The purpose of this section

[Valis]

I don't like any vague mysterious accusations of seeing a Paul in every tree..or everything being a great satanic plot.
I am a very rational person which troubles me often because I encounter a lot of stuff that counters the normal views of reality.

Having been a fan of David Icke for a few years now I am sure that there is a global conspiracy to bring in a fascist New World Order. And in that picture the whole (unwitting) engineering of the Beatles becomes perfectly logical.
Until the band themselves became aware and started talking about Vietnam and other uncomfortable topics.
Something had to be done..and a point I haven't seen raised so far is that it would be too obvious to take out John..the character differences would be too large.

Anyway as Mr Icke and a lot of other researchers show there is something very fishy about our reality...and there is much more evidence for the global takeover of everythingthen there is for our PID case.
And I really think this is a very crucial part of the story.
Most disasters and assassinations in history were designed by TPTB and their forefathers.
911 was an insidejob like the burning of Rome,The Reichstag,The Lusitania,Pearl Harbor, Tonkin Bay...eeh all of them.

But is there some good news..you may ask?
Yes the whole universe is a hologram..and by changing our perceptions we save this reality and transform it to a fantastic stable one.
I have the theory that reality is instructed by what we believe (so in a way the earth was really flat a few centuries ago) and by the discovery of spooky-physics we are making that reality real, including aliens and shapeshifting reptilians.
Check out the book "Holographic Universe"by Michael Talbot

"Infinite Love Is The Only Truth Everything Else Is Illusion"

www.davidicke.com
www.ickedownload.com

[Valis]

To clarify my stance on conspiracy theories a bir more I'd like to emphasise that it is all just a "realworld" manifestation of our own confusion.
There are no "evildoers" it is just a natural mechanism forcing us to evolve, the breakdown of reality which some people notice is just us becoming aware of the notion that we create reality ourselves.
I especially like this blogentry which tries to explain Philip K Dick's view on the matter.

"I shouted out,
Who killed the kennedys?
When after all
It was you and me"-Sympathy for the Devil, Rolling Stones

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

www.timboucher.com/journal/2004/09/disobedience-to-artifact.html



Disobedience to the artifact

Earlier I read this essay by Philip K Dick, Cosmogony and Cosmology ::. And by read it, I mean that I had my computer read it to me using a text-to-speech program. Goddamn did it take a long time, and I fell asleep in the middle of it. Or at least seriously spaced the **** out. Even for him, this is an especially difficult and obtuse text. I did however, want to include the following passage:

"The ultimate lesson learned comes when the teaching machine (or the teacher) is denied, is repudiated. Until that moment comes (if for some of us it ever does) we remain enslaved by the teaching machine -- without even being aware of it, having known no other condition.

Therefore the series of lessons by the artifact are intended to lead to a revolt against the tyranny of the artifact itself, a paradox. It is serving the Urgrund by ultimately bringing us to the Urgrund. This is what is called in theological terminology 'the secret partnership,' which is found in the religions of Egypt and India. Gods who appear to combat each other are, on the transmundane plane, colluding for the same goal. I believe this to be the case here. The artifact enslaves us, but on the other hand it is attempting to teach us to throw off its enslavement. It will never tell us to disobey it. You cannot order someone to disobey you; that is both semantically and functionally impossible."


The artifact, as described above, is equated with the Gnostic idea of the Demiurge. While, by the Urgrund, he's talking about God. I'm not gonna try and describe any more than that though. This is a deep ****ing essay.

[Valis]

here is the plotoutline for Philip K Dick's last novel, written just before he ( conveniently) died, to me it shows a lot about the way this game called reality is played.

All Love Jan

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

Mr. David G. Hartwell, editor
Timescape Books
1230 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020


Dear David,

I'd like to express my pleasure at the cover of THE DIVINE INVASION and at the enormously high quality of the book qua book. It is frankly. the highest quality book I've ever had published (that is. my novel turned into book) . Thank you. As I'm sure you are aware. THE DIVINE INVASION got an excellent review in PW [PUBLISHERS WEEKLY] . Should help to sell copies.

