J.L.W

Well as Stefan says, the parasite is always more focused on the host than the host is on the parasite. The thing this woman did wrong was allowing political information to flower on her boards and blogs, and she is converting to her views the non political, domestic thinkers. THAT is when these guys get angry as they did with Kanye West. Occams razor says that it would be more likely the woman herself censoring posts than security services creating trouble on her site but I am sure it is not her. She is not of that ultra controlling temperament. Someone is definitely chowing down on internet outlets recently. There is something a good amount of you have probably heard of called the Q- Anon that is now malfunctioning and a website by someone who talks about some really "crazy" subjects called Benjamin Fulford has been having trouble recently. Add this on to youtube/ twitter problems etc.

It is 100% not the site owner doing it therefore it could be spooks or something.

Yep, definitely would serve well I think to shortcut people using their own personal preferences in moderation! 100 hours!

Very interesting story. There is a sinister sort of 'energy' to these kinds of things often. It seems to be that because you blew the whistle you found out who your husband was! I have experienced that too. Asking for protection from that same force and having it not be there, I didn't divorce the faith entirely but did find that a subtler energy was able to keep my mind together but it was imperative I did not sacrifice my identity, preferences, curiousity to those ideas. I call myself a 'mystical Christian' now.

Neither do I. Boycotting does always seem a bit pathetic to me... two of the worst organisations in the world are banks and oil companies... But how are you going to boycott them! it sometimes makes a good short term political point though. If I did want to boycott Israel I wouldn't stop eating Mangos as well. The main point to me is how crazy the whole thing is, like strange crazy. This sort of self destructive business practice. Why would you run a multi national corporation and risk a snowball that could basically end the business for some whinos like that?

Holy hell! This is really insane asylum mad sort of stuff!

There are precious few places on the internet where we can speak freely, but there are a few. I don't know if 'spooks' were any way involved here it could easily been that I was already blocked that was why a certain post did not go through. Took me a while to think of that though. I have been on a very popular forum before with constant updates on a lot of sub forums and a pro Hillary moderator ran it like any leftist wants to. She would, seriously, no exaggeration or joke, go in to pro Trump posts and say 'removed delusional xyz'. Needless to say I didn't last there very long. I wondered if people would pay a subscription fee for a massive forum that covered a lot of areas.

Off we go then.

Certainly creating tension waiting to find out if we're off to war or not. I wonder if Russia and China have a plan, even one that is going on behind the surface. China could easily sanction the West for bad behaviour.

Thanks, I enjoyed that. I find it interesting how sometimes songs work very well with the Christian 'mythology' included. Here it is a reference to "judgement day". Even though I can't name an anti war song of Johnny Cash's, his religious references I think were very good. I've looked around and have found some music but, other pieces of music I know are anti war and are very good are not in these lists. There is quite a lot of so called anti war music that just doesn't deliver the message effectively. Here is one from Kate Bush, but even though it is good it does not deliver the message as effectively as 'Universal Soldier' or 'Knocking on Heavens door'. The angle it comes from is original in that the lyrics are 'he could have been a [userful member of society]' but then clearly he wasn't. I still think that Green Day song was fantastic. It was a little unnerving to see the girl upset her boyfriend had gone to war. Youtube: Kate Bush: Army of dreamers (video) [Link]

Thanks, I enjoyed that. I find it interesting how sometimes songs work very well with the Christian 'mythology' included. Here it is a reference to "judgement day". Even though I can't name an anti war song of Johnny Cash's, his religious references I think were very good. I've looked around and have found some music but, other pieces of music I know are anti war and are very good are not in these lists. There is quite a lot of so called anti war music that just doesn't deliver the message effectively. Here is one from Kate Bush, but even though it is good it does not deliver the message as effectively as 'Universal Soldier' or 'Knocking on Heavens door'. The angle it comes from is original in that the lyrics are 'he could have been a [userful member of society]' but then clearly he wasn't. I still think that Green Day song was fantastic. It was a little unnerving to see the girl upset her boyfriend had gone to war.

