems likely that theological determinism evolved out of the shift, both in Greek religion and in Ancient Mesopotamian religions, from polytheism to belief in one sovereign God, or at least one god who reigned over all others. The doctrine of scientific determinism can be traced back as far as the Presocratic Atomists (5th cent. BCE), but the difference between it and the earlier fatalistic view seems not to be clearly recognized until the development of Stoic philosophy (3rd. cent. BCE). Though fatalism, like causal determinism, might seem to threaten moral responsibility by threatening an agent's control, the two differ on the significance of human deliberation, choice, and action. If fatalism is true, then human deliberation, choice, and action are completely otiose, for what is fated will transpire no matter what one chooses to do. According to causal determinism, however, one's deliberations, choices, and actions will often be necessary links in the causal chain that brings something about. In other words, even though our deliberations, choices, and actions are themselves determined like everything else, it is still the case, according to causal determinism, that the occurrence or existence of yet other things depends upon our deliberating, choosing and acting in a certain way (Irwin 1999: 243–249; Meyer 1998: 225-227; and Pereboom 1997: ch. 2).

    Since the Stoics, the thesis of causal determinism and its ramifications, if true, have taken center stage in theorizing about moral responsibility. During the Medieval period, especially in the work of Augustine (354–430) and Aquinas (1225-1274), reflection on freedom and responsibility was often generated by questions concerning versions of theological determinism, including most prominently: a) Does God's sovereignty entail that God is responsible for evil?; and b) Does God's foreknowledge entail that we are not free and morally responsible since it would seem that we cannot do anything other than what God foreknows we will do? During the Modern period, there was renewed interest in scientific determinism—a change attributable to the development of increasingly sophisticated mechanistic models of the universe culminating in the success of Newtonian physics. The possibility of giving a comprehensive explanation of every aspect of the universe—including human action—in terms of physical causes now seemed much more plausible. Many thought that persons could not be free and morally responsible if such an explanation of human action were possible. Others argued that freedom and responsibility would not be threatened should scientific determinism be true. In keeping with this focus on the ramifications of causal determinism for moral responsibility, thinkers may be classified as being one of two types: 1) an incompatibilist about causal determinism and moral responsibility—one who maintains that if causal determinism is true, then there is nothing for which one can be morally responsible; or 2) a compatibilist—one who holds that a person can be morally responsible for some things, even if both who she is and what she does is causally determined.[8] In Ancient Greece, these positions were exemplified in the thought of Epicurus (341–270 BCE) and the Stoics, respectively.

    Above, an ambiguity in Aristotle's conception of moral responsibility was highlighted—that it was not clear whether he endorsed a merit-based vs. a consequentialist conception of moral responsibility. The history of reflection on moral responsibility demonstrates that how one interprets the concept of moral responsibility strongly influences one's overall account of moral responsibility. For example, those who accept the merit-based conception of moral responsibility have tended to be incompatibilists. That is, most have thought that if an agent were to genuinely merit praise or blame for something, then he would need to exercise a special form of control over that thing (e.g., the ability at the time of action to both perform or not perform the action) that is incompatible with one's being causally determined. In addition to Epicurus, we can cite early Augustine, Thomas Reid (1710–1796), and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) as historical examples here. Those accepting the consequentialist conception of moral responsibility, on the other hand, have traditionally contended that determinism poses no threat to moral responsibility since praising and blaming could still be an effective means of influencing another's behavior, even in a deterministic world. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), David Hume (1711–1776), and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) are, along with the Stoics, representatives of this view. This general trend of linking the consequentialist conception of moral responsibility with compatibilism about causal determinism and moral responsibility and the merit-based conception with incompatibilism continued to persist through the first half of the twentieth century.

    2. Recent Work on the Concept of Responsibility

    The issue of how best to understand the concept of moral responsibility is important, for it can strongly influence one's view of what, if any, philosophical problems might be associated with the notion, and further, if there are problems, what might count as a solution. As discussed above, philosophical reflection on moral responsibility has historically relied upon one of two broad interpretations of the concept: 1) the merit-based view, according to which praise or blame would be an appropriate reaction toward the candidate if and only if she merits—in the sense of ‘deserves’—such a reaction; or 2) the consequentialist view, according to which praise or blame would be appropriate if and only if a reaction of this sort would likely lead to a desired change in the agent and/or her behavior. Though versions of the consequentialist view have continued to garner support (Smart; Frankena 1963: ch. 4; Schlick 1966; Brandt 1992; Dennett 1984: ch. 7; and Kupperman 1991: ch. 3), work in the last 50 years on the concept of moral responsibility has increasingly focused on: a) offering alternative versions of the merit-based view; and b) questioning the assumption that there is a single unified concept of moral responsibility.

    Increased attention focusing on the stance of regarding and holding persons morally responsible has generated much of the recent work on the concept of moral responsibility. All theorists have recognized features of this practice—inner attitudes and emotions, their outward expression in censure or praise, and the imposition of corresponding sanctions or rewards. However, most understood the inner attitudes and emotions involved to rest on a more fundamental theoretical judgment about the agent's being responsible. In other words, it was typically assumed that blame and praise depended upon a judgment, or belief (pre-reflective in most cases), that the agent in question had satisfied the objective conditions on being responsible. These judgments were presumed to be independent of the inner attitudinal/emotive states involved in holding responsible in the sense that reaching such judgments and evaluating them required no essential reference to the attitudes and emotions of the one making the judgment. For the holder of the consequentialist view, this is a judgment that the agent exercised a form of control that could be influenced through outward expressions of praise and blame in order to curb or promote certain behaviors. For those holding the merit view, it is a judgment that the agent has exercised the requisite form of metaphysical control, e.g., that she could have done otherwise at the time of action (Watson 1987: 258).

    If holding responsible is best understood as resting on an independent judgment about being responsible, then it is legitimate to inquire whether such underlying judgments and their associated outward expressions can be justified, as a whole, in the face of our best current understanding of the world, e.g., in the face of evidence that our world is possibly deterministic. According to incompatibilists, a judgment that someone is morally responsible could never be true if the world were deterministic; thus praising and blaming in the merit-based sense would be beside the point. Compatibilists, on the other hand, contend that the truth of determinism would not undermine the relevant underlying judgments concerning the efficacy of praising and blaming practices, thereby leaving the rationale of such practices intact.

    2.1 Strawson and the Reactive Attitudes

    In his landmark essay, ‘Freedom and Resentment,’ P. F. Strawson (1962) sets out to adjudicate the dispute between those compatibilists who hold a consequentialist view of responsibility and those incompatibilists who hold the merit-based view.[9] Both are wrong, Strawson believes, because they distort the concept of moral responsibility by sharing the prevailing assumption sketched above — the assumption that holding persons responsible rests upon a theoretical judgment of their being responsible. According to Strawson, the attitudes expressed in holding persons morally responsible are varieties of a wide range of attitudes deriving from our participation in personal relationships, e.g., resentment, indignation, hurt feelings, anger, gratitude, reciprocal love, and forgiveness. The function of these attitudes is to express “…how much we actually mind, how much it matters to us, whether the actions of other people—and particularly some other people—reflect attitudes towards us of good will, affection, or esteem on the one hand or contempt, indifference, or malevolence on the other.” (p. 5, author's emphasis) These attitudes are thus participant reactive attitudes, because they are: a) natural attitudinal reactions to the perception of another's good will, ill will, or indifference (pp. 4–6), and b) expressed from the stance of one who is immersed in interpersonal relationships and who regards the candidate held responsible as a participant in such relationships as well (p. 10).[10]

    The reactive attitudes can be suspended or modified in at least two kinds of circumstances, corresponding to the two features just mentioned. In the first, one might conclude that, contrary to first appearances, the candidate did not violate the demand for a reasonable degree of good will. For example, a person's behavior may be excused when one determines that it was an accident, or one may determine that the behavior was justified, say, in the case of an emergency when some greater good is being pursued. In the second kind of circumstance, one may abandon the participant perspective in relation to the candidate. In these cases, one adopts the objective standpoint, one from which one ceases to regard the individual as capable of participating in genuine personal relations (either for some limited time or permanently). Instead, one regards the individual as psychologically/morally abnormal or undeveloped and thereby a candidate, not for the full range of reactive attitudes, but primarily for those objective attitudes associated with treatment or simply instrumental control. Such individuals lie, in some sense or to some varying extent, outside the boundaries of the moral community. For example, we may regard a very young child as initially exempt from the reactive attitudes (but increasingly less so in cases of normal development) or adopt the objective standpoint in relation to an individual we determine to be suffering from severe mental illness (P. F. Strawson 1962: 6–10; Bennett: 40; Watson 1987: 259–260; R. Jay Wallace: chs. 5-6).

    The central criticism Strawson directs at both consequentialist and traditional merit views is that both have over-intellectualized the issue of moral responsibility—a criticism with which many subsequent thinkers have wrestled.[11] The charge of over intellectualization stems from the traditional tendency to presume that the rationality of holding a person responsible depends upon a judgment that the person in question has satisfied some set of objective requirements on being responsible (conditions on efficacy or metaphysical freedom) and that these requirements themselves are justifiable. Strawson, by contrast, maintains that the reactive attitudes are a natural expression of an essential feature of our form of life, in particular, the interpersonal nature of our way of life. The practice, then, of holding responsible—embedded as it is in our way of life—“neither calls for nor permits, an external ‘rational’ justification” (p. 23). Though judgments about the appropriateness of particular responses may arise (i.e., answers to questions like: Was the candidate's behavior really an expression of ill will?; or Is the candidate involved a genuine participant in the moral sphere of human relations?), these judgments are based on principles internal to the practice. That is, their justification refers back to an account of the reactive attitudes and their role in personal relationships, not to some independent theoretical account of the conditions on being responsible.

    Given the above, Strawson contends that it is pointless to ask whether the practice of holding responsible can be rationally justified if determinism is true. This is either because it is not psychologically possible to divest ourselves of these reactions and so continually inhabit the objective standpoint, or even if that were possible, because it is not clear that rationality could ever demand that we give up the reactive attitudes, given the loss in quality of life should we do so. In sum, Strawson attempts to turn the traditional debate on its head, for now judgments about being responsible are understood in relation to the role reactive attitudes play in the practice of holding responsible, rather than the other way around. Whereas judgments are true or false and thereby can generate the need for justification, the desire for good will and those attitudes generated by it possess no truth value themselves, thereby eliminating any need for an external justification (Magill 1887: 21; Double 1996b: 848).

    Strawson's concept of moral responsibility yields a compatibilist account of being responsible but one that departs significantly from earlier such accounts in two respects. First, Strawson's is a compatibilist view by default only. That is, on Strawson's view, the problem of determinism and freedom/responsibility is not so much resolved by showing that the objective conditions on being responsible are consistent with one's being determined but rather dissolved by showing that the practice of holding people responsible relies on no such conditions and therefore needs no external justification in the face of determinism. Second, Strawson's is a merit-based form of compatibilism. That is, unlike most former consequentialist forms of compatibilism, it helps to explain why we feel that some agents deserve our censure or merit our praise. They do so because they have violated, met, or exceeded our demand for a reasonable degree of good will.

    2.2 Developments After Strawson

    Most agree that Strawson's discussion of the reactive attitudes is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the practice of holding responsible, but many have taken issue with his contentions about the insular nature of that practice, namely that a) since propriety judgments about the reactive attitudes are strictly internal to the practice (i.e., being responsible is defined in relation to the practice of holding responsible), their justification cannot be considered from a standpoint outside that practice; and b) since the reactive attitudes are natural responses deriving from our psychological constitution, they cannot be dislodged by theoretical considerations. Responding to the first of these, some have argued that it does seem possible to critique existing practices of holding responsible from standpoints outside them. For example, one might judge that either one's own existing community practice or some other community's practice of holding responsible ought to be modified (Fischer and Ravizza 1993: 18; Ekstrom: 148–149). If such evaluations are legitimate, then, contrary to what Strawson suggested, it seems that an existing practice can be questioned from a standpoint external to it. In other words, being responsible cannot be explicated strictly in terms of an existing practice of holding responsible. This then, would suggest a possible role to be played by independent theoretical conditions on being responsible, conditions which could prove to be compatibilist or incompatibilist in nature.

    Objecting to the second of Strawson's anti-theory contentions, some have argued that incompatibilist intuitions are embedded in the reactive attitudes themselves so that these attitudes cannot persist unless some justification can be given of them, or more weakly, that they cannot but be disturbed if something like determinism is true. Here, cases are often cited where negative reactive attitudes seem to be dispelled or mitigated upon learning that an agent's past includes severe deprivation and/or abuse. There is a strong pull to think that our reactive attitudes are altered in such cases because we perceive such a background to be deterministic. If this is the proper interpretation of the phenomenon, then it is evidence that theoretical considerations, like the truth of determinism, could in fact dislodge the reactive attitudes (Nagel: 125; Kane: 84–89; Galen Strawson 1986: 88; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; and replies by Watson 1987: 279–286 and 1996: 240; and McKenna 1998).

    Versions of Strawson's view continue to be very ably defended, and shortly, more will be said about the significant way in which his work continues to shape contemporary discussion of the concept of responsibility. However, many have taken objections of the above sort to be decisive in undermining the most radical of Strawson's anti-theory claims. Incompatibilists, in particular, seem largely unpersuaded and so have continued to assume a more or less traditional merit-based conception of moral responsibility as the basis for their theorizing. A number of compatibilists also remain unconvinced that Strawson has successfully shown independent theoretical considerations to be irrelevant to ascriptions of responsibility. It is noteworthy that some of these have accorded the reactive attitudes a central role in their discussions of the concept of responsibility. The result has been new merit-based versions of compatibilism (see e.g., Fischer & Ravizza 1998).

    It is likely that Strawson and others writing on moral responsibility have traditionally seen themselves as attempting to articulate an account of responsible agency that would map onto what was presumed to be a unitary and shared concept of moral responsibility. However, more recently a number of authors have suggested that at least some disagreements about the most plausible overall theory of responsibility might be based on a failure to distinguish between different aspects of the concept of responsibility, or perhaps several distinguishable but related concepts of responsibility.

    Broadly speaking, a distinction has been drawn between responsibility understood as attributability and responsibility as accountability.[12] The central idea in judging whether an agent is responsible in the sense of attributability, say for an action, is whether the action discloses something about the nature of the agent's self (Watson 1996: 228). Some hold additionally that a judgment of responsibility in this sense includes an assessment of the agent's self as measured against some standard (though not necessarily a moral standard)-i.e., that our interest is in what the action discloses about the agent's evaluative commitments (Watson 1996: 235; Bok: 123, nt. 1).[13] Perhaps the clearest example of a conception of responsibility emphasizing attributability is the so-called “ledger view” of moral responsibility. According to such views, the practice of ascribing responsibility involves assigning a credit or debit to a metaphorical ledger associated with each agent (Feinberg: 30–1; Glover: 64; Zimmerman: 38–9; and discussion of such views in Watson 1986: 261–2; and Fischer and Ravizza 1998: 8–10, nt. 12). To regard an agent as praiseworthy or blameworthy in the attributability sense of responsibility is simply to believe that the credit or fault identified properly belongs to the agent.

    To be responsible for an action in the sense of being accountable (or “appraisable” according to the terminology of some) presupposes responsibility in the sense of attributability. However, to judge that an agent is responsible in the further sense of being accountable entails that the behavior properly attributed to the agent is governed by an interpersonal normative standard of conduct that creates expectations between members of a shared community (whereas the standard invoked above may or may not be thought to generate interpersonal expectations). In this way, the concept of moral responsibility as accountability is an inherently social notion, and to hold someone responsible is to address a fellow member of the moral community (Stern; Watson 1987; McKenna). By emphasizing the way the reactive attitudes were tied to expectations of good will grounded in our interpersonal relationships, Strawson drew attention to this social aspect of responsibility. Recent attempts to further articulate how best to understand the relevant notion of holding responsible and its relation to being accountable reflect his on-going influence.

    An agent is praiseworthy or blameworthy, in the sense of accountable, if one is warranted, or justified, in holding her responsible. On one popular view, holding someone responsible is interpreted as regarding him or her as an apt candidate for the reactive attitudes and possibly other forms of reward or censure based on what the agent has done (Zimmerman; R. J. Wallace: 75-77; Watson 1996: 235; Fischer & Ravizza 1998: 6–7). On another view, holding someone responsible is fundamentally a matter of making a moral judgment accompanied by an expectation that the agent who performed the act acknowledge the force of the judgment or provide an exonerating explanation of why she performed the action. To hold someone responsible is thus to be one to whom an explanation is owed. On this view, the reactive attitudes and associated practices are grounded in this more fundamental expectation (Oshana: 76–7; Scanlon 1998: 268–271). Since the reactive attitudes and associated practices may have consequences for the well-being of an agent (especially in the case of those blaming attitudes and practices involved in holding someone accountable for wrong-doing), they are justified only if it is fair that the agent be subject to those consequences (R.J. Wallace: 103–117; Watson 1996: 238–9). The fairness of being subject to those consequences has often,in turn, be interpreted as the source of the idea that praise and blame are justified only if they are merited in the sense of deserved (Zimmerman: ch. 5; Wallace: 106–7; Watson 1996: 238–9; Magill 1997: 42–53). [14]

    The recognition and articulation of diversity within the concept (or amongst concepts) of moral responsibility has generated new reflection on the nature of and prospects for theories attempting to spell-out the conditions on being morally responsible. While some continue to believe that a plausible unified theory can be offered that captures the conceptual diversity sketched above, a number of others have concluded that at least some of the conditions for the applicability of our folk concept are in tension with one another (Nagel; G. Strawson 1986, 105-117, 307–317; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; Double 1996a: chs. 6–7; Bok: ch. 1; Smilansky: ch. 6); For example, some have argued that while a compatibilist sense of freedom is necessary for attributability, genuine accountability would require that agents be capable of exercising libertarian freedom. A rapidly expanding body of empirical data on folk intuitions about freedom and responsibility has added fuel to this debate (Nahmias et. al. 2005 and 2007; Vargas 2006; Nichols and Knobe; Nelkin; Roskies and Nichols; and Knobe and Doris).

    If there are irreconcilable tensions within the concept of responsibility, then the conditions of its application cannot be jointly satisfied. Of course, there have always been those—e.g., hard determinists — who have concluded that the conditions on being morally responsible cannot be met and thus that no one is ever morally responsible. However, a noteworthy new trend amongst both contemporary hard determinists and others who conclude that the conditions for the applicability of our folk concept cannot be jointly satisfied has been the move to offer a revisionist conception of moral responsibility and its associated practices rather than to reject talk about being responsible outright (For this general trend, see Vargas 2004 and 2005). Revisionism about moral responsibility is a matter of degree. Some revisionists seek to salvage much if not most of what they take to be linked to the folk concept (Dennett 1984: 19; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; Scanlon 1998: 274–277; and Vargas 2004 and in Fischer et. al. 2007), while others offer more radical reconstructions of the concept and associated practices (Smart; Pereboom: 199–212; Smilansky: chps. 7–8; Kelly).[15]

    The future direction of reflection on moral responsibility is uncertain. On the one hand, there has been a resurgence of interest in metaphysical treatments of freedom and moral responsibility in recent years, a sign that many philosophers in this area have not been persuaded by Strawson's central critique of such treatments. On the other hand, discussion of the place and role of the reactive attitudes in human life continues to be a central theme in accounts of the concept of responsibility. What is clear is that the long-standing interest in understanding the concept of moral responsibility and its application shows no sign of abating.

    Bibliography

    Adams, Robert Merrihew, 1985. “Involuntary Sins.” Philosophical Review 94: 3–31.
    Aquinas, Thomas. 1997. Basic Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, ed. A. C. Pegis (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
    Aristotle, 1985. The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. by Terence Irwin. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
    –––, 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes, 2 Vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    Arpaly, Nomy, 2003. Unprincipled Virtue: An Inquiry into Moral Agency (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 2006. Merit, Meaning, and Human Bondage: An Essay on Free Will (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    Augustine, 1993. On Free Choice of the Will (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
    Austin, J.L., 1979. “A Plea for Excuses” in Philosophical Papers, J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Ayer, A.J., 1980. “Free Will and Rationality” in van Straatan.
    Bair, Annette, 1991. A Progress of Sentiments: A Reflection on Hume's Treatise. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Baier, Kurt, 1991. “Types of Responsibility.” in The Spectrum of Responsibility, Peter French, ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press).
    Benson, Paul, 1990. “The Moral Importance of Free Action.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 28: 1–18.
    Berofsky, Bernard, ed., 1966. Free Will and Determinism. (New York: Harper & Row).
    Bennett, Jonathan, 1980. “Accountability” in Philosophical Subjects, Zak Van Straaten, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
    Bobsien, Susanne, 2001. Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
    Bok, Hilary, 1998. Freedom and Responsibility. (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    Brandt, Richard, 1969. “A Utilitarian Theory of Excuses” The Philosophical Review 78:337–361. Reprinted in Morality, Utility, and Rights. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
    –––, 1959. Ethical Theory. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.).
    –––, 1958. “Blameworthiness and Obligation” in Meldon.
    Broadie, Sarah, 1991. Ethics with Aristotle. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Burrington, Dale, 1999. “Blameworthiness.” Journal of Philosophical Research 24: 505-527.
    Curren, Randall, 2000. Aristotle on the Necessity of Public Education (New York: Roman & Littlefield).
    –––, 1989. “The Contribution of Nicomachean Ethics iii.5 to Aristotle's Theory of Responsibility.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 6: 261–277.
    Dennett, Daniel, 2003. Freedom Evolves (New York: Viking Press).
    –––, 1984. Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
    Darwall, Stephen, 2006. The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Doris, John M., 2002. Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior (New York: Cambridge University Press).
    Double, Richard, 2000. “Metaethics, Metaphilosophy, and Free Will Subjectivism.” in Kane 2002.
    –––, 1996a. Metaphilosophy and Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1996b. “Honderich on the Consequences of Determinism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (December): 847–854.
    –––, 1991. The Non-reality of Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Ekstrom, Laura Waddell 2000. Free Will: A Philosophical Study. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
    Everson, Stephen, ed., 1998. Companions to Ancient Thought 4: Ethics. (New York: Cambridge University Press).
    –––, 1990. “Aristotle's Compatibilism in the Nicomachean Ethics.” Ancient Philosophy 10:81–103.
    Feinberg, Joel, 1970. Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    Feldman, Fred, 1995. “Desert: Reconsideration of Some Received Wisdom” Mind 104 (January): 63–77.
    Fingarette, Herbert, 1967. On Responsibility. (New York: Basic Books, Inc.).
    Fischer, John Martin, 1999. “Recent Work on Moral Responsibility” Ethics 110 (October): 93–139.
    –––, 1994. The Metaphysics of Free Will: An Essay on Control. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell).
    –––, ed., 1986. Moral Responsibility (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
    Fischer, John Martin and Ravizza, Mark, 1998. Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility (New York: Cambridge University Press).
    –––, eds., 1993. Perspectives on Moral Responsibility (Cornell University Press).
    Fischer, J.M., Kane, R., Pereboom, D., and Vargas, M. 2007. Four Views on Free Will (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers).
    Frankfurt, Harry, 1969. “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.” The Journal of Philosophy 66: 828–839.
    Gibbard, Allan, 1990. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Glover, Jonathan, 1970. Responsibility (New York: Humanities Press).
    Haji, Ishtiyaque, 2002. “Compatibilist Views of Freedom and Responsibility” in Kane 2002.
    –––, 1998. Moral Appraisability: Puzzles, Proposals, and Perplexities. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Hart, H. L.,, 1968. Punishment and Responsibility. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Hieronymi, Pamela, 2004. “The Force and Fairness of Blame.” Philosophical Perspectives 18: 115-148.
    Honderich, Ted, 2002. “Determinism as True, Both Compatibilism and Incompatibilism as False, and the Real Problem.” in Kane 2002.
    –––, 1996. “Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, and the Smart Aleck.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (December): 855-862.
    –––, 1988. A Theory of Determinism: The Mind, Neuroscience, and Life Hopes. 2 Vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press)
    Hume, David, 1978. A Treatise of Human Nature, 2nd ed., ed. by L.A. Selby-Bigge and P.H. Nidditch. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Irwin, Terrance, ed., 1999. Classical Philosophy. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1980. “Reason and Responsibility in Aristotle.” in Rorty 1980.
    Kane, Robert, ed., 2002. The Oxford Handbook of Free Will (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1996. The Significance of Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Kant, Immanuel, 1993. The Critique of Practical Reason, trans. by Lewis White Beck, 3rd. ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Macmillan Publishing Co.).
    Kelly, Erin, 2002. “Doing Without Desert.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83: 180–205.
    Knobe, J. and Doris, J. Forthcoming. “Strawsonian Variations: Folk Morality and the Search for a Unified Theory.” In The Handbook of Moral Psychology, ed. John Doris (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Kupperman, Joel, 1991. Character. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Levy, Neil, 2005. “The Good, the Bad, and the Blameworthy.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 2/1: 2–16.
    Mackie, John L., 1985. “Morality and the Retributive Emotions.” In Persons and Values: Vol. 2. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
    Magill, Kevin, 2000. “Blaming, Understanding, and Justification.” In T. van den Beld 2000.
    –––, 1997/ Freedom and Experience: Self-Determination without Illusions. (New York: St. Martins Press).
    McKenna, Michael, 1998. “The Limits of Evil and the Role of Moral Address: A Defense of Strawsonian Compatibilism.” Journal of Ethics. 2: 123–142.
    McKenna, Michael and Russell, Paul, eds., 2008. Free Will and Reactive Attitudes: Perspectives on P.F. Strawson's “Freedom and Resentment”. (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing).
    Meldon, A.I., ed., 1958. Essays in Moral Philosophy. (Seattle: University of Washington Press).
    Meyer, Susan Suave, 1988. “Moral Responsibility: Aristotle and After.” in Everson 1998.
    –––, 1993. Aristotle on Moral Responsibility. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Pub.).
    Mill, John Stuart, 1884. A System of Logic, 8th ed. (New York: Harper and Brothers).
    Milo, Ronald D., 1984. Immorality (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
    Nagel, Thomas, 1986. The View From Nowhere. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Nahmias, E., Morris, S., Nadelhoffer, T., and Turner, J. 2005. “Surveying Freedom: Folk Intuitions about Free Will and Moral Responsibility.” Philosophical Psychology 18:561–584.
    Nahmias, E., Coates, D. Justin, Kvaran, Trevor, 2007. “Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Mechanism: Experiments on Folk Intuitions.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 214–242.
    Nelkin, Dana, 2007. “Do We Have a Coherent Set of Intuitions About Moral Responsibility?” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 243–259.
    Nichols, Shaun and Knobe, Joshua, 2007. “Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions.” Nous 41/4: 663–685.
    Nozick, Robert, 1981. Philosophical Explanations. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Oshana, Marina, 1997. “Ascriptions of Responsibility.” American Philosophical Quarterly 34: 71–83.
    Pereboom, Derk, 2001, Living Without Free Will (New York: Cambridge University Press).
    –––, 2000. “Living Without Free Will: The Case for Hard Compatibilism” in Kane 2000.
    –––, ed., 1997. Free Will. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.).
    Roberts, Jean, 1984. “Aristotle on Responsibility for Action and Character.” Ancient Philosophy 9: 23–36.
    Rorty, Amelie Oksenberg, ed., 1980. Essays on Aristotle's Ethics. (Los Angeles: University of California Press).
    Roskies, A.L., and Nichols, S. 2008. “Bringing Responsibility Down to Earth” Journal of Philosophy 105/7: 371–388.
    Russell, Paul, 2000.“Pessimists, Pollyannas, and the New Compatibilism.” in Kane 2000.
    –––, 1995. Freedom and Moral Sentiment: Hume's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1992. “Strawson's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility.” Ethics 102: 287–302.
    Scanlon, T. M., 1998. What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    –––, 1988. “The Significance of Choice.” In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. 8 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press).
    Schlick, Moritz, 1966. “When is a Man Responsible,” in Berofsky, 1966.
    Schoeman, Ferdinand, ed., 1987. Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions. (New York: Cambridge University Press)
    Sher, George, 2006. In Praise of Blame. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Slote, Michael, 1990. “Ethics Without Free Will.” Social Theory and Practice 16:369–383.
    Smart, J.J.C., 1961. “Free Will, Praise, and Blame.” Mind 70: 291–306.
    Smilansky, Saul, 2000. Free Will and Illusion. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1996. “Responsibility and Desert: Defending the Connection.” Mind 105:157–163.
    Smiley, Marion, 1992. Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries of Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
    Smith, Angela M., 2007. “On Being Responsible and Holding Responsible.” The Journal of Ethics 11:465-484.
    –––, 2008. “Control, Responsibility, and Moral Assessment.” Philosophical Studies 138:367–392.
    Sorabji, Richard, 1980. Necessity, Cause, and Blame (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
    Stern, Lawrence, 1974. “Freedom, Blame, and the Moral Community.” The Journal of Philosophy 71: 72–84.
    Strawson, Galen, 1994. “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility.” Philosophical Studies 75: 5-24.
    –––, 1986. Freedom and Belief. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Strawson, P. F., 1980. “Reply to Ayer and Bennett.” In van Straaten 1980.
    –––, 1993. “Freedom and Resentment.” Proceedings of the British Academy 48 (1962):1–25. Reprinted in Fischer and Ravizza, 1993.
    Taylor, Gabrielle, 1985. Pride, Shame, and Guilt (New York: Oxford University Press).
    van den Beld, T., 2000. Moral Responsibility and Ontology. (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
    van Inwagen, Peter, 1978. An Essay on Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    van Stratten, Z., ed., 1980. Philosophical Subjects: Essays Presented to P.F. Strawson (New York: Oxford University Press).
    Vargas, Manuel, 2004. “Responsibility and the Aims of Theory: Strawson and Revisionism.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85: 218–241.
    –––, 2005. “The Revisionist's Guide to Responsibility.” Philosophical Studies 125:399–429.
    –––, 2006. “Philosophy and the Folk: On Some Implications of Experimental Work for Philosophical Debates on Free Will.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 6/1–2: 239–254.
    Wallace, James, 1974. “Excellences and Merit.” Philosophical Review 83: 182–199.
    Wallace, R. J., 1994. Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
    Watson, Gary, 1996. “Two Faces of Responsibility.” Philosophical Topics 24: 227–248.
    –––, 1987. “Responsibility and the Limits of Evil.” in Schoeman, 1987.
    Williams, Bernard, 1993. Shame and Necessity. (Los Angeles: University of California Press).
    Wolf, Susan, 1990. Freedom Within Reason. (New York: Oxford University Press).
    –––, 1981. “The Importance of Free Will.” Mind 90: 386–405.
    Zimmerman, Michael, 1988. An Essay on Moral Responsibility. (Totowa, NJ: Roman and Littlefield).
    Other Internet Resources
    The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy Website edited by Ted Honderich, University College London.
    The Garden of Forking Paths: A Free Will/Moral Responsibility Blog (multiple contributors, coordinated by Neal Tognazzini and Gustavo Llarull)