While I'm writing you it occurs to me to let you know that now that I have turned over the BISHOP TIMOTHY ARCHER manuscript to my agent (and I am tremendously excited by how it came out, especially in regard to the viewpoint character Angel Archer; for me she is totally real. more so than any other person I have ever written about! ) I am already turning my attention to the s-f novel that I will be doing for you. While I as yet do not have a formal outline, I can herewith give you a little idea of what it will be about. Consider this a very informal statement about that novel.

It will be based somewhat (as I have discussed with you and Russell Galen) on Dante's COMMEDIA - and also on Goethe's FAUST Part One, In the future a scientist who is very old supervises the construction of an amusement park (something like the "lands" at Disneyland) of Berkeley, California circa 1949-1952 with all the various groups and subcultures of that time and place represented. In order to impose coherency on the Park he involves one of the planet's leading computers in the operation of it, turning this high-level computer into the mind behind the Park. The computer resents this, since it prefers to solve abstract, theoretical problems of the highest order. The computer pays the scientist back by trapping him in the Park and making him subject to its mind (that is, the computer's mind): the scientist is given the physical body of a high school boy, and he is deprived of his memories of his true identity (you can see the influence of Van Vogt on me, here, and also that of a number of my earlier novels) . Now the scientist, trapped in his own amusement Park and subject to the mind of the misused computer (misused and knowing it and keenly resenting it) must solve the maze that the Park represents and find his way out of it by solving problems propounded by the computer and presented to him in sequence. When he fails to solve a problem — they are by and large ethical choice problems — he experiences a dreary transformation of the Park (which to him is world, not Park) into Inferno. He finds this highly perplexing, inasmuch as he does not remember his true identity, nor does he now comprehend that he is in an amusement Park or maze controlled by an artificial intelligence. Needless to say, when he solves a problem correctly, he ascends to Paradiso. Now, this is a high school boy, no longer an aged scientist, but he is very smart; his memories are gone but his intellect remains; he figures out that he is up against some kind of vast mind that is presenting him with subtle problems, and, as a result of his solving — or failing to solve -these sequential problems he is either rewarded or punished. Thus he spends a lot of time trying to figure out the situation (shades of TIME OUT OF JOINT! ) . Now, this problem-solving is along what I call a vertical axis; it is one of rising and falling within three coaxial realms, resembling alternate presents (this is the theory he decides on, and it is of course incorrect) . He is aided by a mysterious female who shows up in plural guises and gives him cryptic hints; this is in fact his own daughter who is outside the Park trying to communicate with him and help him (being a high school boy in the Park he is, ironically, younger than his daughter, now) . Also, the computer manifests itself as various people he encounters, and in these polyforms propounds the problems that the boy must solve. In addition to the vertical axis, he moves along an ostensible horizontal axis, and this is the one of normal growth and development from high school boy to first job to marriage: the normal axis we all move along. This is the only axis he is consciously aware of: the vertical axis is latent and obscured: it can be known only inferentially, and no one else seems aware of it.