Well it depends how big the play is. China, I believe and as I think is evidenced by their domestic policy, has a one track mind towards more power. I agree they do not want to lose those assets, plus money held in American banks, and that is probably a reason why they have not really properly attacked earlier but... if there is something good enough in it for them then they will do it. For instance, if the Yuan were to become the worlds dominant currency then this would be valuable for them. China is fairly closely allied with Russia. I would not agree that Oil trading currency is secondary to T- Bills and Reserve currency. It is said, I think with good evidence that Libya and Iraq were both attempting to change their currency and, how they trade oil just before "Democracy" was brought to them. Another thing is that the Saudi's threatened the US relatively recently with dumping T- Bills if America allows legal action on 9/11. It only needs a small diplomatic spat for something like this to happen. So long as America is not in the militarily dominant position and they have already lost Turkey to Russia. I think a lot of people think, and it is easy to assume, that if nothing has changed for a long time then it will not. But big changes in history happen with usually very little awareness of the 'little people'. I.e. no one was prepared for the Soviet Union collapsing, the industrial revolution completely changed peoples lives that had lived in a certain way for generations, the Great Depression, even Brexit and the election of Trump, although not yet complete, are changes that most people were not expecting until the change is on top of them. The first World War was an argument between different monarchs ego's. All those peoples lives changed irrevocably for the whims of a few powerful people.

I tried to post on a forum recently, regarding facebooks corporate abuses of power. The thread did not go through and I was banned from the forum because wordpress had an 'error' and got a weird message about email details being changed. Even when I tried to register with a second email. I had previously used autocomplete and had done for months and never had a problem previously. The woman running the forum, who has had some weird hacking problems on there, then posted something on her blog about interesting things on the forum intentionally missing out anything political like that, because she just happens to not be left which is not everyone in that field. I don't think this person is the type to go to long lengths of manipulation i.e. creating the impression that it was spooks in order to fool me, for instance. If that was the case then I don't know she would have been able to censor the initial thread, pass it for moderation yes but not have it just not show up like that. Or to screw with the wordpress system itself because a lot of the user details are done through wordpress. I don't think spooks care so much about talking with people of like mind, i.e. this thread. But I tend now to think they are reading. They just don't want us 'educating' the masses, so this is probably fine to post here. I have seen quite a few other examples of this type of thing online. Anyone have any comments?:

So what happens when the Chinese move further and further with the gold backed Petro Yuan and countries no longer have to hold such a large reserve of dollars? The factual situation at the moment is that the US dollar is backed by nothing, no gold. So other countries, like China, are accepting worthless paper in exchange for real goods. The only reason they are continuing with this ridiculous charade is because they did not have the power to stop it America being so militarily powerful but... where there's a will there's a way. If a gold backed yuan, or bitcoin, or some other currency became more valuable, people would drop the US dollar and it would lose its value. Because it doesn't have any value. It is simply at that point the free market determining the 'true value' of the dollar. It seems to me inflation would be difficult when dollar are exported so heavily. Lack of money velocity as well. I heard, unconfirmed but interesting nonetheless, that the financial meltdown was a charade and the real reason was that tanks rolled up too close to China and they stopped trade with the US, so excuses needed to be created. There is not much evidence for this viewpoint but... there is some in the form of the Dry Baltic Index that plunged 92% before the 2008 market crash. I believe taxation started with the church although I could be wrong on that.