    Come on! This isn't that hard to read! I think that to really get this philosophical thing right, we need to be scholars. I'm trying, but the spiritual and emotional pressure I experience is often overwhelming. I really and truly am pretending, at this point, that I am working on a PhD in Solar System Studies and Governance. I know this sounds ridiculous, and in many ways it is, but I think we need to have this sort of a goal clearly in mind. I should really put together some sort of a curriculum, but until I do, consider all of my threads to be your homework. I will be interested to read the first doctoral dissertation based upon the works of orthodoxymoron. This might be somewhat self-aggrandizing, but I really do think that there should be this type of a doctoral study. Once again, I just might create my own doctoral program, and be the first teacher and first student - simultaneously!! Perhaps I'll try, one more time, to stop posting, for a significant time-period. I need to do some homework. I need to read some books. I need to think without moving my lips and fingers. I need to take a higher road. I've probably done enough modeling to make my point. I think I've made my point. A conspiracy-theorist recently told me they were going to be much more positive. Perhaps that was a sign. Perhaps I should go and do likewise.







    ORTHODOXYMORON GETS HIS DISSERTATION BACK FROM THE NSA!

    It might be cool to be an Indiana Jones kind of professor, but I sort of like to just research and reflect. I think that a room filled with bright college students would be too much for me! They'd probably eat me alive! It might be easier to face a room filled with Illuminati, Jesuits, Nazis, Masons, Magicians, Greys, and Dracs! Anyway, I do like the idea of a PhD program in Solar System Studies and Governance as a prerequisite to being a United States of the Solar System Representative. On the other hand, have all of the universities of the world saved us from the absurd situation we find ourselves in presently? There is such a phenomenon as 'Educated Idiots'. So how in the hell do we achieve an Enlightened Democracy? Are human beings too stupid and unstable to rule themselves? I used to think that was a stupid question, but I really wonder if we are capable of such a feat.

    Do we simply need a less corrupt secret government? Do we really need to be ruled from the shadows? I know what I idealistically want, but what is the reality? A celebration of a newly formed United States of the Solar System might be very short indeed. Again, I wonder if society is past the point of no return on the road to hell? Will there be a core meltdown, no matter what we do? I don't have a problem with 'crowd control' or with the human race being managed, educated, and disciplined in a kind, fair, and orderly manner. What I object to is irresponsible management and cruel exploitation. There are huge problems with the present campaign and election/selection process. The PhD thing would help, but perhaps voters should have to get a two-year degree in voting. To do ANYTHING, one should have to prove that they know what they're doing. Some have even suggested a lottery to 'elect' our leaders! How 'bout a dartboard, like the Wall Street Journal used to 'select' stocks?!







    God Plays Dice with the Solar System!
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9574
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: Meticulous Analysis of the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:55 am

    Here are a couple of posts from Page 5 of the USSS Book Seven thread, to correspond with October 5. I'm NOT endorsing this stuff. How am I supposed to know?? I know that I don't know. What if there is No Scheduled Regime-Change for at least the rest of the 21st century?? What Would the Antichrist Say?? Expect Deception. http://mistsofavalon.catsboard.com/t9723p100-the-united-states-of-the-solar-system-a-d-2133-book-seven-and-the-seven-seals



    Between the Devil and the Returning Rock:
    The quickening of issues of governance, security, and interspecies
    exopolitical relations caused by the Anunnaki inter-clan civil conflict and
    the return of NI.BI.RU. to aphelion – Speculations in view of new data

    A. R. BORDON
    Foundation One

    ROY W. GORDON
    Foundation One

              In this essay, we will examine interlocking sets of issues concerning governance, near-Earth security, and interspecies relations generated by the presence of the Anunnaki on Earth and the Kingdom returning to aphelion in the next sixty to one hundred and ten years. The presence of people from another world on Earth presents unique problems and opportunities for us as a biokind (biological kind), the result of a directed panspermia carried out by Those Who From Heaven To Earth Came – in the words of Zecharia Sitchin, a latter days prophet and dispeller of darkness about our biokind’s prehistory. Information generated over the last forty years (e.g., the Department of Energy’s early 1970s conference on communications in the 21st century at Hilton Head, the colloquia at Cornell University organized by Carl Sagan in the early to mid-80s on exocommunication and interspecies relations, the select conferences organized by the aerospace industry on interplanetary travel requirements and exotic propulsion, the formation of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (or NGA) late last century and its mission, and the indicia on Anunnaki presence in the United States generated by a field study conducted by the authors over the last five years) make, in our view, for a most compelling need to confront the broad issues we will raise and deal with in this essay.

         The driving assumptions of this essay are two, and quite simple: (1) not everything is as it seems, or as we are told it is; and (2) neither are all assets completely disclosed, nor their real, intended capabilities and uses open to public scrutiny, for their obvious security and counterintelligence value. Also a note on the intent of the authors in writing this essay: It is our opinion and impression from a cursory review of the UFO literature that the focus of study of phenomena ascribed to extraterrestrial biological entities – as life forms and bearers of advanced levels of technology – is scattered across a wide range of subjects. Furthermore, the subject of Anunnaki on Earth – a subject of primary importance to the human race at this juncture in our history – is focused upon Sitchin’s voluminous work.

    The presence of Anunnaki on Earth is treated by thoughtful thinkers, like Neil Freer, in reference to Sitchin and not on the present or the future of what the reality of Anunnaki on Earth portends for us, not just their mythic and Jungian archetypes in our subconscious (Freer [White Paper] undated, 1998, 1994). Perhaps this state of affairs is due to the dearth of information on what to, where to, and who to look for on Earth, and in particular in the United States. Neil’s focus upon our need to grow up and out of our collective godspell is well placed, but in our view does not address what needs to be our central interest about Anunnaki on Earth. Hopefully, doing so will indicate to us all just what we now face and will encounter in the next sixty to one hundred ten years from today. Metaphorically speaking, this should put a face on what, in the literature, is often referred to as the dark side, unethical celestial network,

         Additionally, we have written this essay not as whistleblowers, which we are not, nor intend to stimulate the view we are; quite the contrary, we present our thoughts and the results of our field study here to stimulate discourse on the subject what the presence of the Anunnaki on Earth means to us. It is also evident that there is little or no intelligence on them in the public domain, and we believe this to be a dangerous state of affairs. Without information, whether shreds, indicia, or even uncorroborated reports, we believe that it is indeed difficult to entertain possibilities and formulate scenarios for our collective consideration. Fortunately, there are ways and places to go find information about these people, and from humans who have had access to high level policy formulation about them as well as people who have been the recipients of their request for allegiance and loyalty.

    We have explored these places and managed to meet sources who have spoken to us on the condition of anonymity, in the furtherance of our collective understanding of what we are facing now and will face in the future. It took time – nearly five years of patient search and careful scrutiny of the sources themselves and the information culled from and through them – and a complex validation (vetting information where possible, along with of the sources). We also used the journalistic device of confirmation of information by at least two or more sources. Finally, it was not our intention to conduct a scientific study, but rather a field study that would generate information which could lead us all into new venues, new inquiries, and more search and research pertinent to our collective future safety, security and integrity. We hoped to have accomplished that, and pray that this essay generates the intended discourse on the subject. The final reason is that we found Ed Komarek’s remarks on his blog…

    The way to break the back of the dark, secret, covert cabal … is to expose their very exopolitical foundation!

    …quite on target, although his metaphors a bit simplistic yet very accurate. There are indeed two camps which correspond closely to his ethical celestial beings vs. unethical celestial network, with their corresponding earthly conduits and minions.  But the landscape in which the drama continues to unfold is murkier than what Ed makes it out, or perhaps wishes it, to be. See his http://exopolitics.blogspot.com. Their presence in the dramatic landscape suggested by our eleven informants will also hopefully become evident in this essay.

         Issues

         We will explore scenarios raised by informant reports in two areas – governance and near-Earth security, and draw from available literature and scenarios developed by a team led by the junior author on interspecies relations. From these, we will focus specifically on six sets of issues: governance as institutional response sets to the presence of the Anunnaki on Earth, governance as meaning given to the concept by Earthbound Anunnaki culled from informant sources, near-Earth space security (for whom? why?), defense of Earthbound Anunnaki interests on Earth, the current roles and situations we face in the Anunnaki inter-clan conflict, and the choices we face in view of the alignment of political/economic/religious/military influence and control exerted by Earthbound Anunnaki through third-party minions and their projection of might and technological superiority.

    I.  GOVERNANCE AS INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE SETS TO THE PRESENCE OF EARTHBOUND AND INCOMING ANUNNAKI

         These are evident from FIOA documents retrieved under the United States Freedom of Information Act concerning UFOs, aliens, extraterrestrials, codified rules (as in Code of Federal Regulations and certain military manuals), the U.S. military sources of public and leaked classified information, and leaks to unvetted , unwitting informants. Another stream has also been manifested as governmental and military sources of public and leaked information in England, NATO, and the European Union. A third stream was manifested as a conjunction of interest compact initiated by the U.S. National Space Council in association with unspecified developed-industrial nations within a United Nations umbrella, again as public and leaked information. And a fourth stream has been the witting informant (both out of government and military services, as well as still in government and military service) willing and able to provide hints, partial disclosures, confirmations, and information pattern reconstruction assistance on a case by case basis. The latter are few and far between, speak by statements in response to specific questions (never face to face, until very recently) and are here further protected as numbered informants.1 Information obtained and culled through these sources are used in this essay to indicate past and current policy directions of interest in examining matters associated with national and planetary governance, safety and sovereignty issues.
         
    Governance as an issue seems to had taken a new shade of meaning in the late 1970s, when in the words of Informant One, “things went kind of haywire, when the people from the incoming [NI.BI.RU.] made contact through unexpected assets requesting a meeting with representatives of the United States” (2003). According to this source and a corroborating one, “the only thing that saved the day was the cool-headed handling of matters related to this contact, and the delegation made by the president to his close friend from Navy days to head the group that met with them up in the tundra” (One 2003; Four 2004). “A semi-formal arrangement was set up for exchanges and contacts directly through the interagency directorate set up by the White House and [an unspecified agency] to handle them and facilitate the settlement and acclimation of one of theirs at one of our [unspecified] installations in [an also unspecified] desert” (One 2003; Two 2002; Four 2004). At the time, we were in the throes of the first Iran situation, “and the people from the incoming filled us in on the actual conflict being played out at that time” (Four 2004).

         Governance then ceased being a matter of mere elections and political parties, and more of a two-track affair of state – one involving politics as usual on the domestic side and a carefully orchestrated foreign policy enriched by the revelations on the nature and genesis of the Iranian about-face (the invisible hands of the Serpent Faction in fomenting the uprising of Sunnis and the subsequent establishment of a theocracy dominated by Serpent Faction minions); the other involving more of a managing of relationships with those who were coming in, mostly through the one whom Informant One referred to as “the ambassador” (2003). The new intelligence available through such contacts “concerning Serpent Faction activities in fomenting division by religious fundamentalism was heard but not heeded – at least not until the next administration” (Two 2002). How much of what had transpired in the ten months prior to the 1980 election was passed on during the transition is unknown, but several informants (One, Two, Four, Five and Six), especially those in the military attached to the interagency directorate, did confirm that “awareness of what was going on was palpable from day one, but how much the old man knew was anybody’s guess.

    Everything was still being handled in compartments and very few of us had access to the latest [intelligence] from them out west [Anunnaki in the desert?]” (Four 2004). “The thing that changed everything was the reports coming in from the Naval Observatory and the project that was handling the [astronomical] observations in South America and Australia. By then we knew that this whole thing was for real, and that there were needs superceding the way we were then organized” (One 2002; Four 2004). But it would apparently take nearly six years for pertinent information to reach the summit of power in the White House – even though the interagency directorate was said to have functioned out of the Executive Office Building and one of the subfloors under the White House. Why this took so long, and by what means did Reagan become aware of things concerning the Anunnaki is unknown, and remains so.

         In 1986, then President Reagan met with then Secretary General Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, for a mini-summit. In a private session, which is said to have included their respective wives, Nancy and Raisa, the foursome is reported to have received a formal briefing on information culled from astrophysical, technological and historical sources concerning what cannot be anything other than the 10th planet in our solar system, the historical record of anthropological and archeo-astronomical information concerning NI.BI.RU. and its inhabitants, and the “apparent civil conflict between members of an asset group [Nibiruan Anunnaki on Earth] and the [NI.BI.RU.-borne] governing body of the incoming” (One 2002). The occurrence of this briefing was verified to have taken place by six of the eleven sources 2 we cultivated over the years.

    It was also said that reference was made during the briefing to “the handling of understanding with those here concerning matters of mutual interest,” which were discussed by the principals and questions asked of the briefers – ostensibly, “senior military officers in civilian clothes” (One 2002; Two 2003; Five 2004) quite possibly attached to the interagency directorate and/or NSA. Additionally, Reagan and Gorbachev both wished to know how extensive was the institutional awareness of this “threat” on the part of the other major powers and industrialized nations of Earth. The answer was said that awareness was highly restricted to “intelligence sharing of certain compartmented information on a need to know basis” and “only with those who’ve assisted us in term of recoveries [of extraterrestrial artifacts] in the past” (Two 2002; Five 2004).

         Issues of national governance raised by both heads of state concerned “both internal issues of disclosure and preparation” (One 2003; Five 2004), “and issues on how to handle them”. Gorbachev was said to be more concerned with the managing of relations with the asset group and its leadership, while the American president was said to have voiced concerns about the position in which the U.S. was finding itself with respect to the asset group on planet surface and what stance was the proper one to take on this matter. The president was said to have been reminded that the information compartment, though inclusive of major aspects, was also still restricted to the highest level, to those having a [certain specific compartment] clearance, “and to those serving on the [National Space] Council,” and that “all previous contacts and understandings with them [the Earthbound asset group] remain in place” (One 2003; Four 2003; Five 2004). The president was also reported to have asked for recommendations on possible options for the handling of the situation at hand.
         
    It was then said that, as an initial step, Gorbachev recommended the matter be disclosed to the United Nations both privately and publicly “in the strongest possible terms,” but avoiding unnecessary and premature full disclosures. Both heads of state also are said to have requested and received descriptive information on “what these people looked like.” The briefing was said to have been sober and business-like, with the wives remaining quiet and attentive, but with Nancy taking some notes. It was also said they were reminded that the matter would not arise as “a tangible” until the beginning of the second decade of the next century” and that “there was still some time to organize an infrastructure for the handling of contact, intelligence and positioning of assets with the aim of establishing a basis for future diplomacy” (One 2003; Five 2004; Six 2004; Nine 2005).
         
    Interestingly enough, a relatively short time after the briefing, Reagan publicly addressed the United Nations General Assembly and is reported to have held private meetings with a select group of NATO allies and other industrialized nations (Two 2003; Four 2004). Towards the end of his speech to the Forty-second Session on September 21, 1987, the President said that, "in our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think," continued Reagan, "how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And yet, I ask" -- here comes the clincher -- "is not an alien force ALREADY among us?" The President now tries to retreat from the last bold statement by posing a second question: "What could be more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?"
     
         There are indications also that Reagan and Gorbachev had already spoken about aliens during their previous Geneva summit. And there are further indications in the public domain that the president had awareness of the presence of “aliens” on Earth. Earlier during the second term, the astrology flap had caught public attention, and when the next time Reagan mentioned “a threat” from outer space, it was a further attention getter. The media was having a field day with horoscopes at the White House when Reagan talked about the possibility of Earth uniting against a threat by "a power from outer space." Although the idea wasn't new for the President, as we shall soon see, this time everybody paid attention. More as a joke than a serious thought, however.

    The AP story on the speech, for example, had the headline, "Reagan follows astrological flap with comment on space invaders." The President first disclosed his thoughts about "an alien threat" during a 4 December 1985 speech at Fallston High School in Maryland, where he spoke about his first summit with General Secretary Gorbachev in Geneva. According to a White House transcript, Reagan remarked that during his 5-hour private discussions with Gorbachev, he told [Gorbachev] to think… "How easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences that we have between our countries ..."

         Except for one headline or two, people didn't pay much attention. Not then and not later, when Gorbachev himself confirmed the conversation in Geneva during an important speech on February 17, 1987, in the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow, to the Central Committee of the USSR's Communist Party. Not a High School in Maryland, precisely! There, buried on page 7A of the Soviet Life Supplement, was the following statement:

    "At our meeting in Geneva, the U.S. President said that if the earth faced an invasion by extraterrestrials, the United States and the Soviet Union would join forces to repel such an invasion. I shall not dispute the hypothesis, though I think it's early yet to worry about such an intrusion..."

         It is significant that Gorbachev didn’t consider this to be an incredible proposition; he just said that it's too early to worry about it.

         If Gorbachev elevated the theme from a high school to the Kremlin [Politburo], Reagan upped the ante again by including the "alien threat", not in a domestic speech but to a full session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.  Unlike the off-the-cuff remarks to the Fallston High School, we must assume that the President's speech to the General Assembly was written very carefully and likewise, it merits close consideration. Ronald Reagan has told us that he thinks often about this issue, yet nobody seemed to be paying attention. When the President mentioned on 4 May 1988 in Chicago for the third time the possibility of a threat by "a power from another planet," the media quickly dubbed it the "space invaders" speech, relegating it to a sidebar in the astrology flap. The ET remark was made in the Q&A period following a speech to the National Strategy Forum in Chicago's Palmer House Hotel, where he adopted a more conciliatory tone towards the Soviet Union.

         Significantly, Reagan's remark was made during his response to the question, "What do you consider to be the most important need in international relations?"
         
    "I've often wondered," the President said, "what if all of us in the world discovered that we were threatened by an outer -- a power from outer space, from another planet." And then he emphasized his theme that this would erase all the differences, and that the "citizens of the world" would "come together to fight that particular threat..." There is a fourth, unofficial, similar statement from Ronald Reagan about this particular subject, which was reported in the New Republic by senior editor Fred Barnes. The article described a luncheon in the White House between the President and Eduard Shevardnatze, during the Foreign Minister's visit to Washington to sign the INF Treaty on September 15, 1987. "Near the end of his lunch with Shevardnadze," wrote Barnes, "Reagan wondered aloud what would happen if the world faced an 'alien threat' from outer space. “Don't you think the United States and the Soviet Union would be together?” he asked. Shevardnadze said, “yes, absolutely. And we wouldn't need our defense ministers to meet."  In terms of secrets, there is also an unconfirmed story of a special screening in the White House of the movie ET years ago, with director Steven Spielberg and a few select guests. Right after the movie, Reagan is reported to have turned to Spielberg and to have had a whispered conversation for a few minutes. Then, as they stood up, Reagan said, more audibly, "There are only a handful of people who know the whole truth about this." If true, Reagan knew.

         During the Reykjavik briefing, it is also reported that both heads of state pushed for the formation of a “response network set to handle aerial reconnaissance, surveillance and chase,” over the national skies of participating nations under an integrated command “ostensibly controlled by the American and Soviet higher commands” (Two 2003; Six 2004). But, as other informants reported, “this suggestion, in practice, met with so much resistance that it was ultimately dropped” (One 2004; Five 2004). Thus, at this juncture and on the basis of informant reports, we can discern neither the extent to which the matter developed and materialized, nor which countries led in the effort.

         In the United States, the president is reported to have formally organized diverse American space security assets under a National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (or NGA), which is said to have been charged with providing “warning systems and means of downward and outward surveillance of matters and astronomical objects of interest to the national security” (Five 2004; Six 2004; Eight 2005). This is said to have been accomplished through a secret presidential executive order (One 2002; Four 2004; Five 2004). The primary concerns at the time were reported to be practical and their nature institutional in tone – what needs to be organized as networks of response to the threat on a case by case basis, how to organize participants and assets, how to orchestrate and make use of assets, and disposal of same under an integrated domestic command when events warranted it (One 2002; Two 2002, 2003; Four 2003, 2004; Five 2005; Seven 2005; Nine 2005).

         On the domestic side, lead in event response was said to have been given to NGA, the National Space Council and its contact committee, and to “a kind of space security czar” (Seven 2005; Eight 2005; Nine 2005). All intelligence agencies, both on the civilian and military sides, were said to have been directed to provide support and assets as needed (Two 2003; Four 2003; Five 2004, 2005; Ten 2005). Another, albeit not fully vetted, informant provided information concerning the formation of what was referred to as a “National Security Council-Augmented” group to provide “specific constituencies within the US Government and certain foreign constituencies” with what was described as “voice participation and recommending function” in discussions of issues and problems connected to presidential tasks, event response situations, and crises (Three 2003). We were not able to verify this report with information from other independent informants, but it is included here because it is suggestive of the institutional response set initiated under Reagan, and because it fits the preparatory and crisis handling patterns following the initiation of institutional responses to the perceived threat.

         Two of our informants (Two and Five) also reported that the initial focus on in-situ Anunnaki declared by Reagan had changed during the next administration, only to have it reversed and amplified in the next two. When queried about these changes in focus as possible institutional inconsistencies, the reply was that “these were not so much structurally driven inconsistencies, either from the White House or from the foreign constituencies, but rather they were more like a floating focus driven by events and situations” (Two 2004), “some of [which] were surface [i.e. domestic and foreign political and military] events and situations stemming from administration policies” (One 2004). In other words, “the pucker factor [fear] was much higher during the administration immediately following Reagan than during any of the other two following, including the present one” (Five 2004; Six 2004; Ten 2005).

    The framework within which the remnant Anunnaki situation was conceived and dealt with was, in the words of Informant Five, “as something ongoing and not readily subject to change. It was something that had to be managed, and managed carefully, choosing levels of engagement as carefully as if dealing with a live cobra” (2005). Interesting choice of words, given the moniker chosen by those who are here – Serpent clan. This meant, Informant Five explained further, that “when, for example, those who are here began making moves to meet and begin securing allegiance and loyalty oaths from members of groups like retired military, retired military intelligence and civilian intelligence people, de facto and ad hoc groups pretty much on their own initiative around the turn of the century, meetings with official US government people started taking place as pro-forma, but in some cases obligatory contacts arranged, managed and conducted from the highest levels. But those who would be sent to meet with them were at most deputy level people” (2005).

         We also asked if, and how, governance was conducted following the institutionalization of what we baptized as the “NI.BI.RU. event response”. Was safety and security (personal, public, institutional) ever an issue at any time? With regard to governance, “once the realization set in that things were not imminent, that the arrival [in southern skies] of the incoming would not be until the second decade of this century, governance as an issue was forestalled by putting in place a multitrack program for managing anything from suppression and disinformation to public information and conditioning – all of that through about damn near 800 ST/SCI/SARs. All in the hands of an umbrella project [not the infamous MJ-12] that had superceded the one that had been handling things for the last forty or fifty years” (Five 2005; Nine 2005).