The subcultures that he is involved with include: the Bay Area homosexual community of that period; the artistic-intellectual community (which overlaps the first), political people: the store he goes to work at and the fellow employees and boss: an enigmatic venerable figure based on Tony Boucher who encourages the boy to become a s-f writer. The ultimate level of problems presented him are manifested in this Tony Boucher figure, who is (since he speaks for the computer) a genuinely supernatural personage. While I do not intend to deal overtly with religion, there are spiritual overtones to the higher level of problems, and the solutions must in fact be what we would probably call spiritual ones, something beyond mere reasoning and logic (this is a very advanced computer — which is why it so resents being tied into an amusement Park). The boy' s career is carried into his marriage. in which he meets a woman who (it turns out) is an incarnation of his own actual daughter. She, too, is supernatural; the computer baffles him and misleads him and poses problems for him to solve, and rewards and punishes him: the female figure is his psychopomp. as Dante had in the COMMEDIA; she instructs and leads and informs him. Thus the computer bewilders him with deliberate misinformation: the female figure clears up his mind, although she is laconic and cryptic: she is veiled, so to speak; neither entity discloses its true nature to him. If he is able to problem-solve all the way to what is called "The Eighth Level" he will be sprung from the Park: he will not just be rewarded by Paradiso —he will remember his true identity and return to the real world. So more is at stake than simple reward and punishment : liberation is the goal and journey' s end, liberation and recollection and return to reality - and an escape from the tyranny of the servant become the master (a favorite concept of mine, deriving from German mythology).

In the three realms (based on the COMMEDIA) the same people and situations occur, but each realm has its own typical "color, " as it were. These are the three realms of European existential psychology: the Eigenwelt (where the mode is soaring) ; the Mitwelt (where the node is interaction with other people, which is to say, walking instead of flying); and the Umwelt (which is subhuman and a prison; the mode is ossification, stagnation, a ceasing of the ability to move at all: at its worst it is the Tomb World. Once in it. there are grave barriers to escape: probably he would not be able to escape were it not for the interventive figure of his daughter, who assumes the role and power of Christ to empty hell, specifically him: that is. she enters from outside. as a clear-cut Savior, his defender and Advocate; whereas the computer, who really hates him. utilizes its cunning to pose problems for him to solve that become ever increasingly more difficult).

There are two elements of this that resemble the Faust story. (1) In the Park he becomes a youth again, whereas outside the Park he is extremely old. But he pays a high price for this youthfulness: he is enslaved by the mind of the Park, which is an analog of Satan' s mind and power. (2 ) His rising along the vertical axis to final escape is a Faustian movement, not comprehended by the others living in the Park. My final resolution (as I conceive it at this early point) is that when he finally solves the last problem and is now free to leave the Park, he turns back voluntarily in order to aid the others in the Park who are still trapped; he has become, then. a bodhisattva. and when he makes this decision the computer thereupon capitulates: he has beaten it at the spiritual level on which it operates; he has in essence posed a paradox, an ultimate one. to it; he. poses the problem: it has to problem-solve; he reveals himself as morally superior to the computer, and as a result it agrees to go on acting as the mind of the Park, but without the revenge motive that it displayed toward him. The computer now views the Park as a world in which people can (by it itself, the computer) be taught spiritual enlightenment; this is syntonic to the computer. which now understands the protagonist as something more than a debased person who has debased it, the computer, in a commercial cause.

Cordially,

Philip K. Dick
408 E. Civic Center Dr
C-1 Box 264
Santa Ana. Calif 92701

[DarkHorse]

Thanks for injecting some life onto this thread Valis. Interesting stuff you posted especially about the holographic universe and how we create this system of control. Very interesting.

As far as James Paul McCartney is concerned, you bring up that the Beatles were becoming more powerful(their views on Vietnam, etc.) than those in control would want and so they had to be stopped. That begs the question, was Paul murdered and how? If this thing was planned, Bill was already hand-picked well before September of 1966 it would seem...

Were the powers that be so good at replacing celebrities like Doris Day and Sylvie Vartan that they knew Paul would be easy to do the same thing to?

[Valis]

Yes, in 1966 the opinions of the Beatles deviated so much that something needed to be done,the only way to successfully do it was by replacing a bandmember.
And you have seen the Paul/Bill story ofcourse.

[missvagabond]

This is probably WAAAY OT. But I have thought of something that I don't know has ever been brought up before. John Lennon's father (Fred?) was very jealous of John's success (And from what I've read, a total jerk-face at times). Would he have wanted the Beatles to split up. Or maybe sold out in some way?

It just really crossed my mind a few times. He wanted more from John than John was really ready to give, emotionally and financially, from what I understand. Would he have wanted -- or even helped in anything that would hurry Paul's departure from the Beatles.

It's totally speculative and probably not very likely. But he wanted to be a part of the Beatles inner circle, and maybe he wouldn't have minded being involved in something that would shake things up.

I don't know about Paul being murdered. But I'm wondering if John's father is worth taking a closer look at..if this has been brought up before, I haven't heard of it.

Just a thought.

[Valis]

The whole replacement organisation was such a massive operation that I can only think of one "reason": National Security.
I'm a very peaceful person, but if I was so hateful that I would want to get rid of someone, I don't think the Crown and Agencies would support me, rather hunt me down to obtain another lifelong ultracheap worker in the matchstickfactory.
And these days prisons are the fastest growing arm of industry...and they almost produce anything nowadays.
TPTB only give their energy to causes which help them stay TPTB..they sure aren't interested in sponsoring any personal vendettas.
There's so much to control so they have to set their priorities..and when you observe all the effort that went into this case then it sure was a priority.

Remember Lennon said the Beatles were bigger than Jesus..and at that time among the youth (the soon to be powerful) that seemed to be close to reality.
So if you wanted to rule the world, as an obeying Blue Meanie would, those days you really had to take a firm eye on the Beatles.
The band's characters were unpredictible, they had recently been influenced by a lot of American Artists they met on tour.
IMO artists in America (especially after JFK) were much more on the ball then those in England.
TPTB could not predict if and when The Beatles were gonna talk/sing about JFK or Operation Northwoods or the FRS...by the summer of 66 most of the old boys network were shitting their pants whenever a Beatle would open their mouth on live TV...what if they talk..what if they talk.
It became an intolerable situation...The Beatles were very witty and outspoken...and quickly getting smarter.
And I haven't started about the great probabiltity that they found out about the Doris replacement those days..in the P.O.V. of TPTB they were an accident waiting to happen.

All Love Jan

[missvagabond]

valis said:

The whole replacement organisation was such a massive operation that I can only think of one "reason": National Security.

All Love Jan

Sometimes it really seems like there had to be an enormous effort to really keep it all under wraps. An arguement against PID that has come up many times, is that nobody has really come forward to talk openly about what happened. I'm not sure that's true. I think lot's of artists and people close to the Beatles (Like Derek Taylor) have come forward, in their own way. Lot's of clues on records and hints in interviews...etc..

But something, or someone must've been involved in order to help quiet those involved. And also those who were close to Paul. Not to mention Bill. Nobody's ever come forward to say they knew Bill before he took over Paul's place in the Beatles. And his whole life. Family and friends of his must've known something. You's think so. Some, if not all of them must've had some clue about what had happened.

I don't know what the actual circumstances were, or who it might've been. But the British govt could've been involved. Or the British Monarchy. Why not? They made a fortune off the Beatles. That's been shown very clearly on this forum.

I think I'm more open to that idea now. Partly because it has been covered up so well. Jane Asher won't talk at all, and she seems almost terrified of speaking out. I don't doubt that she would've been reluctant to talk about some things, no matter what. But she's unmovable. And she keeps referring to "Darkness" in her life. Or is that "Dark Forces"..

[Doc]

valis said:

The whole replacement organisation was such a massive operation that I can only think of one "reason": National Security.
I'm a very peaceful person, but if I was so hateful that I would want to get rid of someone, I don't think the Crown and Agencies would support me, rather hunt me down to obtain another lifelong ultracheap worker in the matchstickfactory.
And these days prisons are the fastest growing arm of industry...and they almost produce anything nowadays.
TPTB only give their energy to causes which help them stay TPTB..they sure aren't interested in sponsoring any personal vendettas.
There's so much to control so they have to set their priorities..and when you observe all the effort that went into this case then it sure was a priority.

Remember Lennon said the Beatles were bigger than Jesus..and at that time among the youth (the soon to be powerful) that seemed to be close to reality.
So if you wanted to rule the world, as an obeying Blue Meanie would, those days you really had to take a firm eye on the Beatles.
The band's characters were unpredictible, they had recently been influenced by a lot of American Artists they met on tour.
IMO artists in America (especially after JFK) were much more on the ball then those in England.
TPTB could not predict if and when The Beatles were gonna talk/sing about JFK or Operation Northwoods or the FRS...by the summer of 66 most of the old boys network were shitting their pants whenever a Beatle would open their mouth on live TV...what if they talk..what if they talk.
It became an intolerable situation...The Beatles were very witty and outspoken...and quickly getting smarter.
And I haven't started about the great probabiltity that they found out about the Doris replacement those days..in the P.O.V. of TPTB they were an accident waiting to happen.

All Love Jan

I'm am with you here on the national security ideas. They have to maintain the order, the status quo, socio-economically, etc. They have always had their advisers, think tanks, counselors, advice givers, military infra-structures. Government deploying of means calculated in order to avoid a big, out of control-brou-ha-ha-donnybrook incident. British sensibility remains concerned with worrying about whatever may come out of someone's mouth---especially a well-known politico or musicsl celebrity.

Like, if Britney Spears met with the Parliament and the Queen and got a bad stomach and belched at Prince Charles in the recieving line, really, really loudly. A minor catastrophe, as political faux- pas's go perhaps, but something that would make it into the Daily Mirror, and cause the Royals to cringe when hearing it reported later on the BBC.

They COULD blame such a debacle on the collapse of manners in general, brought on by the flagrant crassness of the Labour Party (see how good, I added the "u") or lament how protocol and class at official functions declined decades ago with the retirement of Edward Heath, or even try to lay the blame at Former French President François Mitterand's feet. You know, the old blame shifter: "If it's tasteless, well then, the French are responsible!" But that only goes so far. Too far, I'm afraid. Let's not indite Paris just yet.

Britney's gastric eruptions would seem to be a trivial hypothetical dilemma to you and to me. I don't care if she gurgles and drools, even when she's not performing. A burp is not moral, not potenitally detrimental to British society, or even economically challenging. But nothing for staunch, proper English elites to ignore. Keep a stiff upper lip, and suppress every rumble that comes along.

(How do I even know she ever burps? For all I know, she may gag down jiggers of Maalox every day.)

But, minor as it would seem to be, at the end of the day, when Britney and the Crown say their farewells, nobody would be the wiser. Unless she had one more sudden gastric expulsion. Well then, the Queen could make light and say, "Oops, she did it again. Outrageous!"

Tony Blair might ask her if it's because she's a little toxic.......

To which Britney could enlighten the distinguished cotterie by saying, "No, it's just my Pergative."

She'd get off easier than Essex did.........maybe.

[missvagabond]

doctorrobert said:

I'm am with you here on the national security ideas. They have to maintain the order, the status quo, socio-economically, etc. They have always had their advisers, think tanks, counselors, advice givers, military infra-structures. Government deploying of means calculated in order to avoid a big, out of control-brou-ha-ha-donnybrook incident. British sensibility remains concerned with worrying about whatever may come out of someone's mouth---especially a well-known politico or musicsl celebrity.

Like, if Britney Spears met with the Parliament and the Queen and got a bad stomach and belched at Prince Charles in the recieving line, really, really loudly. A minor catastrophe, as political faux- pas's go perhaps, but something that would make it into the Daily Mirror, and cause the Royals to cringe when hearing it reported later on the BBC.

They COULD blame such a debacle on the collapse of manners in general, brought on by the flagrant crassness of the Labour Party (see how good, I added the "u") or lament how protocol and class at official functions declined decades ago with the retirement of Edward Heath, or even try to lay the blame at Former French President François Mitterand's feet. You know, the old blame shifter: "If it's tasteless, well then, the French are responsible!" But that only goes so far. Too far, I'm afraid. Let's not indite Paris just yet.

Britney's gastric eruptions would seem to be a trivial hypothetical dilemma to you and to me. I don't care if she gurgles and drools, even when she's not performing. A burp is not moral, not potenitally detrimental to British society, or even economically challenging. But nothing for staunch, proper English elites to ignore. Keep a stiff upper lip, and suppress every rumble that comes along.

(How do I even know she ever burps? For all I know, she may gag down jiggers of Maalox every day.)

But, minor as it would seem to be, at the end of the day, when Britney and the Crown say their farewells, nobody would be the wiser. Unless she had one more sudden gastric expulsion. Well then, the Queen could make light and say, "Oops, she did it again. Outrageous!"

Tony Blair might ask her if it's because she's a little toxic.......

To which Britney could enlighten the distinguished cotterie by saying, "No, it's just my Pergative."

She'd get off easier than Essex did.........maybe.

WOW!! ;D Very insightful post, Doc'!

Imagine if they decided to replace Britney..because of the fallout from the whole scandal. They'd have to find somebody who not only looked like Britney, they'd have to go a lot farther than that. Where would the powers that be find a nearly washed up 23 year old celebrity who can't act, can't dance, definitely can't sing.. and. Well. I guess they could do it in a heartbeat. Who would notice? As long as the replacement looked like Britney, everything else would be a flake. I mean a piece of cake.

But then imagine something goes terribly wrong. The replacement Britney releases her new CD. She writes, sings, produces and even plays piano and some rhythm guitar. A little piccolo. Maybe even swings a little saxophone vibrato.

The CD is released to Worldwide critical acclaim. Music Critics, entertainment reviewers and nosy bodies everywhere gasp in disbelief at this totally mind-boggling and unprescedented turn of events.

Gossip columnists whine with obvious and tearful disgust.."Where are the cra**y tunes for us to make fun of?" they wail and moan with frightening regularity. The songs shimmer with life. They are deep and melodic. The lyrics flow freely, and uncover fountains of lyrical prose not heard since Bob Dylan muttered something unintelligable (But probably ingenius) on "Time Out Of Mind". There's talk of a Grammy for Album of the year for Britney! Britney's delivers a vocal performance that leaves the listener in awe!

But the most astounding thing of all...is that it doesn't sell! Former fans, figuring Britney has gone all smart-as* on them, stay away in droves! Critical appreciation and something approaching "Street cred' " are now Britney's...

Her record company is furious. The powers that be are absolutely beside themselves with fury! How could this have happened?! Where are the lousy lyrics! The stupid, well crafted (and coyly inserted) People-magazine like references disguised as spontanious ad-libs! What happened to Britney's off-key cooing! Her jumbled endless-tape-loop covers of long-worn disco hits which help provide life-saving filler for an otherwise useless collection of worthless and tuneless songs!

Oddly, Britney's IQ seems to have taken an enormous leap forward overnight from (Rumored) 65-70 all the way up to 176!

Britney releases a thoughtful response through her new publicist (The other deadbeat was fired for incompetance) : "I am grateful to use my own natural musical gifts to share my musical vision with music fans everywhere. And, btw, I think that Christina Aguilera is just a wonderful performer and a very decent and generous person. I forgive her for being such an unbearable bit*h all these years!"

....Yes. All this over two unfortunate and totally spontanious burps. But nobody will ever say a word. What! You want the real Britney back!

In the case of Bill replacing Paul, I think it's very serious and very important to find out what happened "All Those Years Ago".

In the event Britney is ever replaced, I have only one thing to say: SSSSHHHHHHH!!

Not a word. Not one. Just let it be....

[missvagabond]

We now return you to the regularly sheduled topic of this thread.. already butchered beyond belief by yours truly.