Just trying to reach a conclusion here. Which I do believe is important. Basically. I was thinking about it today. There is a younger girl I work with. I just thought I'm not going to make her life difficult i.e. de- friending on facebook, setting boundaries that make things difficult. When she has not actually done anything. It's like those hardcore feminist say all men are x, y or z. Sheesh. I am wondering a lot about the practice of refusing to spend time alone with girls in these settings. So the young one is temporarilly in a management position while the manager is away and sometimes there are one to one things, like in a single room, between management and staff. Like checking on efficiency etc. Not something I will actually have to consider with her this time around but a hypothetical I could very easily meet in a future setting. Since the previous manager was female but older and very overweight and she just put people at ease, I had no instinctual problem being in a one to one with her, I don't know if I can maintain that level of 'selectivity'. Won't be in the room with a young girl BUT, someone I know did have a problem. There were about ten witnesses he did nothing wrong and the police took over a year to close the case causing him stress. Crazy world. But then she was a random not a girl he actually knew in any way. I am reminded when I went to accompany my young sister to the dentist and the dentist asked me to come in the room and looked very anxious, like actually scared in his eyes that I had not followed her in. There was another nurse in the room as well. It is a legal issue that I have to be in the room he told me! While she of course was on her own level completely unaware of the power given to her by a corrupted State. Jordan Peterson once said, I have come to realise this is very true, that people that are creative, some of the people he has counselled go a bit mad if they do not engage in the creativity. That a creative person. Be that artistic etc. that does not do their thing is like a tree without any roots. I think this is very true. If I practice, like properly practice music then I am able to function far better. I did a lot of it when I was young and a conventional explanation might be my brain has adapted to needing it. I practice properly only for an hour a day but if I want to and have the time I do more. What I wonder is, if I need to do that then a non music career might be difficult? Anyway, questions for another day. I did hours yesterday including a nauseating amount of scales but still will do it today as well. Because that's what you do if you like music!

Is it not self knowledge to know how a substance effects a person. Whether it makes music better or not for instance? I wondered where to put it. Probably better in the politics/ economics section but, it can't be moved now.

So I just searched Peter Hitchens and the name of that substance. I am just reading through the study here now despite endeavouring to stay out of politics recently: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/05/at-last-a-cogent-and-well-researched-argument-against-marijuana-legalisation.html This is him taking down stupid arguments for legalisation: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/02/stupid-arguments-for-drug-legalisation-examined-and-refuted.html Perhaps a bit of a summary would do is that #1 on the arguments he attempts to take down is that it is a 'victimless crime'. He says that studies have pointed to connections between it and schizophrenia which seems to me... very likely. Another point he makes is that all these Jihadists that go on to attack people generally take it. And although correlation is not causality. Correlation is not NOT causality either. It makes sense that a lot of these people take that substance and believe their spiritual paths are blessed because they are ascribing their feelings of 'enlightenedness' to their religious beliefs rather than where it is coming from which is the drug. It seems more likely if those feelings were earned rather than not earned i.e. gained through drugs. They might include some emotional backlash from unethical behaviours.

That begins with "M" but I like my posts to go through on the first attempt so will be careful of that. Recently, on a call in show a guy phoned Stefan to argue, very unsuccessfully, for the criminalisation of this and other drugs. Stefan stated a few things that I've just started thinking about about the drugs "Marginal Utility". That songs like "Lucy in the Sky with Diamons" was created with it and Stefan enjoyed this music. This to me is a specious argument, although one that would be difficult to prove either way. One of the Beatles best I believe was 'Yesterday' by Paul McCartney that came from a dream so we have a referenced source of the song that was not from puffing. Other songs that we might consider to be from that like "Mr Tambourine Man" Dylan stated directly was not from that... But this, from just a rational sense seems unlikely. However, many songs he wrote were written over a few months or more. He was known as a "re- writer" or at least some of his songs were. Rainy Day Woman is quite a good song. But there are quite a few that he wrote that were very good. That all of them wrote that were very good and better than the ones obviously M inspired. For instance, Dylan: "You're gonna have to serve somebody", "Dirge" "Knocking on Heavens Door", "Forever Young". Eric Clapton "Tears in Heaven" had stronger inspiration from a non M source. Another of the good songs by the Beatles referenced from Paul McCartneys mother is the term 'Mother Mary' in "Let it Be", another great one, Pauls mother was named Mary. I have noticed a great deal of time, in my personal life many patterns in the use of M that are not at all positive in that A) Users seem to become more liberal and resent facts over "feelz", it is literally a conversation from right wing thought to liberalism. B) Users have a mysterious lack of anything really going on in their life once you realise what they actually are doing is less useful than they implied it was and the big one, the one shown by someone in particular called David Seaman but shown again and again by this group is C) They have a massively inflated sense of their own output. I don't know if you know David Seaman but he used to come out with loads of things saying he had done loads of work on certain subjects... I could never find this work he had apparently done. When I talk about this area with people I notice that if they have done the substance they will not criticise it. I think there is an irrational liking for the substance for its users although I do think it has medical uses. I have seen good evidence on this. Also, Stefan chose a very easy target for this discussion, as I have noticed he sometimes does. If he wanted an actual debate he would choose someone like Peter Hitchens. Who has wrote a lot of very interesting things in favour of criminalisation. Unfortunately I don't have his articles bookmarked since I got rid of Google Chrome but: He shoots down all the standard responses to decriminalisation arguments very succinctly.