         Governing was more or less a two track affair after Reagan, according to Informants Four and Seven: “after Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union, things got a little hairy for a while, but they turned less so after No. 41 [Bush senior] left office and the dust settled in Iraq” (Four 2004). “Governing went back to politics as usual, the winning and losing of elections, etc., on one side, and on the other, not visible side, it became a kind of tap dance – managing carefully requirements by both sides [those who are here and those who are coming] “ (Seven 2005).

         Both sides? Was there formal contact with the home planet before Reagan? Was this contact ongoing? “No to the latter; yes to the former, but through a more self-contained and insulated group who pretty much was left to its own devices for keeping the kisam [Earthbound Anunnaki] happy” (Seven 2005). “It was only after the detection of NI.BI.RU. in the late ‘70s that things went into higher gear” (Four 2004). “When the interagency directorate was set up, things moved to the White House and the tap dance began. Now there were two groups to contend with and the [exo]politics at times would get intense” (Seven 2005).

          Was the group that handled things then the same as that which led the umbrella project mentioned earlier? “Yes, with some additions after the other side [those who were on the incoming] requested and got a formal meeting up in the tundra [unspecified whether in Canada or Alaska, or Antarctica], that’s when things started to get a little crazy, sort of like being between the devil and the incoming rock. But all of that happened before Reagan” (Two 2004; Four 2005; Five 2005; Six 2005).

    Who Are These People?  

         Finally, in a recent round of exchanges with several informants, some of them new ones, we asked them the following question. What are we dealing with here? The extant literature mentions humanoids, grays, reptilians and other kinds of life forms. Which of these are the Anunnaki?  And what do they look like? Their answers were quite enlightening.

         “Let’s start out by saying that we are definitely dealing with biological entities, not altogether more complex than us, except that their cellular electrical capacitance is much higher than ours, which makes them an energetic envelope of much higher bioelectric potential than us. When you are in the presence of one of them, you can feel their presence as if you could cut it with a knife. A very definite force of what could best be described as intention emanates from them” (Eight 2005, 2006). “They are very large, very tall biological specimens, no doubt of that. They can also be best described as looking almost like albinos – white, almost milky white skin, with a sort of sweat or beads of water evident on their skin, like a film – about seven or eight feet in height, very white hair – not gray white, but kind of snow white. Like white wool – yes, kinky white hair, some of them wear it shoulder length, others short, almost close cropped. But you can tell it is kinky. Oh, eyes are red, when you catch them inside in low light and they are not wearing dark, almost black contact-like lenses, but different from ours.

    They always travel in pairs, so if you see one of them, the other is not too far away. This is true of the kisam. Haven’t had the chance of meeting the others [those who went to the original late ‘70s meeting, ostensibly coming from the home planet] so I can’t tell you what they’re like. [I] Imagine they look the same. But you can tell more about them from their presence” (Eleven 2006). It is interesting to note that C. L. Turnage, author of a series of provocative books on the connection between the Bible, Planet X and the Anunnaki (Turnage 2000, 1997, 1996) had also described an encounter with one of them, in which she described them in nearly identical terms (Turnage, personal communication to the senior author, 1997).3  And an entirely similar description of the Anunnaki can also be found in Patrick Cooke’s controversial but well thought out arguments on his website, www.bibleufo.com.
         
    An Emerging Picture

         Governance, as opposed to security, appears to not have been a major issue from the ’79 meeting to the present. The emerging picture concerning governance painted by informant words indicates that the USG continued business as usual both vertically – from the executive apex of the presidency, through its federal departments and agencies, to the state governments in the union – and horizontally – the foreign policy apparatus of the USG continued functioning as expected through its State and Defense departments. What did change was the sense of constituent security – that is, USG had to formally contend with the presence of two Anunnaki camps in conflict with one another, and the additional requirement of dealing with both. The meaning of security also appears to have undergone a subtle, yet quite real metamorphosis. We will briefly discuss this transformation below.

         It is evident from the literature (Good 1988, 1993; 1996, 1999; Maccabee 2000; Dolan 2000; Bryant 2002; Marrs 1998; Salla 2006; Corso 1997) that there is considerable belief based on evidence – some of questionable reliability, and some on verifiable validity – that the USG is involved in a massive cover up of anything from the existence of aliens, alien technologies, technology transfers to the private sector and more. While the focus of this essay is only on Anunnaki affairs and their impact on Earth governance, internal security, near Earth space security and Anunnaki inter-clan conflict, informants have also provided some information on contacts with “aliens” from outside the solar system (e.g., the Angleton tapes and the SERPA TS/SCI referred to by Collins and Doty 2005).

    This appears to reflect a reframing of how USG views the Anunnaki vis-à-vis “the real aliens” (Six 2005). Our current hypothesis is that Anunnaki are currently viewed as “ancestors, not really aliens, but more like people who are like us, probably because they were here before the human race appeared on Earth through them” (Six 2005). This makes sense to us, since we were asked more than once to clarify our questions regarding “aliens” from the “incoming”. Is it that at present lead agencies regard this as a “local” event requiring a “local event response set”? It would seem so. This worldview on Anunnaki presence on Earth would also fit in with the seeming working definition of “those who are here and those from the incoming” as a “local problem” (Six 2005; Eight 2005).

         How, then, has the issue of governance been affected by the double Anunnaki presence since the ’79 meeting? One of the seeming results of the formalized infrastructure specific to this situation is the insulation of the White House from the appearance of real access to UFO information. Two examples of this approach are the handling of the Rockefeller initiative during the Clinton administration (i.e., the involvement of assets said to be with CIA at the time and the White House deft use of UFO/alien humor) in deflecting one of the most delicate exopolitical crisis faced by President Clinton; the other is the style and tenor used by the Bush-43 administration: silence.

    The Anunnaki seem to have forced the USG into a space security structure responsive to two exopolitical constituencies. This is reflected “in the way things get handled,” said Informant Eight. “Looks like everything political is handled by the [National Space] Council and the Vice President as chair. This is where the two tracks originate. One umbrella for TS/SCIs handling the incoming, another umbrella for TS/SCI dealing with those here, and the twain shall never meet. NGA looks like it works with both tracks, but it really is controlled by the other czar for space security. This is one of the most secret functions, “cause from what I can tell, this person is the Executive Officer of the whole space security apparatus” (Eight 2005). We asked some of our informants to describe what they knew of the infrastructure of this “space security apparatus.” Figure 1 is a graphic representation of our understanding of the information at this time.

         The picture emerging from Figure 1 is a political/military, strategic/tactical event response infrastructure designed to enable security assets to be quickly available to a designated Space Security Executive Officer (quite probably someone in the Directorate of National Intelligence as a cover). This infrastructure appears to be transnational in nature and organization, which bespeaks of a highly integrated grid that includes assets from not just the United States but also from a host of foreign countries. Its makes sense that this should be so, given comments made by Informants Eight, Ten, and Eleven (2005, 2006). “Notice that during the Clinton years, that movie Independence Day was the source of much joking about aliens. But I’ll tell you right now, what happened in [that movie] will never happen in reality. The grid is tightly woven and completely interactive – from surveillance to intelligence, counterintelligence to asset disposition, military policy to event response sets – everything has its protocol and policies by which it guides itself.” (Eleven 2005). “Think of it as a huge, extended team.

    The whole thing is based on the assumption that there will be an invasion by superior, technologically more advanced forces. That would be the people from the incoming. So everything is geared toward an event response set that will do its best to disallow beachheads and coordination with whatever fifth column assets they may have on the ground. This is why everything but technology appears to be integrated in common” (Eight 2005). “This is also a response infrastructure where no one is elected to office, but rather appointed at the pleasure of the people at the [National Space] Council level. I also have reason to believe there is input in this from the NGA and the compact. But when you look and see who is in position, it’s not just Americans on the ground, though a large majority are Americans. A lot of them come from across the pond and some as far as Moscow” (Ten 2006). And the PRC – the Chinese? “Well, that’s a problem – political one right now, but it could become more than that in the next few years. The key to that may well be Iran, unless the Russians are able to solve the heavy water issue to everyone’s satisfaction, especially ours” (Ten 2006).
         
    Our interpretation of the USA/transnational “crisis mode” space security, intelligence, and event response grid at present:

    National Security Council
    White House/President USA
    National Geospatial Intelligence Agency
    National Space Council
    United States
    Intelligence Community
    United States Military Services
    United Nations Space Security Compact
    Transnational security and intelligence bi-national and compact agreements
    Space Security Executive Officer

    II. EARTHBOUND ANUNNAKI INTERESTS, SPACE SECURITY, AND A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE SITUATION FACED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THE USA/TRANSNATIONAL COMPACT IN THE ANUNNAKI INTER-CLAN CONFLICT

         Our anecdotal data indicates that the infrastructure represented in Figure 1 is most likely a blend of response sets, which include the management of Earthbound Anunnaki interests, USA and USA/transnational compact interests, and a definition of space security forced upon the latter by the need to carefully handle two constituencies in conflict with one another. We showed Figure 1 to all informants, except Three and Five. A surprising consensus became manifest as each was able to peruse it and react to what it depicted. “It is accurate to say that it is a grid,” said Informants Six and Seven (2006). “Each function on this graph [Figure 1] has specific concerns,” added Informant Nine (2006). Each of them agreed on the descriptors assigned to the functions represented on the Figure 1 grid, offered in smaller font.

         The grid is most definitely not the infrastructure of a political democratic institution. It appears to be military in tone and tenor, and it is obviously designed to handle crisis situations. Much like the present war economy of the United States, it is deeply rooted in corporate-like response sets to specific, segmented constituencies, to which those beholden to the powers that be must appease, court, kowtow, and fear – yet, they must be protected and held in fearful respect. Protection, in the words of one of our informants, is not just in terms of advance notice of arrivals of advance parties from the home planet; “it also involves the use of people who obey them implicitly, and who are in positions of considerable power by their pleasure and for their benefit. Let me give you a clear example of what we’re talking about. Secret groups in the military and on the intelligence services have mushroomed considerably. If you get to know the deity they serve, you’ll come up with a cluster of names that, when you look back in time, you’ll see an unexpected correlation. You’ll hear the Greek and Egyptian names for these guys, but they are the same ones from ancient Iraq [Mesopotamia]. They are using these groups in the same way they used the artisan and merchant groups back then – as intelligence gathering and dirty-works squads that will terrorize those that rise against them” (Eight 2006; Nine 2005).

    “However,” Informant Eleven warned, “don’t think that they penetrate everybody’s mind with the fear of God. No, not at all. All they have to do is gain control of the lives of people who can get others to do their masters’ bidding, and that’s that! It’s both subtle and also very brutal. Let me give you another example. I was present at [a Fall 2003 meeting in which both sides bid for the allegiance and loyalty of ex-military, ex-intelligence and others still serving in government] and the styles are different as night and day. Both understand that everything is based on conscious consent. The newcomers appealed to our better nature, carefully explaining their position and why they were here, talking to us. The choice was pretty much ours, and the consequences of joining them was also ours. They knew that, and told us so. I’d call them straight shooters. Now, the other ones, those who are here, mimicked the approach of those who were from the home planet, but the feeling tone of their words was cold as hell. You just knew you did not go against their will, against their vector intention. Just being there scared hell out of you! It did me. So what do you do in that situation? Temporize, and then temporize some more. You can lie to them, but your word is your bond, and then they got you.” (2006).

         Eight expanded on the subject. “Though I wasn’t at the session [Informant Nine] is talking about, I can tell you how they operated at [the Army base where this individual had run across an Anunnaki pair assigned to that post]. There was a bunch of special ops guys at [that base] and they were doing something with them. One of [the two Anunnaki] was by the [barrack in front of which the special ops group was assigned]. I was going by and there was this black noncom who the tall one singled out. He asked him what was his wish [for post-training assignment] and the tech sergeant said he wanted to go to medic school. Tall blondie told him his wish was granted, but that later he [the Anunnaki] would keep track of him and ask him to do things for him. I knew the E-8 [sergeant] and I saw his face when the tall dude said that to him. What I saw was naked, raw fear” (2006). “I had a chance to have a beer with him [the E-8] later, and he would not talk about what happened, and told me to forget I ever saw him in the presence of [the tall blond].”

         What Needs To Be Protected And Why

         As Informants Eight, Nine and Ten put it, “when you understand why all of this is in place, you’ll understand what is really going on at the ground level. That means [that] the folks here [Anunnaki on Earth] feel the pinch of proximity. As [Eight] told you before, these guys have a lot invested down here. As near as I can tell, they’ve been here for eons and want to continue at the top of the food chain. There are also harvesting programs they’re invested in, not just us. Think of this as seeds planted long ago that have been coming home to roost. The thing is, when these people want something, they will get it at any level of our constituted government they can. They get their way because we fear them. At least that’s the culture I come from now. This is not to say it’s been different in the past. No. It has not! We’re tools for them, big time.

    There are companies. . . , private companies . . .  set up just to assist them in what they want. Think of them as kinda proprietaries operated by their own people, and I mean tall albino-looking men and women. Their favorites are biotech and aerospace” (Ten 2006). Ten clarified things: “Hold on just a sec! The kisam are not the only ones doing it. So are the Useanesda [loyal lord protectors of the “King’s house” or “The Kingdom” (Nibiru)]. But these people are well aware of what the ones here want and are doing to get what they want. That’s why we’re in the middle, or more precisely, why we’re caught in the middle of things. The perspective at ground level is very different from the ones inside the beltway or anywhere out west. They don’t get to interact and get caught in the middle of their little war, as we are. That’s why it can get tense, if you know what I mean. [Scientists] who won’t go along to get along just. . . , well, disappear” (Ten 2006) “Or get taken out” (Eight 2006). “And then there is all the initiatives on Mars and the Moon” (Eight 2006; Nine 2006; Eleven 2006)
         
    “What’s in it for them?” The question, as Ten posed it, was much more than rhetorical, as it would turn out. “Well, think about it. We’re the hands they use to get their numbers up, their next generation people. This is what has [those coming in] their jockeys up in a bunch. We’re talking about longevities comparable to theirs [people from the incoming] and longer, which is a core issue in their little civil war. Can we use these [technologies] for us? God help us if we did. Now, part of the problem up to now has been that [the project umbrella of SCIs under which relations with those who are here is handled] has been so fragmented that coordination, while fair at the top, we can feel things slipping. There are too many fronts to contend with [i.e., other groups active on Earth’s surface] and resources getting pulled off or diverted to handle [issues and crises with these ‘other groups’]. But that’s not the only thing they’re in for. They’re also in for the control and sitting up at the top of things. We’re their servants, in more ways than one. I don’t care what all the other so called ‘initiatives’ may have produced” [at this juncture, Ten went off on a tangent about the early Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Rockefeller/Kennedy, and Johnson initiatives vis-à-vis Earthbound Anunnaki], “they’re still holding us right where they want us and we are still acting like ninnies. We may be getting things on the quid pro quo set up with them a while back [under Truman and Eisenhower] but, oh, well. So, take your pick, (long pause) but as for me, I think we’re so vested in defending them against all enemies, off-world and domestic, it’s not even funny anymore” (Ten 2006).

         Nine’s perspective seemed broader, but he made up for this by being even more cryptic than on other occasions. “But you don’t understand the stakes,” he started out replying to Ten. “We’re not as supple at [the White House and NGA] levels as you might think. Also, you gotta remember that we were serving a much larger constituency than just the Oval Office. Oh, they played a key role on the political, PR and control side of things. But they were just one more constituency in the way things were set up. Real control’s always been in the hands of the [space security executive officer] and the chairman [of the National Space Council, which is the U.S. Vice President]. So if we’re protecting things ourselves, it’d have to be this. Imagine, not a single one of them was elected by anyone [except for the U.S. Vice President]. As to the kisam, we’re well integrated with them and they with us. What’s always troubled me is that by doing this and being so, we’re on the cross-hair of the Useanesda. Does this mean a war with them? No, there are not indications of that at all. What gets me worried is the sorting out we expect will happen when they get here. The [certain U.S. middle eastern ally] already have good relations with them [who are on the incoming] and their intelligence service and our event response CI work together well.

    But we can’t expect favors simply by association. Being on the so-called ‘right side’ doesn’t immunize us from repercussions from them [those returning]. However, everything on the table says we can expect they will assist, but not fight on our side, on whatever comes out of the Iran situation, which is the one we really are tracking very closely” (Nine 2006). And the clan conflict? What does it do in our framing of our own imperatives and policies? “Interesting how you put it. . . imperatives. . . , I don’t think we’ve ever used it in connection to setting course on anything while I was in [service]. Tell you the truth, I for one don’t get a sense of what are our imperatives under the present circumstances. That is, aside from not getting our nuts caught in a double wringer. [Long pause] I’d have to say, though – well, it’s obvious to me at least – that, as a species we are them, like it or not. Everything I’d seen says our genomes are one or two letters per million from being the same, in a matter of speaking” (Nine 2006)
         
    EN.KI – Lord Earth

    “What concerns me the most is that we are being played by allies and supposed foes alike, and for the same reasons. Back to the Iran thing here for a moment. If there are imperatives we hold dear, it is to side with Israel in what’s coming, and not get drawn into what NATO will more than likely get pulled into in regards to the Iranian nuclear issue. No one can afford a rogue in that region, and the strings being pulled from the lake down in Africa are not responding in Tehran, I don’t think. Does this affect us? You bet. Governance, safety and security? Hell, yes! And all of this while things that are quite significant to us are reported to have happened [on the incoming] from the last meeting we had with them last year. There’s been an apparently drastic realignment of personalities in the clan clash. Seems the old man of the leader here went to the king’s side, and the king’s not the one the Russian Jew wrote about [in oblique reference to Sitchin]. Same with the surface leader’s brothers, both the one who lived down in Africa as well as the one who reigned in Egypt and then got exiled to the New World for a spell.”

    The authors responded to the news with raised eyebrows, indicating our surprise at the depth of knowledge on Nine’s part. He was obviously referring to Nergal and Ningishzidda, both sons of the EN.KI. [Lord Earth] and brothers of the surface leader. Nine simply grinned and continued. “Oh, yeah. We [where he worked before retirement] took the Russian Jew’s scholarship to task and found him to be a high percenter [i.e., one who keeps scoring very, very high on matters that were important to his agency] by doing our own homework. So the fellow here [leader to Earthbound Anunnaki] is feeling the pinch of loss. The conflict’s now naked, and them who are coming are here setting up their own CI and other clandestine programs, in the same way those who are here have done for decades, if not centuries – through third parties and minions” (Nine 2006). We asked him then just how did he know of this. He leaned back, looked us straight in the eye, and said. “Because after the meeting last year, they [from the incoming’s delegation] tried to recruit me and others. That’s how!”4  

    III.  EARTHBOUND ANUNNAKI POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, RELIGIOUS, MILITARY INFLUENCE, CONTROL, AND POLICY IMPERATIVES FOR EARTH.

         Our informants made it abundantly clear to us that Earthbound Anunnaki are masters of those in positions of power within the political/economic/religious/military grid, through whom they could influence the creation of third-party conflicts. What we were not aware of is the Earthbound Anunnaki’s direct projection of might and technological superiority – apparently exercised for the first time in the late 1940s or early 1950s, in a gesture of raw, naked, and very aggressive power (Eight, Nine, Ten 2005/2006). Other informants have also mentioned this event, but we could not evince or extract any corroborating evidence or documentation from them at the time, or establish which, and if, the event or events constituting the muscle flexing had been reported in the public domain under some other category. This is a line of research we continue to pursue.

         However, during the course of the interviews, we were once again offered indicia of Anunnaki political, economic, religious and military influence and control as patterns of events, intervening sociopolitical and socioeconomic infrastructures specific to these patterns, hints of a who’s who of Anunnaki leadership and follower cadres as recurrent membership of often interlocking boards of directors, boards of regents, and boards of trustees of organizations and companies in the USA, Europe, Asia, Africa and Middle East. We were also given hints of the “sub-rosa level of influence” (Nine 2006) as indications of the secret or occult groups serving as conduits for downward information and tasking conveyance and as upward conveyors of intelligence and counter-intelligence information within their specific organizational focus, membership ranks and reach.
         
    In the next section, we will explore the hints given, the indicia generated, and the patterns found.  Hints:

         In the course of searching the literature and the internet on topics mentioned above, we came across unexpected pearls and some surprisingly candid exposes of information sets that were also mentioned to us by informants orally. While the SCI/project umbrella is still classified,5 we have come across information which, when correlated with informant data, have clarified much of our initial indicia of Anunnaki influence and control patterns, their infrastructures, and their follower cadres. Also early on in 2001 (before 9-11) as we tried to grasp the extent and qualitative characteristics of Anunnaki influence and control, we made the mistake of thinking like Earthbound exopolitical analysts. We thought in terms of what they were doing to us and what effect this had on human governance, security, political, economic, religious and military affairs. Our shift in perspective came about slowly over time, and mostly thanks to the insightful and thoughtful explanations and discussions held with Informant Nine.

    This individual kept insisting that we look at them as being the driving force – the source of powerful appeal to the baser instincts and ego drives in human beings who willingly consent to being co-opted into “the team” by promises and bestowals of wealth, power, influence, sexual favors, control, access to resources, membership in socioeconomic spheres of likeminded and like-disposed men and women, establishment of circles of a cult-of-personality centered upon he who says he is the King of the kings of the world, and elevation of position by control of rewards upon blind obedience and loyalty to the vector from which rewards come. As we so did, it became easier to understand how Anunnaki influence and control was applied and exerted at all levels of the political/economic/military/religious/security/governance grid in the United States and the USA/transnational network.

         As we gained awareness of the extent of Anunnaki penetration of the political, economic, social, religious, military, security and governance circles on Earth, we also came to the tentative conclusion that to understand their power and influence (both exerted over those whom they control, and projected through third party loyalists and minions) we needed to take hints of things from two perspectives: from the Anunnaki leader’s Council of Twelve on Earth (which reportedly does not include any Earth humans) and from the viewpoints of each of the ten “kings of Earth” formalized by the Anunnaki in the last sixty or seventy years.
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9574
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: Meticulous Analysis of the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:30 am

    This is a continuation of the previous post. Please notice the names Marduk and Ra. Are they really the same individual?? Might they be the Ancient Egyptian Deity I keep referring to?? Carefully studying these two posts might make it more difficult to laugh at me!! The individual who looked me in the eye, and said "I AM RA!!" might've been an agent or a crackpot, but they sure seemed to play the part extremely well (based upon my limited research and experience). I played along, without committing to anything (such as signing on the dotted line). I've recently encountered some very rude individuals, who obviously knew about my internet-posting. I recently saw an Individual of Interest, and they watched me from a distance, but we didn't converse. If all-else fails, try the following Minimal-List:

    1. The 'NIV Reader's Bible' (without chapter and verse numbering) straight-through, over and over.

    2. The 'SDA Bible Commentary' (Volume 4 covering Isaiah to Malachi) straight-through, over and over.

    3. The 'Music of Dietrich Buxtehude' (while reading all of the above).


    Anunnaki
     
         Informants were often quizzed about Anunnaki and their organization. In this regard, we received two hints from more than one informant, phrased in similar fashion. Here we italicized the operative terms:

         One: How are they organized and ranked? Follow the leader and decipher the pair constellation order.

         Two: Who of the early ones is the top dog now? The Man from the Gateway.

         These hints led us to the tentative conclusion that the man from the gateway (Babili or Gateway of the Gods) was the leader – none other than MAR.DUK. (son of the bright mound). This then meant the pair constellation referred to him, members of his immediate family, and their wives. We knew then that the active ones on the surface were MAR.DUK., GI.BIL. (a son of MAR.DUK.), and NA.BU. (the leader’s oldest son). We also knew from Sitchin that MAR.DUK’s official consort was ZAR.PA.NIT., but we have not had confirmation as to who the official consorts of the sons are. This information was corroborated by that obtained by the senior author from C. L. Turnage in the late 1990s (Turnage 1998, personal communication). Then, in 2003, the junior author met Informant Six, who had mentioned an additional name in reference to a November 2003 meeting at Homestead AFB as being an Anunnaki in leadership position: NUS.KUM. (official consort unknown). So the Earthbound Anunnaki Council of Twelve (or governing council) nomenklatura is most probably composed as shown below.
         
    Table 1 – Probable membership and ranking order of Earthbound Anunnaki

    Council of Twelve Membership
    Male   Order    Female  Order

    Marduk  60    Zarpanit  55
    Nabu   50    Unknown  45
    Gibil   40    Unknown  35
    Unknown  30    Unknown  25
    Unknown  20    Unknown  15
    Nuskum  10    Unknown   5

         We found the ranking order of great interest and some surprise, in part confirming what we had already suspected: Marduk’s sin against the Kingdom includes pretension to the throne of Earth (as King of Kings) and Heaven (as King of NI.BI.RU. as well). The rank order of 60, according to Sitchin (confirmed to us by Turnage) belongs to the King of NI.BI.RU. only. By awarding himself the rank of 60, Marduk signals that he is also king of the incoming planet. The surprise in the council was the presence of Nuskum, a majordomo and servant of the EN.LIL while the latter was still on Earth through approximately 700 BCE.

         The supreme leader, a title used by more than one informant in reference to the Anunnaki leader, has quite apparently established a cult-of-personality leadership style, wherein Council of Twelve power resides in an imperial leader (Turnage, personal communication, 1998), not in the more collegial, consensus-centered style ascribed to the internal politics of the Anunnaki Kingdom’s court and governing body (Sitchin 1976, 1990). We also received indications that both NA.BU. and GI.BIL. function with powers of ministers with portfolios, though we do not have any information on function for each of them at this time. And we also received oblique confirmation that NER.GAL. nor NIN.GISH.ZI.DA., kin brothers both to MAR.DUK. are patently absent from any leadership roles in the earthly Council. If this is correct, it can only be due to their reported cementing of allegiance and relationship to and with the King – purportedly to be none other than NAN.NAR., the man who had been in charge of UR. (Turnage personal communication 1998). This latter indication raises the expectation that MAR.DUK., himself not a scientist, must depend on human minions for much of the purported biotechnological ventures embarked on by earthly humans for and on his behalf. Besides reported contacts with humans at loyalty sessions6 said to be carried out on American military bases (Army and Air Force), we could not find any indications of actual, direct contacts between Anunnaki leadership and human loyalists – except in the scientific field, where several informants have given us information on the presence of Anunnaki at underground installations and laboratories on the U.S. mainland (Informant Nine, Ten, and Eleven) and on certain military bases (Informant Nine, Six, and Five).

         So how, then, would Anunnaki and humans interface in the pursuit of programs said to have been laid out by the Anunnaki supreme leader, for and on whose behalf humans worked and served at the apparent pleasure and dispensation from the latter? Again, hints helped very much in guiding our decipherments. We asked questions of informants who had provided us with information before. However, replies to our questions were not given at the time of the meeting in which they were asked. They would come on the next time we’d meet.

         Q.   How do Anunnaki have humans organized?
         A.   Follow the toes of Daniel and the hills of the last book.

         Toes? Hills? Last book? We wrestled with this hint for nearly nine months, before running into a truck driver at a truck stop restaurant in Casa Grande, Arizona, on a research trip to Texas. We were having lunch, as we met Robert – a driver who was then “a part time road preacher and former black sheep.” We talked about many things, and we shared with him about our Journal of End Time Studies project. He, in turn, told us about several pastors well versed on the book of revelation, and turned us on to a series of books by a man from Ohio, Larry Wilson. So we took a chance and asked Robert to decipher the meaning of the hint, without telling him what or why we were asking. It was child’s play to him. He immediately told us it referred to the “10 toes of Daniel’ or “kings of the world” who appear before the rise of the “lawless one,” and the seven oros (Greek) or hills of Revelation, representing the seven religions of the world. With this piece in place, we took on the next hint – which was a follow on the one before.,How is this organization delivering on Anunnaki program(s) designed to bring about their bidding? Each king is a shepherd and a center of its own constellation.
         
    Probable metaorganization of earthbound Anunnaki influence/control

    Help came on this one in the form of a series of conference call phone conversations with three of our informants (Five, Six, and Nine) in early 2006. We asked in the course of the second one the very question above, and were made aware that we must first ask ourselves what the Anunnaki bidding (i.e., programs) were, and only then look at how a “king” and its constellation are organized to bring about the objectives of the group(s) under him. As we shall see, at the end we will have to deal with three exopolitical perspectives: the Earthbound Anunnaki(kisam), the Kingdom Anunnaki(Useanesda), and ours as a species or biokind. We started deciphering what the metaorganization of the Anunnaki phenomenon is to gain some understanding of their objectives and plans. Figure 2 helped us to graphically think about the interrelationships among the parts of the whole.

         Informant Eleven (2006) and Informant Nine (2005, 2006) were our conduits for the hints, so we went back to them for decipherment of their meaning. The result is information graphically represented in Figure 2. Our present understanding of the emerging picture in this regard centers around a kind of “nested double wheel” metastructure that combines Earthbound Anunnaki and a group of ten power centers each headed by one human who then is said to sit on a grand council whose leader is reported to have direct contact with the Council of Twelve – and quite possibly the self-appointed King of kings himself (i.e., Marduk). The emerging construct presented some problems at the time. One consisted of what were the power centers referred to by Eleven and Nine. The other was the geographic (or GPS) location of these groups on Earth surface.

         Power Centers    

         Nine asked that we look at what is happening in the world today and follow the seeming conflagration of conflicts and discern the forces operating sub-rosa (i.e., below the surface). Conflict, we were warned, would not necessarily mean war, as in armed conflict. Instead, conflict (or more properly, a drama of control and hegemony) was said to be dramatized confrontation of forces or vectors with a specific target audience or audiences, procuring a sociopolitical response often involving fear. In other words, “look for the groups and countries you are told to fear, for whatever reason” (Nine 2005), and “the bloodless political dramas that look more like saber rattling than armed skirmishes” (Eleven 2006), “ask yourselves, for whose benefit is this drama being staged and what are the benefits for the drama producers” (Nine 2006).

         In the course of our analysis, we were able to identify to our satisfaction ten such power centers: the American/NATO group, the Russia/mafia group, the Japan, Inc. group, the China, Inc. group7, the OPEC group, the Cartel/Triads councils group, the supply margin economic/political groups in Latin America and Africa headed by Brazil (Latin America) and South Africa (Africa), the seven members of the ecumenical community led by the Roman Pope, the two trigger states, Iran and North Korea (as a wild card group), and the economic/political group known as the G-8.8 What do they all have in common? Eleven (2006) and Nine (2006) put it in perspective for us.

         “When you look at the G-8 and include the China issue in the mix, examine the way in which the G-20 and the G-8 work together. Take a closer look at who are the people involved at these levels, and then have a good look at who is involved in the so-called 300 Committee, and you may see some of the same names. Then look at the composition of some of the major corporate entities from these countries and see who serves as ‘consultants’ to the delegations – sometimes as outright delegation members of these countries – and you’ll see how the grid is formed” (Nine 2006). “But what you call the grid is not just political or economic as state entities coming together. There are also what those on the outside would regard as ‘marginalized’ power groups, which are not marginal at all. These are the Vatican and the Cartel/Triad groups, who also sit in as ‘observers’ in some of the meetings of the G-8 and G-20 sessions. They’re all in it together!” (Eleven 2006). So we started looking into these groups mentioned by our informants.
     
    Pyramidal information flow and command/control strategic arrangement of each power center for the fulfillment of Anunnaki exopolitical objectives

    On the internet, our first visit was to the Project for the Exposure of Hidden Institutions (PEHI). http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/index.html There are hundreds of institutes, centers, institutions and groups painstakingly listed and described by Joel van der Reijden. jvdr04@planet.nl We began to follow Joel’s research, with the intent of piecing together a correlated list of members. But the more we reviewed available indicia from Joel’s website, as well as the myriad of links he provides curious readers, it became evident that the collection of hidden institutes, centers, institutions and groups whose members are varied by nationality, background, religious orientations and affiliations, level of wealth, and circles of enfranchisement (i.e., the sphere of influence in which each becomes a part of this seemingly seamless web) was neither monolithic nor devoid of disagreements and infighting. But the tone is set from above and not dictated by self-interests of the membership of hidden institutions, according to Nine. The PEHI website articles offer several examples of how this takes place.
         
    Who, then, are the penultimate puppet masters, to borrow a van der Reijden term, and what are the layers to the top?
         
    If we are to take Nine seriously, each of the ten “kings” are the pinnacle of what must be a human pyramidal hierarchy of information flow (intelligence going upward) and command/control (policies and directives going downward). Furthermore, the logical extension of this metastructure would indicate that the same pyramidal information flow/command and control arrangement applies to each of the ten power center “kings.” What would each one of the pyramids be like? Our understanding of what each must perform is represented in Figure 3, suggested by van der Reijden’s interpretation of information flow and event-response strategic structure he refers to as “the globalist movement and secret knowledge”. See http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/index.html

    Each power center then organizes itself by establishing a centralized decision-making group at the top, a network of organizations interlinked vertically to the controlling group and horizontally to the operational networks of other power centers, military/special operations/intelligence networks set up for enforcement of organizational network policies and decisions coming down from the control group at the top, and action groups to intervene in ordinary international politics (whose involvement in such political activities reflect extreme consonance with the exopolitical interests and operational objectives of the action sphere of the power center). Nine and Ten, on one occasion, pointed out to us that “the connection between groups happens at all levels and all the time, like a hive that looks out for some invisible queen” (Nine 2006). “And all of these people seem to work out of a single position paper that is damn near always the script for the framing of whatever situation or crisis that comes down the pike. It is also something of a blueprint for policies that seemed to me to cut across a wide swath of organizations, not just here (U.S.) but also internationally” (Ten 2006). So where did this coordination and centralized policy making emanate from?

         We had heard of certain people who had been referred to by these two informants as the Olympians. Not until running across the information gathered, collated and analyzed by Joel van der Reijden, a former intelligence officer with the Dutch intelligence service, did we make the connection with the 300 Committee – the seeming human pinnacle of the invisible pyramid we’d been constructing to gain some understanding of how the earthbound Anunnaki could be exercising command and control without disclosing their physical presence and their exopolitical objectives. Our main source on this group comes from John Coleman’s book, Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 (Coleman 1992). But we also took pains to research clearly significant aspects of his book we found pertinent to the pattern of influence, control and reshaping of the world’s major national military powers by the Tavistock Institute’s programs and policies largely driven by what Coleman refers to as the 300 Committee.

    We quietly researched indicia on the connection between these groups, the free-masons (Scottish Rite) and the Anunnaki Ningishzidda. From several groups across the United States, we found indications (in conversations involving tertiary sources) that such secret societies indeed work as a sub-rosa intelligence service controlled by “an ever widening and quite convoluted grouping of 33rd degree Masonic groups beholden to East Coast and European organizations nobody’s heard about” (Nine 2006 and additional tertiary sources). Who is the god to which these people direct their entreaties? None other than to the Hermes (Ningishzidda) of Egyptian lore. And yet, our intelligence on this particular Anunnaki indicates that he had changed sides, now said to be in service to the rightful Anunnaki King, Nannar (Turnage 1997, personal communication to the senior author; Nine 2005; tertiary sources). Is this patent disinformation on the part of Masonic leaders to their own? Or a ruse whereby the claim to subordination of an important figure, such as Ningishzidda, to the will and purpose of the supreme Earthbound Anunnaki leader a part of his plan? It is known that he had the Babylonian Enuma Elish rewritten to suit his purposes (see Sitchin 1985). Is this another rewrite of history to claim his own brother as being in his rank and file, thereby counting on Ningishzidda’s technological and scientific prowess? This remains a mystery as of this writing.

         The Olympians, nevertheless, remain at the top of the pyramidal metastructure of Anunnaki influence, control and command of earthly minion international organizations and institutions. The work of the PEHI and van der Reijden indicates this to be so. As to what are the policies, purposes and objectives of each of the “kings” and the 300 Committee is beyond the scope of this essay. Work in this area continues, and will be reported in future essays.
         
    Locations on Earth

           The other problem presented by our emerging construct lay in the location of these power centers and, in particular, the central command-and-control center for the Anunnaki leadership on Earth. At the outset, in 2001, we started by looking at each of the geographic locations commonly associated with each of the centers. We then focused on the probable main metropolitan centers where identifiable headquarters were located. And finally we simply realized the interconnections of each of the organizations at each of the levels (see Figure 3) defied mere geographic positioning. Therefore, we began to focus on the probable location(s) of the earthbound Anunnaki on the Earth. Indicia received in information from Informants One, Three and Four (2005, 2006) led us to Puerto Rico and the Ngongoro region of the Great Rift Valley, in the Serengeti National Park of Tanzania, Africa (see Maps 1, blue circle, and Map 2 red circle). While on the road in the USA, both of us had chances to set up meetings with four former special operations personnel who, according to Three and Four, had served in Tanzania (along with British SAS team) protecting a “highly classified underground compound” located in the area.

    Each of these men was, at the time of our individual meetings with each of them, an owner-operator truck driver. All of them, independently of each other, confirmed for us that there was Anunnaki presence in the area, including craft activity. Only one of them reported to have had a chance to “go down the chute to the platform level.” These men also confirmed that there was occasional military activity brought against the compound by “forces that were part of the local war between Rwandan, Congolese and Tanzanian groups, with us usually as the prize for the victor. But they didn’t count of about 300 well armed, well trained Americans and Brits manning the perimeter.” The period was said to be “in the mid- to late ‘80s.” With regard to Puerto Rico, we were not able to confirm any of the reports received concerning the El Yunque region, near the U.S. naval base at Roosevelt Roads, in northeast Puerto Rico – except for a number of confirmed “disappearances” of people in the Experimental Forest area near the naval base, and the unusual number of albinos in the area.

    IV.  PROBABLE EXOPOLITICAL BASIS FOR ANUNNAKI EARTHBOUND POLICIES

         Finally, our review of the literary revealed to us a paucity of serious discussion about Anunnaki penetration of earthly political, economic, military, religious, social and intelligence structures. To us, the main concern about aliens on Earth seemed to be the presence of multiple groups whose origin, biologic typing, biophysical characteristics, and exopolitical objectives spanned a wide range of issues, most of them given mythical, speculative and hypothetical treatments. As to the Anunnaki, Sitchin’s last Earthbound Anunnaki book pertinent to our understanding of the basis for their policies in these End Times came out in 1998. Of all of his books, only a portion of the last chapter of his Genesis Revisited  (Sitchin 1990) is useful in the decipherment of possible and probable exopolitical Anunnaki Earthbound policies. Why is it? Was he approached by elements from the grid we are suggesting in this essay and told to not go any further regarding the Anunnaki presence on Earth in the late 20th century? It is quite possible, as we have sent emails to his son Eric concerning these questions but have yet to receive replies.

    So, in the absence of any public domain documentation focusing directly on our final concern in this essay, we are again forced to piece together what we consider to be an educated, albeit speculative, mosaic of probable policies for the Earthbound Anunnaki – in particular, for Marduk who, as Turnage (1998, personal communication) had once said, “must now once again face his real nemesis, Nannar, and not just the King’s warrior, Ninurta.” What, then, would be driving Earthbound Anunnaki policies implemented and enforced by the subservient, sub-rosa metastructure of networks at Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4, as identified in Figure 3? And, specifically, why these policies? In considering these questions, we must walk in their moccasins to grasp the circumstances driving his (and their) choices; we also have to take into consideration the probable policies and imperatives of the incoming Kingdom. And last, but definitely not least, we must examine the probable scenarios which will evolve as consequences of present course of events and current levels of control and influence over the population of the planet by the aforementioned grid. The last two sets are beyond the scope of this essay. Future essays are planned by the authors to examine questions concerning the probable Kingdom’s objectives and the choices we face in the next 50 to 100 years.

         Probable Scope of Earthbound Anunnaki Exopolitical Policies

         We share, with others, that the driving force behind probable Anunnaki policies in the 21st century is Marduk, and his bipolar objectives: to increase his numbers, and to delay the inevitable confrontation with the newly appointed EN.KI-equivalent returning on the incoming (One 2004, Two 2004, Nine 2005, Eleven 2006). Our current intelligence on Marduk is that he is what could best be described as a generalist in terms of education and training originally conducted by his father, the EN.KI., while in Egypt quite probably during the first two Anunnaki (or divine) pharaohs (Pta [the EN.KI. himself] and Ra [Marduk]).

         Lacking the profound knowledge of the Tree of Life (consisting of biology, biotechnology and bioenergetics) given by the EN.KI. to Ningishzidda, Marduk very likely had to do with what biotechnical wherewithal he could find among his rank and file to advance his cause on Earth. What would be his primary concern vis-à-vis the forces of the incoming Kingdom? Numbers! More specifically, the number of Anunnaki in his ranks. Tactically and strategically speaking, we suspect that he is realizing, or has arrived at, a limitation of range and reach, given the Anunnaki numbers (reportedly to be in the 330 range) available under his command. We know from tertiary sources who once served in special operations of high above black SCIs that Anunnaki targets had been sanctioned in the past, and more than one had perished at the cross hair of snipers of unknown source control. So it is not surprising to learn they now work in pairs, whenever appearing in the open (e.g., US military installations), nor unexpected to learn that the Department of Defense is implementing plans to increase the number of special operation forces and placing them under a centralized command structure (though the reasons circulated had to do with the new definition of the new model of a more “highly mobile and responsive force” reportedly being pushed currently by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.

    An Outline of the Probable Consequences of the “Increased Numbers” Anunnaki Priority

         When we learned from One, Two, Nine, and Eleven that Marduk and his Anunnaki cohort considered increasing their numbers on Earth, we asked ourselves what policies and programs would this translate into, and what would be the consequences to humankind from our collective viewpoint. Furthermore, what weaponry would come off from their push of this priority upon their minions?

         As we proceeded with our reasoning, we also asked ourselves just what would be reasons powerful enough for Marduk to invest time, resources and political capital in developing the means to increase Anunnaki numbers loyal to him on Earth. We undertook the “walk in his moccasins” exercise we devised for the occasion, and began to look at the exopolitical landscape from his point of view. The man sits atop a highly volatile network of organizations that must require expenditure of time, manipulation, control, command and sensitivity to real-time intelligence to maintain hegemony over ten satraps. In spite of his millennia of experience with lulu (human) shepherds, there is the inescapable reality of normal, traditional political manipulation and cajoling to get his program underway and moving forward on target.

    This would mean a rather complex and hierarchical system of rewards and punishments based on fear, retribution, regal attention, and access. It would also mean a system of gatekeepers and consequence managers, who would implicitly carry out the supreme leader’s will and programs, unquestioningly and faithfully. This, we now have strong reasons to believe, is the primary function of his so-called “kings of the world.” In this regard, there is also a considerable ego-factor which, according to Nine and Eleven, would allow him to eventually crown himself King of kings.9

         As we began to explore this issue, we realized that besides their reduced numbers, the Earthbound Anunnaki faced a corollary problem: too many lulus on Earth! If the EN.LIL (lord of the command) made the decision in council not to make humans aware of the impending flood some 12,800 years ago (Sitchin 1976, 1990; Allan and Delair 1997, 1994), the excess human population on Earth in these end times would have to be disposed of by other means – war, pestilence, hunger, disease, drugs, etc. Even a cursory review of van der Reijden’s work shows that many of the organizations listed by him as being engaged in sub-rosa work are devoted to the destabilization and self-destruction of institutions, duly constituted governments, and entire peoples of Earth.

    In itself, this constitutes another complex field of study, and would therefore be beyond the scope of our present essay. Suffice it say that this appears to be, indeed, a working aspect of the tasks entrusted to the Anunnaki network of minion organizations. Again, this appears to be carried within a framework of complete, plausible deniability for Marduk and his Council of Twelve who, when the time arrives for him to make his appearance on Earth will afford him a relatively pristine PR image – one which, we suspect, he will make use in advancing his anticipated program of complete domination of all aspects of life, limb and survival on Earth, if we are to take the prophecies in Daniel and Revelations as true which, we might add, we do.
         
    Where do these policies leave us, biokind of the Earth panspermed by Anunnaki some 250,000 years ago? Obviously, an institutional response to the situation generated by these interpretations of Anunnaki influence and policies is out of the question, as the institutions which govern and order our lives are eminently penetrated and controlled by the very vectors we see are out to destroy us. Therefore, we suggest our response sets need to be extrainstitutional and more formless and decentralized but thoroughly integrated. Perhaps Al-Qaida could teach us a thing or two. This is not to say we suggest open and direct action against the institutions and organizations our indicia are showing to be associated with Anunnaki priorities and programs. Does that mean we also need a Bin Ladin-like leader, whose ethereal nature makes him a moving target hard to hit? No, not at all. And we are also not suggesting it.

         What we are suggesting is not a war or even resistance to Marduk or those who carry out his plans and objectives. This would be, indeed, futile (to borrow a phrase from Roddenberry and his Star Trek Next Generation paradigm). What we are suggesting, instead, is the development of a network of canton-like like-minded and like-disposed peoples who accept, realize, choose to, and develop means to open themselves to possibilities. We know The Kingdom is coming back, and The Kingdom and humankind are bound to each other by genetic makeup and past, some of which must be unlearned and undone in the present so that a peaceful future could be possible for both – them and us.

         One of our first tasks would be to figure out what is it they expect from us upon extra-institutional contact, and what are the positions and past events we need unlearned and undone so we, too, may be free to move onward and upward in a renewed and completely reconceptualized view of ourselves with them and with the galactic community (of which more than one of our informants tell us there are nearly 120 life forms in our vicinity). Then there is the matter of the dedicated human said to be returning with them, who is to assume the combined offices of EN.KI. and EN.LIL. as First Lord of Earth – or something like that – in some kind of direct democracy. It would be nice to know what his sixty epithet names will be; this will tell us a great deal of what to expect from what he is to offer to the remnant humankind left after the forecast defeat and imprisonment of Marduk, following some final confrontation of forces prophesied in biblical sources.

         All of the preceding would require of us that we change our views of what is to come and face them, not in religious or doctrinal ways, but rather in well-informed and thoughtful exopolitical and scriptural ways. Why scriptural as well? We also need to know what is required of us in the dedicated human’s program for a post-Marduk Earth. We contend it is not an accident that much of what written patrimony left to us has been altered and in some cases changed completely to suit doctrinal and institutional hegemonies and power. We are also not suggesting a naive, Pollyanna-like worldview of what is to come; quite the contrary, we suggest we must become informed not just about Marduk and his program, but also about The Kingdom and the dedicated human’s paradigm of an Earth seemingly patterned after what NI.BI.RU. sees working for them. Will it also work for us? We are not suggesting it will not. We are asking that we begin a dialogue on these two seemingly diametrically opposed options, and learn what we may already know deep within us all what is best for us.

    ENDNOTES

    1  After much debate between us, we settled on identifying them by number in the sequence in which we came in contact with them and were able to complete the vetting of their bona fides.

    2  The eleven informants we were able to cultivate throughout the last six years are former civilian and military officers, ten of which were vetted by us through active people with appropriate and necessary clearance levels still in government, and known to the authors. We were not able to obtain complete and unassailable vetting of the qualifications and service record of one of them, and this individual is identified as so in the text. Informant One worked in the White House at and around the time of the alleged “contact” through outside assets concerning the ones who are coming; this individual communicated with us through a third party unknown to us, and displayed considerable knowledge of tradecraft. Informant Two was a technically training individual who also worked in the White House at or around the time of the first meeting with the people from the incoming; we received word earlier this year of his demise due to natural causes.

    Informant Three was a scientist type who alleged to work for what he would only identify as “the directorate,” which we later on deciphered to refer to the interagency directorate mentioned by other informants; we were able to establish that he held a high clearance with the appropriate SCIs, but could not establish who he worked for either in the White House or at the Executive Office Building; thus, we considered this individual as our only not fully vetted informant.  Informant Four was a former high ranking military officer who was assigned for a good part of the late ‘70s and most of the ‘80s in various roles associated with the interagency directorate; we believe this individual to be a scientist-administrator, who displayed extensive knowledge of subjects of interest to us. Informant Five was a military officer in some kind of staff position in the Pentagon, quite possibly midlevel in rank but attached to a high ranking officer with access to information. This individual displayed unusual knowledge the exopolitical activities associated with USG handling of the incoming and the presence of those who are here concerning events which occurred in the ‘80s and early ‘90s. We have sufficient reasons to believe this person was a political assessment officer of some kind, and although at the Pentagon, his vetting indicated detachment to the lead agencies in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s.

    Informant Six and Informant Nine were also military officers during the same period as Informant Five, and quite possibly knew each other, or knew of each other. Both held higher ranks (quite possibly lieutenant colonels or higher) at the time. Six is known to us to have served both at the EOB and the WH subfloor, while Nine is known to have served at the WH and the NGA. Informant Seven and Informant Eight were both military and civilians during their careers; their vetting indicates both to have served in intelligence services. As military officers, Informant Seven and Informant Eight were noncommissioned officers in staff positions at very high levels in both of the lead agencies of interest to us. One of them (Informant Seven) had a scientific background (MS in a highly technical area). Informant Ten and Informant Eleven were scientists attached (as on site consultants on sabbatical, in one case, and as full time consultant, in the other) to various SCI/SARs, projects. In one case (Informant Eleven), the individual served in several projects, and on different time periods in the same project. 3

    Albinos have always been objects of superstition and wonder because of their spectacular appearance and rarity in nature. To the Indian tribes of the Great Plains, a white buffalo was a sacred beast regarded as the special property of the Sun [Sumerian god Utu/Shamash]. "Albino" is the name originally given by Portuguese explorers to "white" Negroes they saw in West Africa. Since then it also has come to mean an individual, of any species of living thing, which lacks the pigments that other members of its race normally have. Albinos occur among all races of men, almost all species of domestic animals, and a wide variety of wild species. Technically speaking, the word "albinism" refers to a group of inherited conditions. People with albinism have little or no pigment in their eyes, skin, or hair. They have inherited genes that do not make the usual amounts of a pigment called melanin.  Recent research has used analysis of DNA, the chemical that encodes genetic information, to arrive at a more firm classification system for albinism.

    Type 1 albinism (also called tyrosinase-related albinism) is the type involving almost no pigmentation. Type 1 albinism results from a genetic defect in an enzyme called tyrosinase. This enzyme helps the body to change the amino acid tyrosine into pigment. (An amino acid is a "building block" of protein, and comes from protein in the diet.) Type 2, a type with slight pigmentation, results from a defect in a different gene called the "P" gene. For more information on albinism in all five human genetic groupings, see The National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation (NOAH) by visiting their website. http://www.albinism.org 4  

    We asked each and every one of these men at the every outset of our relationship with them why were they talking to us about matters obviously highly classified. The most common theme to the replies we received was that matters were getting out of hand. Perhaps Nine put it best. “You know, there’s roughly 350 or 400 of them down here [in reference to the Earthbound Anunnaki] but we treat the whole thing as though there are 350 or 400 divisions on the ground. We’re plain scared of these people, and I for one fail to see the basis for it. Sure. . . they are certainly more technologically advanced than us, have a higher cellular electrical capacitance, and they know how to use this to their advantage, supported by technology. But, in the very end, they put their pants on just like we do, they bleed just like we do, and they can be taken out and can die just like we do.

    But eliminating them all won’t solve the problem for us, because their like-kind are on the home planet, and we still have to deal with them as well. So why not let them deal with their issues, and we decide what is best for our kind. Yeah, I know this sounds simplistic but there is one thing that I’d heard [one of them] say to us last year that really stuck with me. He said, and I quote, ‘we will be in a zone of time that will soon make governments irrelevant and immaterial, because each and every [person] will have to choose and stand fast to be counted, or join in,’ or something to that effect. They have a kind of polymind, if I can coin a term here. By that I mean, they all share mind at will – thoughts, feelings and images, I believe. This, to me, is what makes them superior to us at the moment. We just haven’t figured out yet how to do that, even when they tell us it is in our genes already.” 5 The umbrella project informants referred to as Astro appears to be a huge TS/SCI/SAR cluster of operational projects, ranging from Earthbound TS/SCIs to off-world black-budget military/economic projects.

    The most amazing aspect of the coincidence of pertinent internet and information derived through informant communication is the seeming accuracy of what is already in the public domain, albeit marginalized. Establishing reliability for both is, of course, quite another matter. If we were to use Salla’s (2003) classification for evaluating the validity and reliability of information sources, their testimony (if testimony is what they rendered) would fall into the unidentified whistleblower and witness report categories. These are people who, often and repeatedly, were at sites, places and events they talked about, seen and heard people close up and personal at the circles of power, and had one or more opportunities to be in the presence of Earthbound Anunnaki. Those who did could even tell the difference between those who are here and those who are coming by the feel of their presence, the experience of their emotional signatures imprinted on their skin. Still, regardless of the validity and reliability trust coefficient we may place on their words, the value of what they have told us lies, in the words of Informant Nine, “in the conceptual doors and new landscapes people like me open for those who are outside trying to look in and understand what is being done behind the veil of fear we all lived in when I was still inside.” 6  

    These were sessions usually held on military bases and reservations, designed to entice and attract former military and intelligence officers into coming in to take loyalty oaths to the Anunnaki supreme leader, and reject any connection to The Kingdom. Most of our informants (except Three) have made mention of them. These sessions are said to be continuing, and do take place at unspecified intervals. 7  The issue of China's proper relationship with, or even prospective place in, the G7/8 has been a prominent feature of the debate over reform of the Summit process launched by the end of the European cold war during the past decade. Amidst the rich array or opinions featured in this debate, three broad schools of thought about China have dominated. The first treats China as an outside object, neither worthy of greater inclusion nor a country bringing valuable assets into the G7/8. The second considers China to be a valuable associate, with more formalized links to the G7/8 bringing net advantages to both. The third judges China to be a legitimate member, particularly after Russia's admission, of some if not all of the G7/8 institutions. For an enlightening treatment of China’s place in the G-8, see Kirton, J. The G-7 and China in the management of the international financial system. G-8 Scholarly Publications & Papers, G-8 Information Centre, University of Toronto, 1999. http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/scholar/kirton199903/china2.htm 8  

    “Since 1975, the heads of state or government of the major industrial democracies have been meeting annually to deal with the major economic and political issues facing their domestic societies and the international community as a whole. The six countries at the first summit, held at Rambouillet, France, in November 1975, were France, the United States, Britain, Germany, Japan and Italy (sometimes referred to as the G6). They were joined by Canada at the San Juan Summit of 1976 in Puerto Rico, and by the European Community at the London Summit of 1977. From then on, membership in the Group of Seven, or G7, was fixed, although 15 developing countries' leaders met with the G7 leaders on the eve of the 1989 Paris Summit, and the USSR and then Russia participated in a post-summit dialogue with the G7 since 1991. Starting with the 1994 Naples Summit, the G7 met with Russia at each summit (referred to as the P8 or Political Eight). The Denver Summit of the Eight was a milestone, marking full Russian participation in all but financial and certain economic discussions; and the 1998 Birmingham Summit saw full Russian participation, giving birth to the Group of Eight, or G8 (although the G7 continued to function along side the formal summits). At the Kananaskis Summit in Canada in 2002, it was announced that Russia would host the G8 Summit in 2006, thus completing its process of becoming a full member.

    The G7/8 Summit has consistently dealt with macroeconomic management, international trade, and relations with developing countries. Questions of East-West economic relations, energy, and terrorism have also been of recurrent concern. From this initial foundation the summit agenda has broadened considerably to include microeconomic issues such as employment and the information highway, transnational issues such as the environment, crime and drugs, and a host of political-security issues ranging from human rights through regional security to arms control. In addition, the G7/8 has developed a network of supporting ministerial meetings, which allow ministers to meet regularly throughout the year in order to continue the work set out at each summit; these include the meetings of the finance ministers, foreign ministers and environment ministers, among others. G7/8 ministers and officials also meet on an ad hoc basis to deal with pressing issues, such a terrorism, energy, and development; from time to time the leaders also create task forces or working groups to focus intensively on certain issues of concern, such as a drug-related money laundering, nuclear safety, and transnational organized crime. The G7/8 provides an important occasion for busy leaders to discuss major, often complex international issues, and to develop the personal relations that help them respond in effective collective fashion to sudden crises or shocks. The summit also gives direction to the international community by setting priorities, defining new issues and providing guidance to established international organizations. At times it arrives at decisions that address pressing problems or shape international order more generally.

    The summit members comply modestly with the decisions and consensus generated by and codified at their annual meeting. Compliance is particularly high in regard to agreements on international trade and energy, and on the part of Britain, Canada, and Germany. Summit decisions often create and build international regimes to deal with new international challenges, and catalyze, revitalize and reform existing international institutions. In recognition of its centrality in the process of global governance, the summit has always attracted the attention of thousands of journalists at each leader’s meeting, and of a number of countries seeking admittance to this exclusive and powerful club. It has also become a prime occasion for non-governmental and civil society organizations to advocate on behalf of their concerns. There is a ninth member of both the G7 and G8: the European Union. At the leaders' level, the EU is represented by both the president of the European Commission and the rotating president of the European Council. Other groups are related to the G7/8. The G20 is the Group of Twenty finance ministers and central bank governors, who meet annually. This is different from another G20, often referred to as the G20 developing countries, which is involved in specifically in trade issues relating to the World Trade Organization and does not include any members of the G8. The L20, or Leaders Twenty, is a concept proposing regular meetings of the leaders of 20 countries representing both industrialized and developing countries, similar to the G20.” http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/what_is_g8.html 9

    This aspect of our decipherment of Marduk-related intelligence required us to engage the knowledge base and skills of experienced Bible scholars, which initially we took to mean academic scholars. However, after approximately eighteen months of searching the literature and developing contacts, se settled on two sources which, on the basis of the utility of the information set originating from them, we chose to incorporate and use in our analyses of Marduk’s campaigns. An additional factor, quite important to us, that added to our adoption of product from these sources to our information grid was the rather uncanny similarities in the working hypotheses each of us had been working on independent of one another. The first is Wake Up America Seminars http://www.wake-up.org/daystar/ds2000/DECA.htm operated by Larry Wilson (WUAS Mailing Address: PO Box 273, Bellbrook, OH 45305). Their email address is: wuas@wake-up.org. The second is Patrick Cooke’s organization in Berkeley, CA, The Bible UFO Connection. http://www.bibleufo.com/index.htm  Emails to Patrick should go to comments@bibleufo.com Albeit controversial, both of these men have done exceedingly good work and presented serious students of end time events with useful, thought-provoking information. Both offer Christian-oriented, scripture-based information well anchored in information derived from the books of Daniel and Revelation.

    REFERENCES

    Allan, D. S. and Delair, J. B.  When the Earth nearly died: Compelling evidence of a world cataclysm 11,500 years ago. Gateway Books, 1994.
    Allan, D. S. and Delair, J. B. Cataclysm: Compelling evidence of a cosmic catastrophe in
         9,500  BC. Bear and Co, 1997.
    Benton, M. When life nearly died: The greatest mass extinction of all time. Thames &
         Hudson, NY, 2003.
    Bryant, L. W.  UFO politics at the White House. Invisible College Press, New York, 2002.
    Collins, R. M. and Doty, R. C.  Exempt from disclosure. Peregrine, Vandalia, OH, 2005.
    Colaw, John.  Neil Freer Interview - UFO Disclosure Exclusive. www.ufodisclosure.com/freer2.htm.
    Coleman, J. Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. American West
         Publishers, 1992.
    Corso, P.  The day after Roswell.  Diane Publishing, 1997.
    Dolan, R. M. UFOs and the national security state. Keyhole Publishing, 2000.
    Freer, N.  The alien question: An expanded perspective – A White Paper (www.neilfreer.com),
         undated.
    Freer, N.  God games: What do we do forever?  Book Tree, Escondido, CA, 1998.
    Freer, N.  Breaking the Godspell. Book Tree, Escondido, CA, 1994.
    Good, T. Unearthly disclosure: Conflicting interests in the control of extraterrestrial
         intelligence. Century Publications, London, 2000
    Good, T. Alien bases: The evidence for extraterrestrial colonization of Earth. Arrow, 1999.
    Good, T. Beyond top secret: The worldwide UFO security threat. Sidgwick & Jackson,
         London, 1996.
    Good, T Alien contact: Secret UFO files revealed.  William Morrow, N.Y., 1993.
    Good, T. Above top secret. William Morrow, N.Y., 1988.
    Maccabee, B. S.  UFO/FBI connection: The secret history of the Government’s cover-up.
         Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul, MN, 2000.
    Marrs, J.  Alien agenda.  HarperCollins, N.Y., 1998.
    Ryan, W. & Pittman, W.  Noah’s flood: The new scientific discoveries about the event
         that changed history.  Simon and Schuster, N.Y., 2003.
    Salla, M. E.  The History of Exopolitics: Evolving Political Approaches to UFOs and the
    Extra-terrestrial Hypothesis. Exopolitics Journal 1, 1, 1-17, 2005 (www.exopoliticsinstitute.org/Journal-vol-1-1.htm).
    Salla, M. E. The Need for Exopolitics: Implications of Extraterrestrial Conspiracy Theories for
         Policy Makers & Global Peace. Exopolitics.org, January 20, 2003. Available at
         http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/FairUse#FairUse
    Turnage, C. L.  ETs are on the Moon and Mars: The photographic evidence. Flying Disk
         Publications, 2000.
    Turnage, C. L.  Bible – An extraterrestrial transmission: Is Planet X Planet Heaven?
         Flying Disk Publications, 1997.
    Turnage, C. L.  Personal communication to the senior author, 1997.
    Turnage, C. L.  War in Heaven: The case for a solar system war. Flying Disk Publications,
         1996.
    Sitchin, Z.  The 12th Planet. Avon Books, New York, 1976.
    Sitchin, Z.  The Wars of Gods and Men. Avon Books, New York, 1985.
    Sitchin, Z.  Genesis Revisited. Avon Books, New York, 1990.
    Sitchin, Z.  The Cosmic Code. Avon Books, New York, 1998.
    ___________________________

    ABOUT THE AUTHORS

    A. R. Bordon arborden@foundationreportsinlifephysics.org is a biophysicist, experienced gnosive neurosensor, writer and consultant to a research institute funded by Foundation One and its corporate sponsor. His interests are in bioenergetic human-environment interaction effects, mind/matter interface effects, exobiology, and exopolitics. He leads a team of gnosive researchers dedicated to extension neurosensing (a proprietary method of gnosive research for the accessing) of information cumuli interfaced by physical-gnosive means. He is also one of several scientists working on an evolving Working Model from information derived from this research as an alternative to the Standard Model in physics and cosmology.

    Roy W. Gordon a-c-t-i-o-n_acio@hotmail.com is also a biophysicist. He has served as deputy director of the foundation’s research institute and as manager of several of the institute’s projects. At present, he serves as project manager for two Foundation One programs – physical-gnosive research and futures scenarios. He also serves in the oversight group that manages the public information and upcoming presence projection on the internet of all Foundation activities. He is managing editor of Foundation Reports In Life Physics Online, and an associate editor of the forthcoming Journal of End Time Studies Online.
    orthodoxymoron wrote:This post is out of place, but I just had to make it. The following is a portion of Sherry Shriner's interview with Lilith (as a subset of her interview with the Devil). Sherry could've been just about anyone and/or anything, but I thought she might've revealed some useful forbidden-information. Anyway, what interested me was the brief mention of 'Azazel'. Several years ago, I found an image of 'Azazel' which looked sort of similar to me when I was a teenager (but I might be mistaken, and I hope I am). Lilith claims that Azazel was the second-child of Lucifer and Lilith!! But what if Azazel = O.H. KRLLL = Original Hostage = Omnipotent Highness??!! There's something screwy about the Chain of Command presented throughout the Bible. There's something screwy about Eschatology and especially the Millennium. I Believe, But I Don't Know What I Believe. What if the Whole-Bible Story involves a Very-Ancient Figurative and/or Literal King David, King Solomon, and Queen of Sheba in a sort of 'East of Giza' story which is somewhat similar to the 50's movie 'East of Eden'?? Here's that section of interest:

    https://sherryshriner.blogspot.com/2016/05/interview-with-lillith-ancient-goddess.html

    Sherry - what is the goat? Why does Lucifer have so many different identities?

    Lillith - goat, dragon, snake, reptile...he has a lot of personifications, but he lost his angel looks when he was with Eve, I always used to kid her and tell her she turned him into an ugly monster, but that's when I started learning the craft and taught him how to change forms...the other (fallen) angels that were part of Lucifer's group taught me it, they started showing me stuff, how to manipulate energies and frequencies...

    Sherry - I heard a story that you and Lucifer had a child named Liam and Lucifer tried to basically soul scalp it and take over the babies body...and it blew up...(thus the story of Tammuz) is it true?

    Lillith - the Liam story was true...his name wasn't Liam but it's close enough...

    Sherry - who was Azazael?

    Lillith - Azazael was our second son...

    Lillith - the tall greys were Solomon's, you hit that one on the head...I used to go down and *uck him all the time...he was so easy...and he was handsome...I wanted to have kids with him so he was easy...


    When I made a benign comment about 'Tall Long-Nosed Greys' 'RA' called me a "Commoner"!! I'll let you figure this one out!! That's all I'm going to say (for now). I think I've already said way too-much. The Horror.


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9574
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: Meticulous Analysis of the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:18 am



    Here is the October 6 analysis of Page 6 of USSS Book Seven. It's sort of random and weird, but I like it that way!! http://mistsofavalon.catsboard.com/t9723p125-the-united-states-of-the-solar-system-a-d-2133-book-seven-and-the-seven-seals Imagine the Buxtehude Praeludium BuxWV 149 organ piece (below) being played on the organ in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine (below) with the pedal-part on the State Trumpet!! En Chamade Trompettes Rock!! Ask the organist to demonstrate!! Tell him or her that Orthodoxymoron sent you!! Have the organist play BuxWV 218!! Post them on YouTube!! Go for Baroque!!









    A few hours after I posted the images, a man wearing a black-hat identical to the one in the top-image conversed with me about his service in the Viet-Nam War in the late-sixties. The black-hat had realistic-looking pins (such as 'Airborne') but I didn't make the connection with what I had just posted. My internet-stuff is mostly passively and non-passionately done, and I tend to forget it rather quickly. Anyway, this man was quite articulate and animated, but I don't wish to discuss any details. I asked about several war-movies, and this otherwise articulate man didn't seem to know much about them, which surprised me. Was I dealing with yet-another 'Individual of Interest' (or the same one in a different form)?? Nothing would surprise me at this point. I'm sort of stunned and numb, which makes me next to worthless. Still, I'll probably just keep doing what I'm doing, and gradually change my editorial-bias as I embrace and experience 'Righteousness by Senility' (or something to that effect). Please remember that I'm a 'Smart@$$ at the Back of the Deep-Underground Military-Base Conference-Room' Kind of Guy (or something to that effect). I'm not a 'Rough and Ready Frontline-Combatant' (or something to that effect). 'RA' said we had "Fought Side by Side" but certainly NOT in This Present Incarnation. What if that was 'RA' wearing the black-hat?? That wouldn't surprise me one little bit. I don't like this one little bit. The Horror. What Would Lt Col Kilgore Say?? What if that Black-Hat was the actual hat worn in 'Apocalypse Now'??!! What if I conversed with Lt Col Kilgore?? That wouldn't surprise me one little bit. Honest. BTW, did you hear about the auction of Indiana Jones's Fedora from 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' for at-least a quarter of a million dollars??!! That's @#$%^ OBSCENE!! https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/life/2018-08-02-investment-tip-indiana-joness-hat-is-on-auction-for-just-400000/

    "What Are We Going to Do About Orthodoxymoron??"

    Imagine the following on an Island-Country under a Benevolent-Dictator!! Imagine a Seven-Day Weekly-Cycle, with Six Work-Days and a Sabbath-Day!! Imagine Two Daily Twelve-Hour Work-Shifts (from Midnight to Noon and Noon to Midnight) with a Skeleton-Crew Working on the Sabbath (put down those stones)!! Each Worker Would Work Thee Shifts Each Week (Four Shifts When Required to Work on the Sabbath)!! Sabbath Would Be From Midnight to Midnight on Saturday (put down those stones)!! Killing Would Be Strictly-Forbidden (except during a war)!! Sabbath Would Mostly Involve Rest, Nature, Family, Study, and Sacred Classical Music!! Imagine This Sort of Thing On Madagascar!! Would This Work Throughout the Solar System??!! What If Everyone Received the Same Compensation??!! What If Everyone Competed for the Most-Interesting Jobs??!! This is simply a Conceptual-Brainstorm (put down those stones)!! The obvious problem is that however one puts things together, there's always another (and supposedly better) way to put things together!! What Is the Role of Arbitrariness in the Kingdom of God?? Is God Obligated to Obey His and/or Her Own Laws?? Define 'God's Prerogative'!! Are Each of the Ten-Commandments Explained and Expanded-Upon in Ten Books of the Bible (or even ten chapters)?? Ellen White Says MUCH More About the Sabbath Than the Bible Does. Did the Sabbath Predate the Garden of Eden and Creation Week?? How Might One Observe the Sabbath On the Moon and Mars?? Siriusly!! Why Is 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' NOT Observed by God, the Angels, and God's Chosen People in the Holy-Bible?? Why Have SDA's Historically Been Conscientious-Objectors in Obedience to a Highly-Violent Holy-Bible?? Am I Spearheading a Holy-War?? Don't Be Frightened. I Mean No Harm. I Am of Peace. Always.















    Compare reading the Whole-Bible (straight-through, over and over) with reading the Conflict of the Ages Series by Ellen White (straight-through, over and over). Regardless of whether this material is absolute-truth or utter-bullshit, it's an interesting study for those who are motivated and capable. Ellen White picks and chooses, adds and truncates. Why?? Did 'she' have inside-sources which made at least some of 'her' books closer to the truth than anything available at the end of the 19th century?? I continue to maintain that to properly engage in this study, one must add science-fiction and alternative-research to the equation!! I would love to spend five-years reading the five-book Conflict of the Ages Series (straight-through, over and over) in every major-church in England, because that might be getting mighty-close to the source!! What Would Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer Say?? What Would HAL 9000 Say?? There is a contextual-problem for all of the above. What might've worked in a particular historical-setting might not work today. But what works today might not work tomorrow. Things are moving faster and faster in an Eschatological-Quickening!! What Would Art Bell Say?? I'm not trying to win a popularity-contest. I'm simply doing pseudo-research in a matter which is undeniably a road-less-traveled (or not traveled at all) regardless of whether anyone appreciates it or not.

    A Christian website would NEVER let me do what I'm doing with my USSS threads. But I honestly suspect that everything I say and do (or don't say and do) will be used against me at a future date. The Borg-Queen is probably gleeful. I've been accused of 'Playing Into the Hands of the Devil' and 'Making the Devil Gleeful'!! When I showed someone an image of David Bowman, they said he looked like the Devil. I once asked this same individual "Who Decides Who Lives Or Dies (or who is Saved or Lost)??" and the reply was "I Do!!" I'm not sure they understood the question, but their response shocked me. I wonder if most of us have existed in very-different circumstances than we do presently, and I wonder if some of us are beginning to remember??!! If so, this might NOT be a good-thing!! Christianity might crash and burn, prior to re-emerging as a more mature manifestation of a Cover-Story of Historical-Necessity. The Real-Story might destroy Civilization As We Know It. I keep thinking of the words of 'RA' in the original Stargate movie, "I Built Your Civilization, and Now I Will Destroy It!!" Wrath of God Eschatological-Anger is VERY Troubling to me!! What if our True-History is Irreversibly-Damning (regardless of how good we might think we are presently)?? Eschatological Possibility-Thinking scares the hell out of me!!



    Consider Freedom, Responsibility, Competition, and Cooperation in the Kingdom of God. This might be more important than you can imagine!! How many of us REALLY Want a Real God?? One night 'RA' said he was cracking-down on Credo Mutwa, and I like Credo, but the way 'RA' said it made me shake my head and laugh, and 'RA' pointed-out my 'SIN'!! Once, 'RA' was having a difficult phone-conversation, and I was laughing at him!! Once, 'RA' was talking to me on the phone, and it sounded like he was in space, and I thought I heard an other-than-human in the background, and I told 'RA' to say "HELLO!!" I recently encountered a 'Tough-Guy' who gave me 'The Look'!! This didn't surprise me because of the stuff I've posted on this thread. I'm honestly not going anywhere with this madness. Don't Shoot!! I'm Just a Completely Ignorant Fool!! Here is a previously-posted study-list (as a mental and spiritual exercise -- without an endorsement by me):

    1. Patriarchs and Prophets (Ellen White).

    2. Prophets and Kings (Ellen White).

    3. The SDA Bible Commentary -- Volumes 3 and 4 (1 Chronicles to Malachi).

    4. Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Desmond Ford).

    5. The End of the World, A.D. 2133 (Lucio Bernardo Silvestre).

    6. The United States of the Solar System: A.D. 2133 (Books One to Five).

    7. Sacred Classical Music.

    8. Science and Science-Fiction.

    I never know how much of a 'problem' I am. I really don't know. I have no idea whether I am completely ignored -- and no problem to anyone -- OR, if I really make certain individuals or organizations feel angry or threatened. I don't know who I really am. I don't know what the stakes are. I don't know who expects what of me -- if anything. I don't have a boss (in connection with my internet activities) -- and I don't get paid for wasting my life away. I don't know if I am fundamentally a friend or foe to humanity. I have no idea if God, Satan, Lucifer, Michael, Gabriel, the angels, the demons, the aliens, the reptilians, the greys, the elites, the peons, the gods, or the goddesses -- love me, hate me -- or frankly don't give a damn about me. I have NO idea. I have NO idea what lists I might be on -- if any. I'm leaning toward the theory that I'm some sort of a rebellious and disenfranchised reincarnational somebody of some note -- but certainly of NO note in this incarnation. I have NO idea if anyone has studied my threads in any way, shape, or form. I have NO idea whether this universe is fundamentally good or bad -- or how 'good' or 'bad' should be defined. I have NO idea how close to the truth I might be -- or if anyone even gives a damn how close I am -- to the truth or otherwise.

    I seem to hold NO attraction to the opposite sex. I seem to have very few marketable job skills. Most days, life does NOT seem to be worth living -- and I really fail to see the point. I feel supernaturally attacked -- but maybe I'm just a NUT-CASE. I have NO idea. I sense hostility and hatred in real-life -- but then maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive and paranoid. I'm almost to the point of telling people to forget about seeking the 'truth' -- and to just focus on maximizing fame, fortune, power, and pleasure -- by any and all means -- because why should the peons be good when the elites are bad -- which seems to create an unfair advantage. Didn't John D. Rockefeller call competition a sin?? I really think I could've been a big-shot surgeon or musician if I hadn't gotten all screwed-up worrying about the damn 'truth'. Why should I point people toward a life of poverty and misery in pursuit of the damn 'truth'?? Especially when the 'truth' is whatever people wish to believe -- and NOT the actual 'truth'??!!

    magamud wrote: I feel the same way Ortho and I suspect many others are too.  I have noticed waves of syncronicity effecting the populace in different ways.  Bursts of singularity?

    Unconscious explosions manifesting in symbology, insights and dialectic language.  I think this thread is very valuable and at the least, a lens of construction into the quantum ocean of life.  A missionary of your own existence?  A deep sea diver into the depths of your energy?

    Godspeed...
    Jenetta wrote:Oxy you will always be a survivor...why? because you have imagination which most of humanity lacks...also you have 'heart'...lastly you have a great deal of humour (which many people lack) and this also helps you to survive.

    The wheel keeps turning and we're turning with it.

    __________________________________________

    Thank-you magamud and Janetta. I worry about irresponsible-freedom v responsible-freedom. I understand that We the Sheeple must be watched by the Sheep-Herders -- but I worry when I hear about the TV watching people while they watch TV. What are ethical and appropriate limits to surveillance?? We obviously live in a VERY dangerous world -- and I agonize over how the insanity should be managed. I have recently started thinking more about Ethics, Law, Law-Enforcement, and the Military. The industrial revolution, the technological revolution, and the information explosion -- have created a perfect storm -- especially on the internet -- and I suspect that a lot of individuals (human and otherwise) have gotten caught with their pants and dresses down -- and I further suspect that they are really, Really MAD!! I am very doubtful that things are going to get better anytime soon. Even if my hypothetical United States of the Solar System were introduced in Obama's State of the Union Address -- things would probably still go to hell -- and such a sudden and abrupt introduction might precipitate Hell on Earth.

    I think things are very precarious and unstable right now. I further think that evolutionary change should trump revolutionary change. Things might have to APPEAR to remain the same for at least the rest of this decade. I think we could be facing a market-crash and a dollar-crash in 2016 -- which could be made milder or more severe by how change and the media is managed. I worry about resets, disclosure, regime-changes, civil-unrest, foreign-invasions, and alien-invasions (staged or otherwise). I think the evil and destructive potential which exists within this solar system is beyond comprehension. I feel as if we might be in the quiet before the storm. My recent 'Solar System View' is making me feel like a completely different person -- and it is scaring the hell out of me. I can only imagine how the 'Real Insiders' feel -- the ones who deal directly with the BS -- each and every day.

    Listen to this recent 'Sherry Shriner Show'. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sherrytalkradio/2013/01/22/monday-night-with-sherry-shriner It seems to have particular relevance to what I've said in this post. I think Sherry knows a helluva lot -- but I take everything she says with a sea of salt. I don't do Orgone (but perhaps I should) -- and I don't necessarily share Sherri's theological views (even though I think she knows  ten times more than I do about theology). I've said some of what I think about Sherry -- but I've said it very indirectly -- so you might need to review my posts to put some pieces of the puzzle together. You'd be amazed at what I think about -- but don't talk about.

    Regarding the Asteroid '243 Ida' -- I was interested to note that it seems to be less dense than it should be -- suggesting that it might really be a hollowed-out asteroid-spaceship. Also, the little fictional story that I just reposted features a small piloted asteroid (which is now on it's way from Earth to Ida). I described this asteroid as being approximately one kilometer in diameter (and mostly round). This is pretty damn close to describing the size and shape of Ida's satellite 'Dactyl'! When I originally wrote the story I didn't have Ida or Dactyl in mind!! Honestly!! To thicken the plot -- Dactyl has been known to be 'MISSING'!!!! See the bold print in the wiki article below!!! Might this suggest that Dactyl really could be a piloted-asteroid??!! OK -- I'm getting carried away -- but this is just one more example of some very strange coincidences and occurrances connected with my internet posting. All of this madness is driving me somewhat mad -- and I'm NOT kidding. The problem is -- I think things are going to get exponentially nuttier in the coming months and years -- and I really think the possibility exists that I might really come unglued -- and go down HARD -- a lot harder than I've already gone down. Look Out Below!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactyl_(asteroid)#Moon

    243 Ida (/'a?d?/ EYE-d?) is an asteroid in the Koronis family of the asteroid belt. It was discovered on 29 September 1884 by Johann Palisa and named after a nymph from Greek mythology. Later telescopic observations categorized Ida as an S-type asteroid, the most numerous type in the inner asteroid belt. On 28 August 1993, Ida was visited by the spacecraft Galileo, bound for Jupiter. It was the second asteroid to be visited by a spacecraft and the first found to possess a satellite.

    Like all main-belt asteroids, Ida's orbit lies between the planets Mars and Jupiter. Its orbital period is 4.84 years, and its rotation period is 4.63 hours. Ida has an average diameter of 31.4 km (19.5 mi). It is irregularly shaped and elongated, and apparently composed of two large objects connected together in a shape reminiscent of a croissant. Its surface is one of the most heavily cratered in the Solar System, featuring a wide variety of crater sizes and ages.

    Ida's moon, Dactyl, was discovered by mission member Ann Harch in images returned from Galileo. It was named after the Dactyls, creatures which inhabited Mount Ida in Greek mythology. Dactyl, being only 1.4 kilometres (4,600 ft) in diameter, is about one-twentieth the size of Ida. Its orbit around Ida could not be determined with much accuracy. However, the constraints of possible orbits allowed a rough determination of Ida's density, which revealed that it is depleted of metallic minerals. Dactyl and Ida share many characteristics, suggesting a common origin.

    The images returned from Galileo, and the subsequent measurement of Ida's mass, provided new insights into the geology of S-type asteroids. Before the Galileo flyby, many different theories had been proposed to explain their mineral composition. Determining their composition permits a correlation between meteorites falling to the Earth and their origin in the asteroid belt. Data returned from the flyby pointed to S-type asteroids as the source for the ordinary chondrite meteorites, the most common type found on the Earth's surface.

    Discovery and observations

    Ida was discovered on 29 September 1884 by Austrian astronomer Johann Palisa at the Vienna Observatory.[10] It was his 45th asteroid discovery.[1] Ida was named by Moriz von Kuffner, a Viennese brewer and amateur astronomer.[11][12] In Greek mythology, Ida was a nymph of Crete who raised the god Zeus.[13] Ida was recognized as a member of the Koronis family by Kiyotsugu Hirayama, who proposed in 1918 that the group comprised the remnants of a destroyed precursor body.[14]

    Ida's reflection spectrum was measured on 16 September 1980 by astronomers David J. Tholen and Edward F. Tedesco as part of the eight-color asteroid survey (ECAS).[15] Its spectrum matched those of the asteroids in the S-type classification.[16][17] Many observations of Ida were made in early 1993 by the US Naval Observatory in Flagstaff and the Oak Ridge Observatory. These improved the measurement of Ida's orbit around the Sun and reduced the uncertainty of its position during the Galileo flyby from 78 to 60 km (48 to 37 mi).[18]

    Exploration

    Galileo flyby

    Ida was visited in 1993 by the Jupiter-bound space probe Galileo. Its encounters of the asteroids Gaspra and Ida were secondary to the Jupiter mission. These were selected as targets in response to a new NASA policy directing mission planners to consider asteroid flybys for all spacecraft crossing the belt.[19] No prior missions had attempted such a flyby.[20] Galileo was launched into orbit by the Space Shuttle Atlantis mission STS-34 on 18 October 1989.[21] Changing Galileo's trajectory to approach Ida required that it consume 34 kg (75 lb) of propellant.[22] Mission planners delayed the decision to attempt a flyby until they were certain that this would leave the spacecraft enough propellant to complete its Jupiter mission.[23]

    Galileo's trajectory carried it into the asteroid belt twice on its way to Jupiter. During its second crossing, it flew by Ida on 28 August 1993 at a speed of 12,400 m/s (41,000 ft/s) relative to the asteroid.[23] The onboard imager observed Ida from a distance of 240,350 km (149,350 mi) to its closest approach of 2,390 km (1,490 mi).[13][24] Ida was the second asteroid, after Gaspra, to be imaged by a spacecraft.[25] About 95% of Ida's surface came into view of the probe during the flyby.[6]

    Transmission of many Ida images was delayed due to a permanent failure in the spacecraft's high-gain antenna.[26] The first five images were received in September 1993.[27] These comprised a high-resolution mosaic of the asteroid at a resolution of 31–38 m/pixel.[28][29] The remaining images were sent in February 1994,[2] when the spacecraft's proximity to the Earth allowed higher speed transmissions.[27][30]

    Discoveries

    The data returned from the Galileo flybys of Gaspra and Ida, and the later NEAR Shoemaker asteroid mission, permitted the first study of asteroid geology.[31] Ida's relatively large surface exhibited a diverse range of geological features.[32] The discovery of Ida's moon Dactyl, the first confirmed satellite of an asteroid, provided additional insights into Ida's composition.[33]

    Ida is classified as an S-type asteroid based on ground-based spectroscopic measurements.[34] The composition of S-types was uncertain before the Galileo flybys, but was interpreted to be either of two minerals found in meteorites that had fallen to the Earth: ordinary chondrite (OC) and stony-iron.[9] Estimates of Ida's density are constrained to less than 3.2 g/cm3 by the long-term stability of Dactyl's orbit.[34] This all but rules out a stony-iron composition; were Ida made of 5 g/cm3 iron- and nickel-rich material, it would have to contain more than 40% empty space.[33]

    The Galileo images also led to the discovery that space weathering was taking place on Ida, a process which causes older regions to become more red in color over time.[14][35] The same process affects both Ida and its moon, although Dactyl shows a lesser change.[36] The weathering of Ida's surface revealed another detail about its composition: the reflection spectra of freshly exposed parts of the surface resembled that of OC meteorites, but the older regions matched the spectra of S-type asteroids.[20]

    Both of these discoveries—the space weathering effects and the low density—led to a new understanding about the relationship between S-type asteroids and OC meteorites. S-types are the most numerous kind of asteroid in the inner part of the asteroid belt.[20] OC meteorites are, likewise, the most common type of meteorite found on the Earth's surface.[20] The reflection spectra measured by remote observations of S-type asteroids, however, did not match that of OC meteorites. The Galileo flyby of Ida found that some S-types, particularly the Koronis family, could be the source of these meteorites.[36]

    Physical characteristics

    Ida's mass is between 3.65 and 4.99 × 1016 kg.[37] Its gravitational field produces an acceleration of about 0.3 to 1.1 cm/s2 over its surface.[6] This field is so weak that an astronaut standing on its surface could leap from one end of Ida to the other, and an object moving in excess of 20 m/s (70 ft/s) could escape the asteroid entirely.[38][39]

    Ida is a distinctly elongated asteroid,[40] with an irregular surface,[41][42] and is somewhat "croissant-shaped".[27] Ida is 2.35 times as long as it is wide,[40] and a "waist" separates it into two geologically dissimilar halves.[27] This constricted shape is consistent with Ida being made of two large, solid components, with loose debris filling the gap between them. However, no such debris was seen in high resolution images captured by Galileo.[42] Whilst there are a few steep slopes tilting up to about 50° on Ida, the slope generally does not exceed 35°.[6] Ida's irregular shape is responsible for the asteroid's highly uneven gravitational field.[43] The surface acceleration is lowest at the extremities because of their fast rotational speed. It is also low near the "waist" because the mass of the asteroid is concentrated in the two halves, away from this location.[6]

    Surface features

    Ida's surface appears heavily cratered and mostly gray, although minor color variations mark newly formed or uncovered areas.[13] Besides craters, other features are evident, such as grooves, ridges, and protrusions. Ida is covered by a thick layer of regolith, loose debris that obscures the solid rock beneath. The largest, boulder-sized, debris fragments are called ejecta blocks, several of which have been observed on the surface.

    Regolith

    The surface of Ida is covered in a blanket of pulverized rock, called regolith, about 50–100 m (160–330 ft) thick.[27] This material is produced in impact events and redistributed across Ida's surface by geological processes.[44] Galileo observed evidence of recent downslope regolith movement.[45]

    Ida's regolith is composed of the silicate minerals olivine and pyroxene.[2][46] Its appearance changes over time through a process called space weathering.[36] Because of this process, older regolith appears more red in color compared to freshly exposed material.[35]

    About 20 large (40–150 m across) ejecta blocks have been identified, embedded in Ida's regolith.[27][48] Ejecta blocks constitute the largest pieces of the regolith.[49] Because ejecta blocks are expected to break down quickly by impact events, those present on the surface must have been either formed recently or uncovered by an impact event.[43][50] Most of them are located within the craters Lascaux and Mammoth, but they may not have been produced there.[50] This area attracts debris due to Ida's irregular gravitational field.[43] Some blocks may have been ejected from the young crater Azzurra on the opposite side of the asteroid.[51]

    Structures

    Several major structures mark Ida's surface. The asteroid appears to be split into two halves, here referred to as region 1 and region 2, connected by a "waist".[27] This feature may have been filled in by debris, or blasted out of the asteroid by impacts.[27][51]

    Region 1 of Ida contains two major structures. One is a prominent 40 km (25 mi) ridge named Townsend Dorsum that stretches 150 degrees around Ida's surface.[52] The other structure is a large indentation named Vienna Regio.[27]

    Ida's region 2 features several sets of grooves, most of which are 100 m (330 ft) wide or less and up to 4 km (2.5 mi) long.[27][53] They are located near, but are not connected with, the craters Mammoth, Lascaux, and Kartchner.[49] Some grooves are related to major impact events, for example a set opposite Vienna Regio.[54]

    Craters

    Ida is one of the most densely cratered bodies in the Solar System,[28][41] and impacts have been the primary process shaping its surface.[55] Cratering has reached the saturation point, meaning that new impacts erase evidence of old ones, leaving the total crater count roughly the same.[56] It is covered with craters of all sizes and stages of degradation,[41] and ranging in age from fresh to as old as Ida itself.[27] The oldest may have been formed during the breakup of the Koronis family parent body.[36] The largest crater, Lascaux, is almost 12 km (7.5 mi) across.[42][57] Region 2 contains nearly all of the craters larger than 6 km (3.7 mi) in diameter, but Region 1 has no large craters at all.[27] Some craters are arranged in chains.[29]

    Ida's major craters are named after caves and lava tubes on Earth. The crater Azzurra, for example, is named after a submerged cave on the island of Capri, also known as the Blue Grotto.[58] Azzurra seems to be the most recent major impact on Ida.[48] The ejecta from this collision is distributed discontinuously over Ida[35] and is responsible for the large-scale color and albedo variations across its surface.[59] An exception to the crater morphology is the fresh, asymmetric Fingal, which has a sharp boundary between the floor and wall on one side.[60] Another significant crater is Afon, which marks Ida's prime meridian.[8]

    The craters are simple in structure: bowl-shaped with no flat bottoms and no central peaks.[60] They are distributed evenly around Ida, except for a protrusion north of crater Choukoutien which is smoother and less cratered.[61] The ejecta excavated by impacts is deposited differently on Ida than on planets because of its rapid rotation, low gravity and irregular shape.[40] Ejecta blankets settle asymmetrically around their craters, but fast-moving ejecta that escapes from the asteroid is permanently lost.[62]

    Composition

    Ida was classified as an S-type asteroid based on the similarity of its reflectance spectra with similar asteroids.[9] S-types may share their composition with stony-iron or ordinary chondrite (OC) meteorites.[9] The composition of the interior has not been directly analyzed, but is assumed to be similar to OC material based on observed surface color changes and Ida's bulk density of 2.27–3.10 g/cm3.[5][36] OC meteorites contain varying amounts of the silicates olivine and pyroxene, iron, and feldspar.[63] Olivine and pyroxene were detected on Ida by Galileo.[2] The mineral content appears to be homogeneous throughout its extent. Galileo found minimal variations on the surface, and the asteroid's spin indicates a consistent density.[64][65] Assuming that its composition is similar to OC meteorites, which range in density from 3.48 to 3.64 g/cm3, Ida would have a porosity of 11–42%.[5]

    Ida's interior probably contains some amount of impact-fractured rock, called megaregolith. The megaregolith layer of Ida extends between hundreds of meters below the surface to a few kilometers. Some rock in Ida's core may have been fractured below the large craters Mammoth, Lascaux, and Undara.[65]

    Orbit and rotation

    Ida is a member of the Koronis family of asteroid-belt asteroids.[14] Ida orbits the Sun at an average distance of 2.862 AU (428.1 Gm), between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.[2][3] Ida takes 4.84089 years to complete one orbit.[3]

    Ida's rotation period is 4.63 hours,[7][40] making it one of the fastest rotating asteroids yet discovered.[66] The calculated maximum moment of inertia of a uniformly dense object the same shape as Ida coincides with the spin axis of the asteroid. This suggests that there are no major variations of density within the asteroid.[54] Ida's axis of rotation precesses with a period of 77 thousand years, due to the gravity of the Sun acting upon the nonspherical shape of the asteroid.[67]

    Origin

    Ida originated in the breakup of the roughly 120 km (75 mi) diameter Koronis parent body.[7] The progenitor asteroid had partially differentiated, with heavier metals migrating to the core.[68] Ida carried away insignificant amounts of this core material.[68] It is uncertain how long ago the disruption event occurred. According to an analysis of Ida's cratering processes, its surface is more than a billion years old.[68] However, this is inconsistent with the estimated age of the Ida–Dactyl system of less than 100 million years;[69] it is unlikely that Dactyl, due to its small size, could have escaped being destroyed in a major collision for longer. The difference in age estimates may be explained by an increased rate of cratering from the debris of the Koronis parent body's destruction.[70]

    Moon

    A small satellite named Dactyl orbits Ida. Dactyl, officially (243) Ida I Dactyl (/'dækt?l/ DAK-til) was discovered in images taken by the Galileo spacecraft during its flyby in 1993. These images provided the first direct confirmation of an asteroid moon.[33] At the time, it was separated from Ida by a distance of 90 kilometres (56 mi), moving in a prograde orbit. Dactyl is heavily cratered, like Ida, and consists of similar materials. Its origin is uncertain, but evidence from the flyby suggests that it originated as a fragment of the Koronis parent body.

    Discovery

    Dactyl was found on 17 February 1994 by Galileo mission member Ann Harch, while examining delayed image downloads from the spacecraft.[2] Galileo recorded 47 images of Dactyl over an observation period of 5.5 hours in August 1993.[71] The spacecraft was 10,760 kilometres (6,690 mi) from Ida[72] and 10,870 kilometres (6,750 mi) from Dactyl when the first image of the moon was captured, 14 minutes before Galileo made its closest approach.[73]

    Dactyl was initially designated 1993 (243) 1.[72][74] It was named by the International Astronomical Union in 1994,[74] for the mythological dactyls who inhabited Mount Ida on the island of Crete.[75][76]

    Physical characteristics

    Dactyl is an "egg-shaped",[33] but "remarkably spherical"[75] object measuring 1.6 by 1.4 by 1.2 kilometres (0.99 mi × 0.87 mi × 0.75 mi).[33] It was oriented with its longest axis pointing towards Ida.[33] Like Ida, Dactyl's surface exhibits saturation cratering.[33] It is marked by more than a dozen craters with a diameter greater than 80 m (260 ft), indicating that the moon has suffered many collisions during its history.[13] At least six craters form a linear chain, suggesting that it was caused by locally produced debris, possibly ejected from Ida.[33] Dactyl's craters may contain central peaks, unlike those found on Ida.[77] These features, and Dactyl's spheroidal shape, imply that the moon is gravitationally controlled despite its small size.[77] Like Ida, its average temperature is about 200 K (-73 °C; -100 °F).[2]

    Dactyl shares many characteristics with Ida. Their albedos and reflection spectra are very similar.[78] The small differences indicate that the space weathering process is less active on Dactyl.[36] Its small size would make the formation of significant amounts of regolith impossible.[36][72] This contrasts with Ida, which is covered by a deep layer of regolith.

    Dactyl's orbit around Ida is not precisely known. Galileo was in the plane of Dactyl's orbit when most of the images of the moon were taken, which made determining its exact orbit difficult.[34] Dactyl orbits in the prograde direction[79] and is inclined about 8° to Ida's equator.[71] Based on computer simulations, Dactyl's pericenter must be more than about 65 km (40 mi) from Ida for it to remain in a stable orbit.[80] The range of orbits generated by the simulations was narrowed down by the necessity of having the orbits pass through points at which Galileo observed Dactyl to be at 16:52:05 UT on 28 August 1993, about 90 km (56 mi) from Ida at longitude 85°.[81][82] On 26 April 1994, the Hubble Space Telescope observed Ida for eight hours and was unable to spot Dactyl. It would have been able to observe the moon if it was more than about 700 km (430 mi) from Ida.[34]

    Dactyl's orbital period is about 20 hours, assuming it is in a circular orbit around Ida.[78] Its orbital speed is roughly 10 m/s (33 ft/s), "about the speed of a fast run or a slowly thrown baseball".[34]

    Age and origin

    Dactyl may have originated at the same time as Ida,[83] from the disruption of the Koronis parent body.[50] However, it may have formed more recently, perhaps as ejecta from a large impact on Ida.[84] It is extremely unlikely that it was captured by Ida.[73] Dactyl may have suffered a major impact around 100 million years ago, which reduced its size.[68]

    Notes

    The Eos and Koronis families ... are entirely of type S, which is rare at their heliocentric distances ...

    Nearly a month after a successful photo session, the Galileo spacecraft last week finished radioing to Earth a high-resolution portrait of the second asteroid ever to be imaged from space. Known as 243 Ida, the asteroid was photographed from an average distance of just 3,400 kilometers some 3.5 minutes before Galileo's closest approach on Aug. 28.

    The chondrites fall naturally into five composition classes, of which three have very similar mineral contents, but different proportions of metal and silicates. All three contain abundant iron in three different forms (ferrous iron oxide in silicates, metallic iron, and ferrous sulfide), usually with all three abundant enough to be classified as potential ores. All three contain feldspar (an aluminosilicate of calcium, sodium, and potassium), pyroxene (silicates with one silicon atom for each atom of magnesium, iron, or calcium), olivine (silicates with two iron or magnesium atoms per silicon atom), metallic iron, and iron sulfide (the mineral troilite). These three classes, referred to collectively as the ordinary chondrites, contain quite different amounts of metal.

    When Zeus was born, Rhea entrusted the guardianship of her son to the Dactyls of Ida, who are the same as those called Curetes. They came from Cretan Ida – Heracles, Paeonaeus, Epimedes, Iasius and Idas.

    Journal articles

    Asphaug, Erik; Ryan, Eileen V.; Zuber, Maria T. (2003). "Asteroid Interiors". Asteroids III (Tucson: University of Arizona): 463–484. Bibcode 2002aste.conf..463A. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
    Bottke, William F., Jr.; Cellino, A.; Paolicchi, P.; Binzel, R. P. (2002). "An Overview of the Asteroids: The Asteroids III Perspective". Asteroids III (Tucson: University of Arizona): 3–15. Bibcode 2002aste.conf....3B. Retrieved 2008-10-23.
    Britt, D. T.; Yeomans, D. K.; Housen, K.; Consolmagno, G. (2002). "Asteroid Density, Porosity, and Structure". Asteroids III (Tucson: University of Arizona): 485–500. Bibcode 2002aste.conf..485B. Retrieved 2008-10-27.
    Chapman, Clark R. (1994). "The Galileo Encounters with Gaspra and Ida". Asteroids, Comets, Meteors: 357–365. Bibcode 1994IAUS..160..357C.
    Chapman, Clark R.; Klaasen, K.; Belton, Michael J. S.; Veverka, Joseph (July 1994). "Asteroid 243 IDA and its satellite". Meteoritics 29: 455. Bibcode 1994Metic..29..455C.
    Chapman, Clark R. (September 1995). "Galileo Observations of Gaspra, Ida, and Dactyl: Implications for Meteoritics". Meteoritics 30 (5): 496. Bibcode 1995Metic..30R.496C.
    Chapman, Clark R. (October 1996). "S-Type Asteroids, Ordinary Chondrites, and Space Weathering: The Evidence from Galileo's Fly-bys of Gaspra and Ida". Meteoritics 31: 699–725. Bibcode 1996M&PS...31..699C. doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.1996.tb02107.x.
    Chapman, Clark R.; Ryan, Eileen V.; Merline, William J.; Neukum, Gerhard; Wagner, Roland; Thomas, Peter C.; Veverka, Joseph; Sullivan, Robert J. (March 1996). "Cratering on Ida". Icarus 120 (1): 77–86. Bibcode 1996Icar..120...77C. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0038. Retrieved 2008-10-27.
    D'Amario, Louis A.; Bright, Larry E.; Wolf, Aron A. (May 1992). "Galileo trajectory design". Space Science Reviews 60 (1-4): 23–78. Bibcode 1992SSRv...60...23D. doi:10.1007/BF00216849.
    Geissler, Paul E.; Petit, Jean-Marc; Durda, Daniel D.; Greenberg, Richard; Bottke, William F.; Nolan, Michael; Moore, Jeffrey (March 1996). "Erosion and Ejecta Reaccretion on 243 Ida and Its Moon". Icarus 120 (1): 140–157. Bibcode 1996Icar..120..140G. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0042. Archived from the original on 20 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-03-26.
    Geissler, Paul E.; Petit, Jean-Marc; Greenberg, Richard (1996). "Ejecta Reaccretion on Rapidly Rotating Asteroids: Implications for 243 Ida and 433 Eros". Completing the Inventory of the Solar System (Astronomical Society of the Pacific) 107: 57–67. Bibcode 1996ASPC..107...57G.
    Greenberg, Richard; Bottke, William F.; Nolan, Michael; Geissler, Paul E.; Petit, Jean-Marc; Durda, Daniel D.; Asphaug, Erik; Head, James (March 1996). "Collisional and Dynamical History of Ida". Icarus 120 (1): 106–118. Bibcode 1996Icar..120..106G. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0040. Retrieved 2008-10-23.
    Hurford, Terry A.; Greenberg, Richard (June 2000). "Tidal Evolution by Elongated Primaries: Implications for the Ida/Dactyl System". Geophysical Research Letters 27 (11): 1595–1598. Bibcode 2000GeoRL..27.1595H. doi:10.1029/1999GL010956. Retrieved 2008-10-25.
    Lee, Pascal; Veverka, Joseph; Thomas, Peter C.; Helfenstein, Paul; Belton, Michael J. S.; Chapman, Clark R.; Greeley, Ronald; Pappalardo, Robert T.; Sullivan, Robert J.; Head, James W., III (March 1996). "Ejecta Blocks on 243 Ida and on Other Asteroids". Icarus 120 (1): 87–105. Bibcode 1996Icar..120...87L. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0039. Retrieved 2008-10-27.
    Mason, John W. (June 1994). "Ida's new moon". Journal of the British Astronomical Association 104 (3): 108. Bibcode 1994JBAA..104..108M.
    Monet, A. K. B.; Stone, R. C.; Monet, D. G.; Dahn, C. C.; Harris, H. C.; Leggett, S. K.; Pier, J. R.; Vrba, F. J.; Walker, R. L. (June 1994). "Astrometry for the Galileo mission. 1: Asteroid encounters". The Astronomical Journal 107 (6): 2290–2294. Bibcode 1994AJ....107.2290M. doi:10.1086/117036.
    Owen, W. M., Jr.; Yeomans, D. K. (June 1994). "The overlapping plates method applied to CCD observations of 243 Ida". The Astronomical Journal 107 (6): 2295–2298. Bibcode 1994AJ....107.2295O. doi:10.1086/117037.
    Petit, Jean-Marc; Durda, Daniel D.; Greenberg, Richard; Hurford, Terry A.; Geissler, Paul E. (November 1997). "The Long-Term Dynamics of Dactyl's Orbit". Icarus 130 (1): 177–197. Bibcode 1997Icar..130..177P. doi:10.1006/icar.1997.5788. Retrieved 2008-10-25.
    Seidelmann, P. Kenneth; Archinal, B. A.; A'hearn, M. F. et al. (2007). "Report of the IAU/IAG Working Group on cartographic coordinates and rotational elements: 2006". Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 98 (3): 155–180. Bibcode 2007CeMDA..98..155S. doi:10.1007/s10569-007-9072-y. edit
    Sullivan, Robert J.; Greeley, Ronald; Pappalardo, R.; Asphaug, E.; Moore, J. M.; Morrison, D.; Belton, Michael J. S.; Carr, M.; Chapman, Clark R.; Geissler, Paul E.; Greenberg, Richard; Granahan, James; Head, J. W., III; Kirk, R.; McEwen, A.; Lee, P.; Thomas, Peter C.; Veverka, Joseph (March 1996). "Geology of 243 Ida". Icarus 120 (1): 119–139. Bibcode 1996Icar..120..119S. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0041. Retrieved 2008-10-27.
    Thomas, Peter C.; Belton, Michael J. S.; Carcich, B.; Chapman, Clark R.; Davies, M. E.; Sullivan, Robert J.; Veverka, Joseph (1996). "The shape of Ida". Icarus 120 (1): 20–32. Bibcode 1996Icar..120...20T. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0033.
    Vokrouhlicky, David; Nesvorny, David; Bottke, William F. (11 September 2003). "The vector alignments of asteroid spins by thermal torques". Nature 425 (6954): 147–151. Bibcode 2003Natur.425..147V. doi:10.1038/nature01948. PMID 12968171. Retrieved 2008-10-23.
    Wilson, Lionel; Keil, Klaus; Love, Stanley J. (May 1999). "The internal structures and densities of asteroids". Meteoritics & Planetary Science 34 (3): 479–483. Bibcode 1999M&PS...34..479W. doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.1999.tb01355.x.
    Zellner, Ben; Tholen, David J.; Tedesco, Edward F. (March 1985). "The eight-color asteroid survey: Results for 589 minor planets". Icarus 61 (3): 355–416. Bibcode 1985Icar...61..355Z. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(85)90133-2.

    Books

    Berger, Peter (2003). "The Gildemeester Organisation for Assistance to Emigrants and the expulsion of Jews from Vienna, 1938–1942". In Gourvish, Terry. Business and Politics in Europe, 1900–1970. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-82344-7.
    Carroll, Bradley W.; Ostlie, Dale A. (1996). An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. ISBN 0-201-54730-9.
    Greeley, Ronald; Batson, Raymond M. (2001). The Compact NASA Atlas of the Solar System. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80633-X.
    Lewis, John S. (1996). Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from the Asteroids, Comets, and Planets. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-47959-1.
    Pausanias (1916). Description of Greece. Translated by Jones, W. H. S. & Omerod, H. A.. Loeb Classical Library. ISBN 0-674-99104-4.
    Ridpath, John Clark (1897). The Standard American Encyclopedia of Arts, Sciences, History, Biography, Geography, Statistics, and General Knowledge. Encyclopedia Publishing.
    Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003). "Catalogue of Minor Planet Names and Discovery Circumstances". Dictionary of minor planet names. IAU commission. 20. Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-00238-3.
    Slivan, Stephen Michael (June 1995). Spin-Axis Alignment of Koronis Family Asteroids. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. OCLC 32907677. hdl:1721.1/11867.
    Thomas, Peter C.; Prockter, Louise M. (28 May 2004). "Tectonics of Small Bodies". Planetary Tectonics. Cambridge Planetary Science. 11. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-76573-2. Retrieved 2008-11-29.

    Other

    Belton, Michael J. S.; Carlson, R. (12 March 1994). "1993 (243) 1". IAU Circular (International Astronomical Union) (5948). Bibcode 1994IAUC.5948....2B.
    Byrnes, Dennis V.; D'Amario, Louis A.; Galileo Navigation Team (December 1994). "Solving for Dactyl's Orbit and Ida's Density". The Galileo Messenger (NASA) (35). Retrieved 2008-10-23.
    Chapman, Clark R.; Belton, Michael J. S.; Veverka, Joseph; Neukum, G.; Head, J.; Greeley, Ronald; Klaasen, K.; Morrison, D. (March 1994). "First Galileo image of asteroid 243 Ida". Abstracts of the 25th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (Lunar and Planetary Institute): 237–238. Bibcode 1994LPI....25..237C.
    Cowen, Ron (2 October 1993). "Close-up of an asteroid: Galileo eyes Ida". 144. Science News. p. 215. ISSN 0036-8423.
    Cowen, Ron (1 April 1995). "Idiosyncrasies of Ida—asteroid 243 Ida's irregular gravitational field" (PDF). 147. Science News. p. 207. ISSN 0036-8423. Retrieved 2009-03-26.
    Greeley, Ronald; Sullivan, Robert J.; Pappalardo, R.; Head, J.; Veverka, Joseph; Thomas, Peter C.; Lee, P.; Belton, M.; Chapman, Clark R. (March 1994). "Morphology and Geology of Asteroid Ida: Preliminary Galileo Imaging Observations". Abstracts of the 25th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (Lunar and Planetary Institute): 469–470. Bibcode 1994LPI....25..469G.
    Green, Daniel W. E. (26 September 1994). "1993 (243) 1 = (243) Ida I (Dactyl)". IAU Circular (International Astronomical Union) (6082). Bibcode 1994IAUC.6082....2G.
    Holm, Jeanne; Jones, Jan (ed.) (June 1994). "Discovery of Ida's Moon Indicates Possible "Families" of Asteroids". The Galileo Messenger (NASA) (34). Retrieved 2008-10-23.
    Raab, Herbert (2002). "Johann Palisa, the most successful visual discoverer of asteroids". Meeting on Asteroids and Comets in Europe. Archived from the original on 30 October 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-23.
    Sárneczky, K; Kereszturi, Á. (March 2002). "'Global' Tectonism on Asteroids?". 33rd Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. Bibcode 2002LPI....33.1381S. Retrieved 2008-10-22.
    Stooke, P. J. (1997). "Reflections on the Geology of 243 Ida". Lunar and Planetary Science XXVIII: 1385–1386. Retrieved 2008-11-29.
    "JPL Small-Body Database Browser: 243 Ida". Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 25 August 2008.
    "Images of Asteroids Ida & Dactyl". National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 23 August 2005. Archived from the original on 21 October 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-04.
    "Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature: Ida". United States Geological Survey Astrogeology Research Program. Retrieved 2009-04-15.






    Imagine Looking Into Your Telescope
    and Seeing THIS!!!

    The 'Disclosure' episode from the sixth season of 'Stargate SG-1' which I thought was quite fine! I would recommend getting a ten-season set of DVD's. I noticed that in 'The Fifth Race' episode of 'Stargate SG-1' -- the 'Greys' or 'Asgard' state that they live in the Galaxy of Ida!! Think about the title of this thread regarding the asteroid 'Ida'!! This is yet another interesting 'coincidence' in my internet posting. If you carefully study my threads, you will find some amazing coincidences -- especially if you know all about me -- as I'm sure some of you do. I don't make a big deal about this sort of thing -- and I mostly just hint at a lot of it -- but the occurrances and coincidences connected with my life and internet posting are scaring the hell out of me each and every day -- and I'm not kidding. Consider the alien-character 'Kril Mossette' in one of the fifth-season 'Star Trek Voyager' episodes. Notice the French-Connection, the KRLLL-Connection, and the strange similarity to Dr. Mataros from 'Earth: Final Conflict' ('Termination' episode). What did Roddenberry know -- and when did he know it?? Can you imagine a private conversation between Gene Roddenberry and Arthur C. Clark??!! BTW -- I think I've seen (and even met) 'Lilly' in 'real-life'. Nuff said about that. 'Hathor', 'The Powers That Be', 'The Torment of Tantalus', 'The Fifth Race', 'Absolute Power', and the 'Disclosure' episodes are some of the best 'Stargate SG-1' material.

    The 'Disclosure' episode is especially relevant when considering a 'United States of the Solar System' which might involve the sharing of advanced technology and information with ALL member states. This sort of thing is quite challenging and dangerous -- but the alternatives might be even more problematic. Supposedly John F. Kennedy wanted to partner with the Soviet Union regarding the Space Program (and who knows what else) -- and we all know what happened a few months later. What are legitimate-secrets and illegitimate-secrets?? I suspect that this whole damn solar system is a subsidiary of a HUGE Galactic Business Empire -- and that the Bottom-Line is the Bottom-Line in just about EVERYTHING -- but I can't prove it. I continue to suspect that we live in a nasty and violent universe with 'System Lords' in conflict with each other -- and I suspect that the Human Race is simply a Pawn in a HUGE Galactic Chess Game. Realistically Speaking -- a United States of the Solar System might have to be somewhat militaristic and disciplined to survive in this universe. I desire absolute peace and harmony -- but does this idealism really work in this universe?? I continue to suspect a VERY nasty past, present, and future for ALL civilizations and races. The Old Testament might very well reflect the reality of the type of universe we live in.

    I might, of necessity, have to be a Bad@$$ Warrior in my next incarnation. My idealism in this incarnation seems to have nearly put me in the funny farm -- and I'm not kidding. Perhaps I should embrace Old Testament Ethics rather than trying to superimpose the Teachings of Jesus onto a Universe which HATES these teachings. I really think that I'm some sort of a Reincarnational Bad@$$ with a reprehensible ethical record. Perhaps I should NOT have tried to be 'Good'. This seems to have brought me nothing but misery and sadness. What if the Galactic PTB Want Bad@$$ Bad Guys?? What if they do NOT want the Pure in Heart?? I guess my present goal is to become sort of a Bad@$$ Good-Guy (in preparation for my next incarnation). It's a little late for me to do anything significant in this incarnation -- especially when I seem to be hamstrung by nefarious entities and agencies. I can barely remember my name and tie my shoes. I seem to be Galactically Blacklisted and Redlisted -- Big Time. Was it Something I Said?? As you can tell -- I'm getting more and more jaded and cynical regarding just about everything -- as my ears ring loudly -- and as I feel like I just got hit by a mag-lev train -- each and every day. Unfortunately, I feel as if my next incarnation will be a helluva lot worse -- if I even have a next incarnation...





    The Queen of Heaven and a Jesuit-Professor??
    Another Day at the University of Solar System
    Studies and Governance at Ida??
    devakas wrote:
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Thank-you magamud and Janetta. I worry about irresponsible-freedom v responsible-freedom. I understand that We the Sheeple must be watched by the Sheep-Herders -- but I worry when I hear about the TV watching people while they watch TV. What are ethical and appropriate limits to surveillance?? We obviously live in a VERY dangerous world -- and I agonize over how the insanity should be managed. I have recently started thinking more about Ethics, Law, Law-Enforcement, and the Military. The industrial revolution, the technological revolution, and the information explosion -- has created a perfect storm -- especially on the internet -- and I suspect that a lot of individuals (human and otherwise) have gotten caught with their pants and dresses down -- and I further suspect that they are really, Really MAD!! But I am very doubtful that things are going to get better anytime soon. Even if my hypothetical United States of the Solar System were introduced in Obama's State of the Union Address -- things would probably still go to hell -- and such a sudden and abrupt introduction might precipitate Hell on Earth.

    I think things are very precarious and unstable right now. I further think that evolutionary change should trump revolutionary change. Things might have to APPEAR to remain the same for at least the rest of this decade. I think we could be facing a market-crash and a dollar-crash in 2013 -- which could be made milder or more severe by how change and the media is managed. I worry about resets, disclosure, regime-changes, and alien-invasions (staged or otherwise). I think the evil and destructive potential which exists within this solar system is beyond comprehension. I feel as if we might be in the quiet before the storm. My recent 'Solar System View' is making me feel like a completely different person -- and it is scaring the hell out of me. I can only imagine how the 'Real Insiders' feel -- the ones who deal directly with the BS -- each and every day.
    I can only imagine how the 'Real Insiders' feel -- the ones who deal directly with the BS -- each and every day -

    hahaha I think you got it right here.

    incarnated soul is very busy to create the paradise on earth, to make there imortal matter, get insurance and enjoy the 'misery'....

    Ortho you are the very skilled english writer. You try to speak with the sore mind.  However it is true that the heart is wiser than mind.

    I posted on Vedic thread about Creator, our father, i shared to understand Him better, to feel Him in our hearts, to love Him, bow to Him.....
    remember it is all about desires. it it all about our desires to whom to serve. truth or lies.

    Now compare the desire in your posts. I see it as it is politics of rulers, pure desire to rule and sufering of this passion.  
    (remember passion always ends in misery. facts. hollywood passion, rules of passion, love with passion, etc. always ends with misery. ) remember that.

    so the question is do you want to know God? really? or do you want to take over the ruler's part? Are you worry how to rule? This post of One is taken. :) So whom you want to rule or take over?

    I would be fan of your writings, but i am not interested in politics, powers, rulers, responsibilities (sucks)...those are only people mind speculations in illiusion of -i do better, i am the best..

     freedom is better.

    i see your honesty, i see you suffer and feel bad about it.  

    keep cool your mind and best best wishes.

    devakas
    Flowers

    should i post about matter
    Thank-you devakas. I wish to know God, in part, by attempting to understand the realities and potentialities of the governance of this solar system. I guess I'm attempting to think God's thoughts after Him and/or Her. But really, this might reveal both the positives and negatives of how this solar system and universe really works. The universe might be stranger than we CAN think. What Would Albert Einstein and JBS Haldane Say?? I think I'm going to imagine the 'Stargate SG-1' Underground Base as being part of the interior of Ida. (Imagine each 'SG-1' episode originating in said base!!) Then, I might imagine that enlarged (10,000 seat) reproduction of Solomon's Temple as being inside of Ida http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/rebuilding-solomons-temple-in-sao-paulo/ -- complete with a Fisk Pipe-Organ similar to the 1875 Cavaille-Coll Design Intended for St. Peter's Basilica in Rome!! http://cdmnet.org/Julian/schemes/props/rome.htm What if this were one of the meeting-places for USSS Representatives!! Finally, I might imagine Humans, Greys, and Dracs as being the Professors (Including Jesuits!) at the University of Solar System Studies and Governance at Ida!! Could I get some sort of a scholarship??!! I really would like to obtain a PhD in Solar System Studies and Governance -- based, in part, upon my internet posting concerning a hypothetical United States of the Solar System. What Would Richard Greenberg Say?? I have NO idea what the realities are, connected with all of this, but it's fun to think about -- in a very scary way!! Can you even begin to imagine a Room with a View with a Cray on Ida???!!!



    "Late to Class AGAIN???"
    devakas wrote:Ortho, did Jesus taught us to imagine? you should stop to imagine, and get real. Did Jesus taught to rule Solar System? or Jesus taught Love?

    Save your soul, as your mind is going off. If you realy want to know Truth, read yourself Bhagavad Gita As It Is as Einstein did. Read what he said about it.
    :)
    you are not late to class.  There is Bhagtivedanta Institute. I posted on Vedic link somewhere.

    i just want you to be happpppppyyyyyyyy!!!!  hear me.  :).  shut off your mind.

    :)


    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:58 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    orthodoxymoron

    Posts : 9574
    Join date : 2010-09-28

    Re: Meticulous Analysis of the United States of the Solar System

    Post  orthodoxymoron on Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:06 am










    This is the USSS Page 7 Post. What if the Chain of Command in This Solar System is 1. Serpent?? 2. Eve?? 3. Adam?? 4. We the Peons?? An Individual of Interest told me "The Women Have Taken Over!!" What a Revolting-Development!! What Would the Father Say?? What Would Hillary Say?? What Would the Son Say?? What Would Melania Say?? What Would the Antichrist Say?? What if the Holy-Spirit is a Woman?? What Would the Queen of Sheba Say?? What Would the Beast-Computer Do?? What Would the Borg-Queen Say?? "Resistance is Futile!! You Have Been Assimilated!!"?? I recently met a beautiful queen-like woman who exhibited subtle-royalty. I felt SO inadequate as the commoner I truly am. 'RA' called me a 'Commoner' when I made a comment about 'Tall Long-Nosed Greys'!! What if this Solar System has been run by a Grey Supercomputer since the Creation of Humanity?? What if this Solar System is a Galactic Rat-Trap?? What if the Investigative-Judgment began with the Creation of Humanity?? What if the Investigative-Judgment ends with the Destruction of Humanity??  

    I am SO embarrassed by my internet stuff. Frank-Honesty and Truth-Seeking are SO Overrated. Even though I just started this thread, there are nearly 10,000 views. In 2018, perhaps I'll continue to make a completely ignorant fool out of myself on the internet (if I live that long). Imagine me being that Dr. Who 'Blue Boy' at the bottom of my posts, posting on The Mists of Avalon, reading the Wall Street Journal and the SDA Bible Commentary, while listening to Sacred Classical Music, in the context of nature, a cathedral, the Tardis, or a 600 square-foot office-apartment beneath the Dark-Side of the Moon!! I just finished watching the Solar-Eclipse with a Filter and the Internet, and it was AWESOME!! The sun was approximately 92% eclipsed where I was, but I watched it go total on the internet!! This inspired me to order a telescope!! I plan to specialize in the Moon!!

    http://whiteestate.org/books/pk/pk.asp It was for the purpose of bringing the best gifts of Heaven to all the peoples of earth that God called Abraham out from his idolatrous kindred and bade him dwell in the land of Canaan. "I will make of thee a great nation," He said, "and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing." Genesis 12:2. It was a high honor to which Abraham was called--that of being the father of the people who for centuries were to be the guardians and preservers of the truth of God to the world, the people through whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed in the advent of the promised Messiah.

    Men had well-nigh lost the knowledge of the true God. Their minds were darkened by idolatry. For the divine statutes, which are "holy, and just, and good" (Romans 7: 12), men were endeavoring to substitute laws in harmony with the purposes of their own cruel, selfish hearts. Yet God in His mercy did not blot them out of existence. He purposed to give them opportunity for becoming acquainted with Him through His church. He designed that the principles revealed through His people should be the means of restoring the moral image of God in man.

    God's law must be exalted, His authority maintained; and to the house of Israel was given this great and noble work. God separated them from the world, that He might commit to them a sacred trust. He made them the depositaries of His law, and He purposed through them to preserve among men the knowledge of Himself. Thus the light of heaven was to shine out to a world enshrouded in darkness, and a voice was to be heard appealing to all peoples to turn from idolatry to serve the living God.

    "With great power, and with a mighty hand," God brought His chosen people out of the land of Egypt. Exodus 32:11. "He sent Moses His servant; and Aaron whom He had chosen. They showed His signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham." "He rebuked the Red Sea also, and it was dried up: so He led them through the depths." Psalms 105:26,27;106:9. He rescued them from their servile state, that He might bring them to a good land, a land which in His providence He had prepared for them as a refuge from their enemies. He would bring them to Himself and encircle them in His everlasting arms; and in return for His goodness and mercy they were to exalt His name and make it glorious in the earth.

    "The Lord's portion is His people; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance. He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; He led him about, He instructed him, He kept him as the apple of His eye. As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: so the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him." Deuteronomy 32:9-12. Thus He brought the Israelites unto Himself, that they might dwell as under the shadow of the Most High. Miraculously preserved from the perils of the wilderness wandering, they were finally established in the Land of Promise as a favored nation.

    By means of a parable, Isaiah has told with touching pathos the story of Israel's call and training to stand in the world as Jehovah's representatives, fruitful in every good work:

    "Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved touching His vineyard. My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: and He fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a wine press therein: and He looked that it should bring forth grapes." Isaiah 5:1,2.

    Through the chosen nation, God had purposed to bring blessing to all mankind. "The vineyard of the Lord of hosts," the prophet declared, "is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant." Isaiah 5:7.

    To this people were committed the oracles of God. They were hedged about by the precepts of His law, the everlasting principles of truth, justice, and purity. Obedience to these principles was to be their protection, for it would save them from destroying themselves by sinful practices. And as the tower in the vineyard, God placed in the midst of the land His holy temple.

    Christ was their instructor. As He had been with them in the wilderness, so He was still to be their teacher and guide. In the tabernacle and the temple His glory dwelt in the holy Shekinah above the mercy seat. In their behalf He constantly manifested the riches of His love and patience.

    Through Moses the purpose of God was set before them and the terms of their prosperity made plain. "Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God," he said; "the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."

    "Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in His ways, and to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and to hearken unto His voice: and the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be His peculiar people, as He hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all His commandments; and to make thee high above all nations which He hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honor; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God, as He hath spoken." Deuteronomy 7:6; 26:17-19.

    The children of Israel were to occupy all the territory which God appointed them. Those nations that rejected the worship and service of the true God were to be dispossessed. But it was God's purpose that by the revelation of His character through Israel men should be drawn unto Him. To all the world the gospel invitation was to be given. Through the teaching of the sacrificial service, Christ was to be uplifted before the nations, and all who would look unto Him should live. All who, like Rahab the Canaanite and Ruth the Moabitess, turned from idolatry to the worship of the true God were to unite themselves with His chosen people. As the numbers of Israel increased, they were to enlarge their borders until their kingdom should embrace the world.

    But ancient Israel did not fulfill God's purpose. The Lord declared, "I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto Me?" "Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself." "And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt Me and My vineyard. What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down: and I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. For . . . He looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry." Jeremiah 2:21; Hosea 10:1; Isaiah 5:3-7.

    The Lord had through Moses set before His people the result of unfaithfulness. By refusing to keep His covenant, they would cut themselves off from the life of God, and His blessing could not come upon them. At times these warnings were heeded, and rich blessings were bestowed upon the Jewish nation and through them upon surrounding peoples. But more often in their history they forgot God and lost sight of their high privilege as His representatives. They robbed Him of the service He required of them, and they robbed their fellow men of religious guidance and a holy example. They desired to appropriate to themselves the fruits of the vineyard over which they had been made stewards. Their covetousness and greed caused them to be despised even by the heathen. Thus the Gentile world was given occasion to misinterpret the character of God and the laws of His kingdom.

    With a father's heart, God bore with His people. He pleaded with them by mercies given and mercies withdrawn. Patiently He set their sins before them and in forbearance waited for their acknowledgment. Prophets and messengers were sent to urge His claim upon the husbandmen; but, instead of being welcomed, these men of discernment and spiritual power were treated as enemies. The husbandmen persecuted and killed them. God sent still other messengers, but they received the same treatment as the first, only that the husbandmen showed still more determined hatred.

    The withdrawal of divine favor during the period of the Exile led many to repentance, yet after their return to the Land of Promise the Jewish people repeated the mistakes of former generations and brought themselves into political conflict with surrounding nations. The prophets whom God sent to correct the prevailing evils were received with the same suspicion and scorn that had been accorded the messengers of earlier times; and thus, from century to century, the keepers of the vineyard added to their guilt.

    The goodly vine planted by the divine Husbandman upon the hills of Palestine was despised by the men of Israel and was finally cast over the vineyard wall; they bruised it and trampled it under their feet and hoped that they had destroyed it forever. The Husbandman removed the vine and concealed it from their sight. Again He planted it, but on the other side of the wall and in such a manner that the stock was no longer visible. The branches hung over the wall, and grafts might be joined to it; but the stem itself was placed beyond the power of men to reach or harm.

    Of special value to God's church on earth today--the keepers of His vineyard--are the messages of counsel and admonition given through the prophets who have made plain His eternal purpose in behalf of mankind. In the teachings of the prophets, His love for the lost race and His plan for their salvation are clearly revealed. The story of Israel's call, of their successes and failures, of their restoration to divine favor, of their rejection of the Master of the vineyard, and of the carrying out of the plan of the ages by a goodly remnant to whom are to be fulfilled all the covenant promises--this has been the theme of God's messengers to His church throughout the centuries that have passed. And today God's message to His church--to those who are occupying His vineyard as faithful husbandmen--is none other than that spoken through the prophet of old:

    "Sing ye unto her, A vineyard of red wine. I the Lord do keep it; I will water it every moment: lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day." Isaiah 27:2, 3.

    Let Israel hope in God. The Master of the vineyard is even now gathering from among men of all nations and peoples the precious fruits for which He has long been waiting. Soon He will come unto His own; and in that glad day His eternal purpose for the house of Israel will finally be fulfilled. "He shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root: Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit." Verse 6.

    http://whiteestate.org/books/pk/pk1.html In the reign of David and Solomon, Israel became strong among the nations and had many opportunities to wield a mighty influence in behalf of truth and the right. The name of Jehovah was exalted and held in honor, and the purpose for which the Israelites had been established in the Land of Promise bade fair of meeting with fulfillment. Barriers were broken down, and seekers after truth from the lands of the heathen were not turned away unsatisfied. Conversions took place, and the church of God on earth was enlarged and prospered.

    Solomon was anointed and proclaimed king in the closing years of his father David, who abdicated in his favor. His early life was bright with promise, and it was God's purpose that he should go on from strength to strength, from glory to glory, ever approaching nearer the similitude of the character of God, and thus inspiring His people to fulfill their sacred trust as the depositaries of divine truth.

    David knew that God's high purpose for Israel could be met only as rulers and people should seek with unceasing vigilance to attain to the standard placed before them. He knew that in order for his son Solomon to fulfill the trust with which God was pleased to honor him, the youthful ruler must be not merely a warrior, a statesman, and a sovereign, but a strong, good man, a teacher of righteousness, an example of fidelity.

    With tender earnestness David entreated Solomon to be manly and noble, to show mercy and loving-kindness to his subjects, and in all his dealings with the nations of earth to honor and glorify the name of God and to make manifest the beauty of holiness. The many trying and remarkable experiences through which David had passed during his lifetime had taught him the value of the nobler virtues and led him to declare in his dying charge to Solomon: "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain." 2 Samuel 23:3,4.

    Oh, what an opportunity was Solomon's! Should he follow the divinely inspired instruction of his father, his reign would be a reign of righteousness, like that described in the seventy-second psalm:

    "Give the king Thy judgments, O God,
    And Thy righteousness unto the king's son.
    He shall judge Thy people with righteousness,
    And Thy poor with judgment. . . .
    He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass:
    As showers that water the earth.

    In his days shall the righteous flourish;
    And abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth.
    He shall have dominion also from sea to sea,
    And from the river unto the ends of the earth. . . .
    The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents:
    The kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts.
    Yea, all kings shall fall down before him:
    All nations shall serve him.
    For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth;
    The poor also, and him that hath no helper. . . .
    Prayer also shall be made for him continually;
    And daily shall he be praised. . . .
    His name shall endure forever:
    His name shall be continued as long as the sun:
    And men shall be blessed in him:
    All nations shall call him blessed.

    "Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel,
    Who only doeth wondrous things.
    And blessed be His glorious name forever:
    And let the whole earth be filled with His glory;
    Amen, and Amen."

    In his youth Solomon made David's choice his own, and for many years he walked uprightly, his life marked with strict obedience to God's commands. Early in his reign he went with his counselors of state to Gibeon, where the tabernacle that had been built in the wilderness still was, and there he united with his chosen advisers, "the captains of thousands and of hundreds," "the judges," and "every governor in all Israel, the chief of the fathers," in offering sacrifices to God and in consecrating themselves fully to the Lord's service. 2 Chronicles 1:2. Comprehending something of the magnitude of the duties connected with the kingly office, Solomon knew that those bearing heavy burdens must seek the Source of Wisdom for guidance, if they would fulfill their responsibilities acceptably. This led him to encourage his counselors to unite with him heartily in making sure of their acceptance with God.

    Above every earthly good, the king desired wisdom and understanding for the accomplishment of the work God had given him to do. He longed for quickness of mind, for largeness of heart, for tenderness of spirit. That night the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream and said, "Ask what I shall give thee." In his answer the young and inexperienced ruler gave utterance to his feeling of helplessness and his desire for aid. "Thou hast showed unto Thy servant David my father great mercy," he said, "according as he walked before Thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with Thee; and Thou hast kept for him this great kindness, that Thou hast given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day.

    "And now, O Lord my God, Thou hast made Thy servant king instead of David my father: and I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in. And Thy servant is in the midst of Thy people which Thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude. Give therefore Thy servant an understanding heart to judge Thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this Thy so great a people?

    "And the speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing."

    "Because this was in thine heart," God said to Solomon, "and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honor, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge My people," "behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches, and honor," "such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like."

    "And if thou wilt walk in My ways, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days." 1 Kings 3:5-14; 2 Chronicles 1:7-12.

    God promised that as He had been with David, so He would be with Solomon. If the king would walk before the Lord in uprightness, if he would do what God had commanded him, his throne would be established and his reign would be the means of exalting Israel as "a wise and understanding people," the light of the surrounding nations. Deuteronomy 4:6.

    The language used by Solomon while praying to God before the ancient altar at Gibeon reveals his humility and his strong desire to honor God. He realized that without divine aid he was as helpless as a little child to fulfill the responsibilities resting on him. He knew that he lacked discernment, and it was a sense of his great need that led him to seek God for wisdom. In his heart there was no selfish aspirations for a knowledge that would exalt him above others. He desired to discharge faithfully the duties devolving upon him, and he chose the gift that would be the means of causing his reign to bring glory to God. Solomon was never so rich or so wise or so truly great as when he confessed, "I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in."

    Those who today occupy positions of trust should seek to learn the lesson taught by Solomon's prayer. The higher the position a man occupies, the greater the responsibility that he has to bear, the wider will be the influence that he exerts and the greater his need of dependence on God. Ever should he remember that with the call to work comes the call to walk circumspectly before his fellow men. He is to stand before God in the attitude of a learner. Position does not give holiness of character. It is by honoring God and obeying His commands that a man is made truly great.

    The God whom we serve is no respecter of persons. He who gave to Solomon the spirit of wise discernment is willing to impart the same blessing to His children today. "If any of you lack wisdom," His word declares, "let him ask of God, the giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." James 1:5. When a burden bearer desires wisdom more than he desires wealth, power, or fame, he will not be disappointed. Such a one will learn from the Great Teacher not only what to do, but how to do it in a way that will meet with the divine approval.

    So long as he remains consecrated, the man whom God has endowed with discernment and ability will not manifest an eagerness for high position, neither will he seek to rule or control. Of necessity men must bear responsibilities; but instead of striving for the supremacy, he who is a true leader will pray for an understanding heart, to discern between good and evil.

    The path of men who are placed as leaders is not an easy one. But they are to see in every difficulty a call to prayer. Never are they to fail of consulting the great Source of all wisdom. Strengthened and enlightened by the Master Worker, they will be enabled to stand firm against unholy influences and to discern right from wrong, good from evil. They will approve that which God approves, and will strive earnestly against the introduction of wrong principles into His cause.

    The wisdom that Solomon desired above riches, honor, or long life, God gave him. His petition for a quick mind, a large heart, and a tender spirit was granted. "God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the seashore. And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men; . . . and his fame was in all nations round about." 1 Kings 4:29-31.

    "And all Israel . . . feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment." I Kings 3:28. The hearts of the people were turned toward Solomon, as they had been toward David, and they obeyed him in all things. "Solomon . . . was strengthened in his kingdom, and the Lord his God was with him, and magnified him exceedingly." 2 Chronicles 1:1.

    For many years Solomon's life was marked with devotion to God, with uprightness and firm principle, and with strict obedience to God's commands. He directed in every important enterprise and managed wisely the business matters connected with the kingdom. His wealth and wisdom, the magnificent buildings and public works that he constructed during the early years of his reign, the energy, piety, justice, and magnanimity that he revealed in word and deed, won the loyalty of his subjects and the admiration and homage of the rulers of many lands.

    The name of Jehovah was greatly honored during the first part of Solomon's reign. The wisdom and righteousness revealed by the king bore witness to all nations of the excellency of the attributes of the God whom he served. For a time Israel was as the light of the world, showing forth the greatness of Jehovah. Not in the surpassing wisdom, the fabulous riches, the far-reaching power and fame that were his, lay the real glory of Solomon's early reign; but in the honor that he brought to the name of the God of Israel through a wise use of the gifts of Heaven.

    As the years went by and Solomon's fame increased, he sought to honor God by adding to his mental and spiritual strength, and by continuing to impart to others the blessings he received. None understood better than he that it was through the favor of Jehovah that he had come into possession of power and wisdom and understanding, and that these gifts were bestowed that he might give to the world a knowledge of the King of kings.

    Solomon took an especial interest in natural history, but his researchers were not confined to any one branch of learning. Through a diligent study of all created things, both animate and inanimate, he gained a clear conception of the Creator. In the forces of nature, in the mineral and the animal world, and in every tree and shrub and flower, he saw a revelation of God's wisdom; and as he sought to learn more and more, his knowledge of God and his love for Him constantly increased.

    Solomon's divinely inspired wisdom found expression in songs of praise and in many proverbs. "He spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes." 1 Kings 4:32, 33.

    In the proverbs of Solomon are outlined principles of holy living and high endeavor, principles that are heaven-born and that lead to godliness, principles that should govern every act of life. It was the wide dissemination of these principles, and the recognition of God as the One to whom all praise and honor belong, that made Solomon's early reign a time of moral uplift as well as of material prosperity.

    "Happy is the man that findeth wisdom," he wrote, "and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her." Proverbs 3:13-18.

    "Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." Proverbs 4:7. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Psalm 111:10. "The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate." Proverbs 8:13.

    O that in later years Solomon had heeded these wonderful words of wisdom! O that he who had declared, "The lips of the wise disperse knowledge" (Proverbs 15:17), and who had himself taught the kings of the earth to render to the King of kings the praise they desired to give to an earthly ruler, had never with a "froward mouth," in "pride and arrogancy," taken to himself the glory due to God alone!

    http://whiteestate.org/books/pk/pk2.html The long-cherished plan of David to erect a temple to the Lord, Solomon wisely carried out. For seven years Jerusalem was filled with busy workers engaged in leveling the chosen site, in building vast retaining walls, in laying broad foundations,--"great stones, costly stones, and hewed stones,"--in shaping the heavy timbers brought from the Lebanon forests, and in erecting the magnificent sanctuary. 1 Kings 5:17.

    Simultaneously with the preparation of wood and stone, to which task many thousands were bending their energies, the manufacture of the furnishings for the temple was steadily progressing under the leadership of Hiram of Tyre, "a cunning man, endued with understanding, . . . skillful to work in gold, and in silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in blue, and in fine linen, and in crimson." 2 Chronicles 2:13, 14.

    Thus as the building on Mount Moriah was noiselessly upreared with "stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor ax nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building," the beautiful fittings were perfected according to the patterns committed by David to his son, "all the vessels that were for the house of God." 1 King 6:7;2 Chronicles 4:19. These included the altar of incense, the table of shewbread, the candlestick and lamps, with the vessels and instruments connected with the ministrations of the priests in the holy place, all "of gold, and that perfect gold." 2 Chronicles 4:21. The brazen furniture,--the altar of burnt offering, the great laver supported by twelve oxen, the lavers of smaller size, with many other vessels,--"in the plain of Jordan did the king cast them, in the clay ground between Succoth and Zeredathah." 2 Chronicles 4:17. These furnishings were provided in abundance, that there should be no lack.

    Of surpassing beauty and unrivaled splendor was the palatial building which Solomon and his associates erected for God and His worship. Garnished with precious stones, surrounded by spacious courts with magnificent approaches, and lined with carved cedar and burnished gold, the temple structure, with its broidered hangings and rich furnishings, was a fit emblem of the living church of God on earth, which through the ages has been building in accordance with the divine pattern, with materials that have been likened to "gold, silver, precious stones," "polished after the similitude of a palace." 1 Corinthians 3:12; Psalm 144:12. Of this spiritual temple Christ is "the chief Cornerstone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." Ephesians 2:20, 21.

    At last the temple planned by King David, and built by Solomon his son, was completed. "All that came into Solomon's heart to make in the house of the Lord," he had "prosperously effected." 2 Chronicles 7:11. And now, in order that the palace crowning the heights of Mount Moriah might indeed be, as David had so much desired, a dwelling place "not for man, but for the Lord God" (1 Chronicles 29:1), there remained the solemn ceremony of formally dedicating it to Jehovah and His worship.

    The spot on which the temple was built had long been regarded as a consecrated place. It was here that Abraham, the father of the faithful, had revealed his willingness to sacrifice his only son in obedience to the command of Jehovah. Here God had renewed with Abraham the covenant of blessing, which included the glorious Messianic promise to the human race of deliverance through the sacrifice of the Son of the Most High. See Genesis 22:9, 16:18. Here it was that when David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings to stay the avenging sword of the destroying angel, God had answered him by fire from heaven. See 1 Chronicles 21. And now once more the worshipers of Jehovah were here to meet their God and renew their vows of allegiance to Him.

    The time chosen for the dedication was a most favorable one--the seventh month, when the people from every part of the kingdom were accustomed to assemble at Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. This feast was preeminently an occasion of rejoicing. The labors of the harvest being ended and the toils of the new year not yet begun, the people were free from care and could give themselves up to the sacred, joyous influences of the hour.

    At the appointed time the hosts of Israel, with richly clad representatives from many foreign nations, assembled in the temple courts. The scene was one of unusual splendor. Solomon, with the elders of Israel and the most influential men among the people, had returned from another part of the city, whence they had brought the ark of the testament. From the sanctuary on the heights of Gibeon had been transferred the ancient "tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle" (2 Chronicles 5:5); and these cherished reminders of the earlier experiences of the children of Israel during their wanderings in the wilderness and their conquest of Canaan, now found a permanent home in the splendid building that had been erected to take the place of the portable structure.

    In bringing to the temple the sacred ark containing the two tables of stone on which were written by the finger of God the precepts of the Decalogue, Solomon had followed the example of his father David. Every six paces he sacrificed. With singing and with music and with great ceremony, "the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord unto his place, to the oracle of the house, into the most holy place." Verse 7. As they came out of the inner sanctuary, they took the positions assigned them. The singers --Levites arrayed in white linen, having cymbals and psalteries and harps--stood at the east end of the altar, and with them a hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets. See verse 12.

    "It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord; and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and praised the Lord, saying, For He is good; for His mercy endureth forever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the Lord; so that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of God." Verses 13,14.

    Realizing the significance of this cloud, Solomon declared: "The Lord hath said that He would dwell in the thick darkness. But I have built an house of habitation for Thee, and a place for Thy dwelling forever." 2 Chronicles 6:1,2.

    "The Lord reigneth;
    Let the people tremble:
    He sitteth between the cherubims;
    Let the earth be moved.
    "The Lord is great in Zion;
    And He is high above all the people.
    Let them praise Thy great and terrible name;
    For it is holy. . . .
    "Exalt ye the Lord our God,
    And worship at His footstool;
    For He is holy."
    Psalm 99:1-5.

    "In the midst of the court" of the temple had been erected "a brazen scaffold," or platform, "five cubits long, and five cubits broad, and three cubits high." Upon this Solomon stood and with uplifted hands blessed the vast multitude before him. "And all the congregation of Israel stood." 2 Chronicles 6:13,3.

    "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel," Solomon exclaimed, "who hath with His hands fulfilled that which He spake with His mouth to my father David, saying, . . . I have chosen Jerusalem, that My name might be there." Verses 4-6.

    Solomon then knelt upon the platform, and in the hearing of all the people offered the dedicatory prayer. Lifting his hands toward heaven, while the congregation were bowed with their faces to the ground, the king pleaded: "Lord God of Israel, there is no God like Thee in the heaven, nor in the earth; which keepest covenant, and showest mercy unto Thy servants, that walk before Thee with all their heart."

    "Will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house which I have built? Have respect therefore to the prayer of Thy servant, and to his supplication, O Lord my God, to hearken unto the cry and the prayer which Thy servant prayeth before Thee: that Thine eyes may be open upon this house day and night, upon the place whereof Thou hast said that Thou wouldest put Thy name there; to hearken unto the prayer which Thy servant prayeth toward this place. Hearken therefore unto the supplications of Thy servant, and of Thy people Israel, which they shall make toward this place: hear Thou from Thy dwelling place, even from heaven; and when Thou hearest, forgive. . . .

    "If Thy people Israel be put to the worse before the enemy, because they have sinned against Thee; and shall return and confess Thy name, and pray and make supplication before Thee in this house; then hear Thou from the heavens, and forgive the sin of Thy people Israel, and bring them again unto the land which Thou gavest to them and to their fathers.

    "When the heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against Thee; yet if they pray toward this place, and confess Thy name, and turn from their sin, when Thou dost afflict them; then hear Thou from heaven, and forgive the sin of Thy servants, and of Thy people Israel, when Thou hast taught them the good way, wherein they should walk; and send rain upon Thy land, which Thou hast given unto Thy people for an inheritance.

    "If there be dearth in the land, if there be pestilence, if there be blasting, or mildew, locusts, or caterpillars; if their enemies besiege them in the cities of their land; whatsoever sore or whatsoever sickness there be: then what prayer or what supplication soever shall be made of any man, or of all Thy people Israel, when everyone shall know his own sore and his own grief, and shall spread forth his hands in his house: then hear Thou from heaven Thy dwelling place, and forgive, and render unto every man according unto all his ways, whose heart Thou knowest; . . . that they may fear Thee, to walk in Thy ways, so long as they live in the land which Thou gavest unto our fathers.

    "Moreover concerning the stranger, which is not of Thy people Israel, but is come from a far country for Thy great name's sake, and Thy mighty hand, and Thy stretched-out arm; if they come and pray in this house; then hear Thou from the heavens, even from Thy dwelling place, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to Thee for; that all people of the earth may know Thy name, and fear Thee, as doth Thy people Israel, and may know that this house which I have built is called by Thy name.

    "If Thy people go out to war against their enemies by the way that Thou shalt send them, and they pray unto Thee toward this city which Thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for Thy name; then hear Thou from the heavens their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.

    "If they sin against Thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and Thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near; yet if they bethink themselves in the land whither they are carried captive, and turn and pray unto Thee in the land of their captivity, saying, We have sinned, we have done amiss, and have dealt wickedly; if they return to Thee with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their captivity, whither they have carried them captives, and pray toward their land, which Thou gavest unto their fathers, and toward the city which Thou hast chosen, and toward the house which I have built for Thy name: then hear Thou from the heavens, even from Thy dwelling place, their prayer and their supplications, and maintain their cause, and forgive Thy people which have sinned against Thee.

    "Now, my God, let, I beseech Thee, Thine eyes be open, and let Thine ears be attent unto the prayer that is made in this place. Now therefore arise, O Lord God, into Thy resting place, Thou, and the ark of Thy strength: let Thy priests, O Lord God, be clothed with salvation, and let Thy saints rejoice in goodness. O Lord God, turn not away the face of Thine anointed: remember the mercies of David Thy servant." Verses 14:42.

    As Solomon ended his prayer, "fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices." The priests could not enter the temple because "the glory of the Lord had filled the Lord's house." "When all the children of Israel saw . . . the glory of the Lord upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshiped, and praised the Lord, saying, For He is good; for His mercy endureth forever."

    Then king and people offered sacrifices before the Lord. "So the king and all the people dedicated the house of God." 2 Chronicles 7:1-5. For seven days the multitudes from every part of the kingdom, from the borders "of Hamath unto the river of Egypt," "a very great congregation," kept a joyous feast. The week following was spent by the happy throng in observing the Feast of Tabernacles. At the close of the season of reconsecration and rejoicing the people returned to their homes, "glad and merry in heart for the goodness that the Lord had showed unto David, and to Solomon, and to Israel His people." Verses 8,10.

    The king had done everything within his power to encourage the people to give themselves wholly to God and His service, and to magnify His holy name. And now once more, as at Gibeon early in his reign, Israel's ruler was given evidence of divine acceptance and blessing. In a night vision the Lord appeared to him with the message: "I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to Myself for an house of sacrifice. If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people; if My people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. Now Mine eyes shall be open, and Mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place. For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that My name may be there forever: and Mine eyes and Mine heart shall be there perpetually." Verses 12-16.

    Had Israel remained true to God, this glorious building would have stood forever, a perpetual sign of God's especial favor to His chosen people. "The sons of the stranger," God declared, "that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants, everyone that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of My covenant; even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon Mine altar; for Mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." Isaiah 56:6, 7.

    In connection with these assurances of acceptance, the Lord made very plain the path of duty before the king. "As for thee," He declared, "if thou wilt walk before Me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shalt observe My statutes and My judgments; then will I establish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel." 2 Chronicles 7:17, 18.

    Had Solomon continued to serve the Lord in humility, his entire reign would have exerted a powerful influence for good over the surrounding nations, nations that had been so favorably impressed by the reign of David his father and by the wise words and the magnificent works of the earlier years of his own reign. Foreseeing the terrible temptations that attend prosperity and worldly honor, God warned Solomon against the evil of apostasy and foretold the awful results of sin. Even the beautiful temple that had just been dedicated, He declared, would become "a proverb and a byword among all nations" should the Israelites forsake "the Lord God of their fathers" and persist in idolatry. Verses 20, 22.

    Strengthened in heart and greatly cheered by the message from heaven that his prayer in behalf of Israel had been heard, Solomon now entered upon the most glorious period of his reign, when "all the kings of the earth" began to seek his presence, "to hear his wisdom, that God had put in his heart." 2 Chronicles 9:23. Many came to see the manner of his government and to receive instruction regarding the conduct of difficult affairs.

    As these people visited Solomon, he taught them of God as the Creator of all things, and they returned to their homes with clearer conceptions of the God of Israel and of His love for the human race. In the works of nature they now beheld an expression of His love and a revelation of His character; and many were led to worship Him as their God.

    The humility of Solomon at the time he began to bear the burdens of state, when he acknowledged before God, "I am but a little child" (1 Kings 3"7), his marked love of God, his profound reverence for things divine, his distrust of self, and his exaltation of the infinite Creator of all--all these traits of character, so worthy of emulation, were revealed during the services connected with the completion of the temple, when during his dedicatory prayer he knelt in the humble position of a petitioner. Christ's followers today should guard against the tendency to lose the spirit of reverence and godly fear. The Scriptures teach men how they should approach their Maker--with humility and awe, through faith in a divine Mediator. The psalmist has declared:

    "The Lord is a great God,
    And a great King above all gods. . . .
    O come, let us worship and bow down:
    Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker."
    Psalm 95:3-6.

    Both in public and in private worship it is our privilege to bow on our knees before God when we offer our petitions to Him. Jesus, our example, "kneeled down, and prayed." Luke 22:41. Of his disciples it is recorded that they, too, "kneeled down, and prayed." Acts 9:40. Paul declared, "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Ephesians 3:14. In confessing before God the sins of Israel, Ezra knelt. See Ezra 9:5. Daniel "kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God." Daniel 6:10.

    True reverence for God is inspired by a sense of His infinite greatness and a realization of His presence. With this sense of the Unseen, every heart should be deeply impressed. The hour and place of prayer are sacred, because God is there. And as reverence is manifested in attitude and demeanor, the feeling that inspires it will be deepened. "Holy and reverend is His name," the psalmist declares. Psalm 111:9. Angels, when they speak that name, veil their faces. With what reverence, then, should we, who are fallen and sinful, take it upon our lips!

    Well would it be for old and young to ponder those words of Scripture that show how the place marked by God's special presence should be regarded. "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet," He commanded Moses at the burning bush, "for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." Exodus 3:5. Jacob, after beholding the vision of the angel, exclaimed, "The Lord is in this place; and I knew it not. . . . This is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven." Genesis 28:16, 17.

    In that which was said during the dedicatory services, Solomon had sought to remove from the minds of those present the superstitions in regard to the Creator, that had beclouded the minds of the heathen. The God of heaven is not, like the gods of the heathen, confined to temples made with hands; yet He would meet with His people by His Spirit when they should assemble at the house dedicated to His worship.

    Centuries later Paul taught the same truth in the words: "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; . . . that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us: for in Him we live, and move, and have our being." Acts 17:24-28.

    "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord;
    And the people whom He hath chosen for His own
    inheritance.
    The Lord looketh from heaven;
    He beholdeth all the sons of men.
    From the place of His habitation
    He looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth."
    "The Lord hath prepared His throne in the heavens;
    And His kingdom ruleth over all."

    "Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary:
    Who is so great a God as our God?
    Thou art the God that doest wonders:
    Thou hast declared Thy strength among the people."
    Psalms 33:12-14; 103:19;77:13,14.

    Although God dwells not in temples made with hands, yet He honors with His presence the assemblies of His people. He has promised that when they come together to seek Him, to acknowledge their sins, and to pray for one another, He will meet with them by His Spirit. But those who assemble to worship Him should put away every evil thing. Unless they worship Him in spirit and truth and in the beauty of holiness, their coming together will be of no avail. Of such the Lord declares, "This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoreth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me." Matthew 15:8,9. Those who worship God must worship Him "in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him." John 4:23.

    "The Lord is in His holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before Him." Habakkuk 2:20.

    Carol wrote:The August 21, 2017 Eclipse – 33+ Fascinating Facts
    https://countdownreport.wordpress.com/2017/08/12/august-21-eclipse-33-facts/


    This eclipse even by the world’s standards is being set as “The Great American Eclipse” because of how unique it is. Yes, plenty of partial and solar eclipses happened in the past, but what makes this one different?

    1. MOST total eclipses falls over water or unpopulated areas of the planet, so an eclipse that is visible is rare in itself. The August 21 eclipse will be the first total solar eclipse whose path of totality stays completely in the United States since 1776 according the Space.com Total Solar Eclipse 2017 guide.

    What else happened in 1776? Oh, so a total solar eclipse that affects only the United States, a gentile nation, since the founding of it? Note taken.

    2. EVERYONE in the continental U.S. has the opportunity to at least a partial eclipse. This eclipse will be the most viewed ever.

    3. A solar eclipse is a lineup of the Sun, the Moon, and Earth and a solar eclipse happens only at a New Moon and solar eclipses don’t happen at every New Moon. More rare upon rare.

    4. First contact is in the state of Oregon, the 33rd state in the USA. The last contact is in South Carolina on the 33rd parallel. This eclipse happens on day 233 of the year. If the Revelation 12 sign is valid, then the eclipse is also 33 days before September 23, 2017. Jesus is thought to have been 33 when He died.

    5. Just for fun: It is 99 years (3 x 33) since the last eclipse to go coast-to-coast in the US, in 1918. From September 23, 2017 (Revelation 12 sign) to the end of the year, December 31, 2017 is 99 days (or 3 x 33). The number of days from the 1918 eclipse to the August 21 eclipse are 26,234 days. (2+6+2+3+4 = 17; 2017?). From August 12, 2017, the date of the Charlottesville Virginia “State of Emergency” declared to the August 21, 2017 Great Solar Eclipse is 9 days (3+3+3) and the dates are also mirrored – 12 and 21.

    33 has a special relation to earthquakes because the Richter Scale uses the number 33. Each whole number that goes higher on the scale is 33 times more intense than the whole number below it. (Keep this in mind for a special treat below!)

    6. First big city the eclipse hits in Oregon is Salem – Salem was named after Jerusalem. The eclipse also begins in Oregon exactly at sunset time in Jerusalem. So technically speaking, as the sun sets in American it will be setting in Jerusalem at the same time.

    7. The center line crosses through 12 primary states to receive total darkness. 12 disciples, 12 months in a year, the meaning of 12, which is considered a perfect number, is that it symbolizes God’s power and authority, as well as serving as a perfect governmental foundation. (Remember the 1776 thing?)

    8. The eclipse path is exactly 70 miles wide. 70 has a sacred meaning in the Bible that has two perfect numbers, 7 that represents perfection and 10 that represents completeness and God’s law. 70 also symbolizes perfect spiritual order and a period of judgment. 70 is also specially connected with Jerusalem with so many references it would take a book to write.

    9. When Jesus died, there was an eclipse? and a earthquake. “It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon” – Luke 23:44-45 / “Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.” – Matthew 27:54.

    10. Donald Trump was born on an eclipse.

    11. The path of the August 21, 2017 eclipse crosses every major earthquake fault line. (Remember that note above above 33 in the Richter scale?) On August 23, 2017 there is a FEMA exercise known as “EarthEX2017” scheduled that will simulate “catastrophes such as mega earthquakes, cyber terrorism or high altitude electromagnetic pulse attacks”

    Here is the eclipse path imposed on the USGS map of highest earthquake zones.

    12. Another eclipse comes in 2024, 7 years after the August 21, 2017 and marks an X over the United States. The combined time of totality of these eclipses together will be 7 minutes. The day of the eclipse is August 21, 2017 – (7 + 7 + 7 = 21). The exact point where the two eclipses cross is right next to Cedar Lake in Illinois… specifically right next to SALEM Road. (Salem again!)

    13. The region in southern where the X marks in Illinois is called “Little Egypt”. The exact point where the two paths cross is in the town of Makanda, which used to be called the “Star of Egypt”.

    14. The last time we had a full eclipse in 1918 – it was accompanied by pandemic and war. Flu crisis of 1918, millions died and the US was involved in World War 1. Now as we face the next eclipse, we have a Opioid crisis and World War 3?

    15. During the plagues of Egypt, the land was covered in darkness. Exodus 10:21-23 tells us, “Then the Lord said to Moses, “Lift your hand toward heaven, and the land of Egypt will be covered with a darkness so thick you can feel it.” So Moses lifted his hand to the sky, and a deep darkness covered the entire land of Egypt for three days.

    16. The sun is 400 times bigger, and just so happens to be 400 times farther away from the earth. The original form of the Hebrew letter Tav is like the English letter X or T – which is in the shape of a cross, or X– like the X that is made by the two solar eclipses on the cross paths over 7 years. The letter Tav means “a sign”.

    17. The path of the eclipse will be situated in such a way that every single state of the US will experience it, even Hawaii and Alaska.

    18. The totality will reach Oregon at 10:16 AM Pacific, and will end in South Carolina at 2:49 PM Eastern. That means it will take 1 hour and 33 minutes to cross the country. There is that 33 again.

    19. Eclipses never repeat in the exact same spot.

    20. Right before full totality of the eclipse, the last light glimpse from the sun will form a diamond ring in the sky. Marriage anyone?

    21. Based on past eclipses, people report feeling a profound sense of awe during and after a total solar eclipse and other “different” things.

    22. Only Earth can experience a total solar eclipse.

    23. Big difference between a partial eclipse and full eclipse. The sun’s light that makes the difference between a 99.9% partial and 100% total is significant. Only during a 100% eclipse is the solar corona visible. August 21, 2017 is a 100% experience.

    24. The August 21, 2017 eclipse also cuts through every major occult symbol in the United States like the Georgia Guidestones, St. Louis Gateway Arches, and the founding state of the masons to name a few.

    25. This eclipse will be the only known eclipse in history to have the longest and most uninterrupted track across a single land mass.

    26. A partial lunar eclipse took place on August 7, 2017, in the same eclipse season. It was visible over eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. From August 7, 2017 to August 21, 2017 was 14 days, an average division of 7.

    27. This solar eclipse is a part of Saros cycle 145 which contains 77 events. The series ends at member 77 as a partial eclipse on April 17, 3009.

    28. No matter what you feel about it, these things are documented to happen during an full eclipse: stars come out, the horizon glows with a 360-degree sunset, temperature drops significantly, and well, day turns into night obviously.

    29. Due to the mass “Exodus” of people that are expected to view this eclipse, a figure only accounted in the “millions” will be skipping work and school to view this event in the path of totality.

    30. While you may not be preparing for it, others are. This eclipse is causing states, cities, and townships to declare an official state of emergency due to likely accidents, large crowds, increase in violence, and occultist rituals to take place.

    31. The longest known total solar eclipse lasted about 7 minutes.

    32. The U.S. mainland has averaged about 7 total solar eclipses per century since 2000 B.C. So the rarity of the August 21, 2017 solar eclipse is not only considered a once in a lifetime event, it will be a once in about 7 lifetimes event.

    33. And while more than 33 facts have been crammed in this post, let us end on this last one:

    The eclipse is also exactly 40 days from Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur means “Day of Atonement” and is a time of repentance. While the eclipse day itself may come and go with everything remaining “normal” afterwards, we need to be focused on what could be coming soon after.

    Is the US being warned to repent? 40 days were given in the Sign of Jonah, when the eclipse overtook Nineveh. But then again, bad things were starting to happen just prior to the eclipse over Nineveh too. Be ready now and at all times, repent and draw close to the Father.
    Carol wrote:The date August 2030 comes up a lot in reference to comets, astroids, solar event and Nibiru. Perhaps it's the date that Deloras Canon referred to as to when the world would split where the new earth exists in the 5th dimension. I'll ask Dr. Greer about the other when I see him next.. however, we did purchase his recent DVD and book which has a lot of interesting details laid out.
    NANUXII wrote:I like the information Greer puts out. It has a good balance of science and ether,

    With regard to Dolores Canon and the " 5th Dimensional Shift " from what i have experienced that energy belt we humans call the 5th dimension is already here.  What is stopping us from accessing it is the energy of the planet.. or rather its inhabitants.

    War and negativity anchor the planet and its inhabitants to their eventual energies.

    If she predicts something around that time too then its possible a major event could happen to facilitate that energy belt. What that event is may liberate us from the negative forces that allay our ability to shift ... the negative anchor serves 2 purposes 1st is it retains retribution into this plane so that higher beings cannot take over. 2nd that energy affects everything around us and its ability to connect or rather integrate with better or denser vibrational energies.

    Think about it ... have we not all accessed higher energies from time to time ? but the problem is we could not sustain it for long ?  well if thats so then its the effect of surrounding energy over taking your inner sun core strength.

    Its like an arm wrestle .. you can resist it and sometimes put it back but it eventually over powers and wins till you rest and regroup. Even when you win you have to win every one to maintain that energy because there is an unlimited supply of negative energy on this planet.

    This is why enlightened people live in country or remote areas. They feel the difference and prefer the better

    Carol , do you have a link to that information ?
     

    "I AM RA!! Bow-Down and Worship ME!!"

    What if the Gargoyle is Representative of the Serpent??
    What if the Young-Man is Representative of Humanity??














    Now I Go,
    Incognito.
    Geronimo.

    Blowdup  

      Current date/time is Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:03 pm