Someone withdraws from a connection/ relationship of some sort and the second person, correctly or incorrectly sees this as passive aggression.

- Bob Dylan. Phil Och's general message and 'Santo Domingo'. Of course, although they were drugged hippies, the Beatles also were a danger to the CIA with the Hippy Era and influenced people to anti war. Although not directly.

... and by that I also sort of mean 'anti war'. Tolstoy, Gandhi, Molyneux! Perhaps some singers. As in Donovans Universal soldier, Dylans 'Masters of war' and Green Days 'Wake me up when September Ends'. The UK has, at the top of it's left wing party that is in opposition. A man named Jeremy Corbyn who was an anti war protester. Any others of note people have been inspired by?

I notice a few skilled musicians cover Green Day songs. The reflection of 'aloneness' in 'Boulevard of Broken dreams'. Despite wearing his hear like a high school kid they have come out with seriously quality songs... This is a good anti war song: Green Day - Wake Me Up When September Ends [Official Music Video] [Link] Also, obviously, Donovan and "Universal Soldier". Dylan and "Masters of War" and other songs from Dylan being generally, but not specifically anti war! Does anyone have interest in how anti war either music or other forms of messages are expressed in society?

Thanks for this response! 'Reasoning with her' did not go well. Wow, I looked over some of your previous posts and you're a piece of work :). If you attempt to 'establish suitable boundaries of acceptable behaviour' on modern women, in a workplace she is very rooted in no less, then... well... it goes very badly. I have tried this before and it has not worked. They use the full force of the establishment against you. I often think as well this is pseudo talk. 'Boundaries' etc. It's an excuse used by post feminist demon women who need an excuse to treat others like dirt. Outside the psychology of this particular girl. In my view the way the company handles complaints is very dangerous to me. THIS is my practical problem (i.e. this is the point): One of the things the company had a go at me for contained absolutely no sexual or romantic element to it. Basically, the company sees it as its own right to tell me what can or cannot go on my facebook; and when combined with this girl whom I had some history with and then suddenly turned around and made the complaint when practically, that may not have been emotionally convenient for her but is within the bounds of the light positivity, we have been engaging in for a long time. Plus, Valentines gifts can be anonymous and not require a response. Even if it is considered legitimate for this girl to take it official before communicating personally. There are other instances that stack up unfavourably for me. Ah, I feel like I'm falling into quicksand when I talk about that girl specifically. The practical problem I have is there are no boundaries the company has established for themselves. If I were to message a(nother) girl who has messaged me a bit for instance and say something that 'offends' her, even absolutely unintentionally, then the company will crack down if she complains. The complaints will stack up and are not time sensitive. A similar complaint in a year would reference any complaint said today. If I state that 'look she sent me these messages' these will not be admissable in any sort of defence. Because that's how these people have previously dealt with this area. It is completely and absolutely guilt by accusation. It is not even 'guilty until proven innocent' because I am not allowed to offer potential proof of innocence. At this point we are just beating a dead horse anyway. These people, whatever their intention, have the effect of creating a nasty toxic atmosphere for me personally. Women are not gods and should not be given the full power of the establishment to do their bidding. I need to leave. I could address the other statements you made here... s- tests etc. Dominance behaviours and whatnot but that is really a very, very secondary point. Which I think is reflected in my other posts here. A relevant note is that the valentines girl is not a freak and did handle the situation differently when she perceived the problem. Ironically, very ironically, I am safer with her than any of the others at this point because it's likely she will not escalate without warning. Thanks for your responses.

And stocks have only just had a good day. (Thanks Stormy for that!)

This describes some of it!: