Bile:

Firstly, some very uncomfortable news for me is I have slipped on one of my most important metaphysically important habits. Masturbated twice. The message is, never ever look at porn, or porn captions of that sort. Always a release.

Staying away from that behaviour is primary importance and as long as I never check those pictures (outside of perhaps with someone I'm intending to sleep with), then it won't happen again.

Also, although I'm not a Law of Attraction zealot I do notice the behaviour of ten attracts girls to you like those you fantasize about in some way. Which is not good! I'd prefer it came from a spiritual atunement!

This is important because from a chakra perspective, the south node, which is our lower chakras, brings in new experience for us.

Anyway, what I wanted to talk about is this:

Surprising to me, because even though I have often respected Katie Hopkins view and saw her as standing up for what a lot of people believe in, this kind of statement to me crosses into the kind of thinking of ... One person is more worthy than another (for having a job) and further into ideas around depopulation in my view. This kind of social Darwiniism.

This was the rest of the transcript before they got to this place:

Matt: We have a national health system, we have state funded Universities, etc. etc. we're not America we do not have the sort of... broken health and all the rest of it. 

Katie: OK, do you think David Cameron is a hypocrit because he has managed to avoid paying some taxes. 

Matt: No, no, if he's done it legally that's fine. I've got no problem with that, he's done it legally, that's not a problem. 

Katie: So what's your problem? 

Matt: Two years ago he was basically saying, 'everybody that avoids tax, everybody that stashes money in Jersey, everybody that stashes money in the Bahamas, that is the British virgin islands, that's what he's done, is... Morally wrong. Your caller earlier said Jimmy Carr did this, Jimmy Carr did that he's morally wrong; that's not fair; but then oh hang on a minute, I've been doing exactly the same thing... Err, err, err. 

And after an unsuccessful attempt by Katie to make him look bad she chowed down on the 'you're inferior because you don't pay taxes' argument.

So in my view, the idea that people who don't have a job should not have a voice in our society is a pretty nasty one. It is hard to name an exact reason why this is so. However, lets look at it in relation to free market principles, and all the potential manipulations denying some people a voice or a vote:

So lets say that we did start denying a vote to all those who don't pay tax. So that's all those that are unemployed. This gives a good reason for the government to start putting in policies that manipulatively employ those with the same political opinions as themselves.

You also have a major group who cannot protest slights against them. If you then denied these people healthcare then what? They can't fight back only violently. Then you crack down with martial law.

It also gives the government reasons to keep people unemployed. Because then it can keep silencing those that it would prefer not have a voice. In a free market explanation, mostly peoples expression of their own desires is what brings some sort of justice to events (this notably, in the economic sense, having been utterly destroyed by Quantitative Easing). So it works like this... Lets say a left wing government is cowardly and overly dependent on the unions which run amok and make everyones life hell. People get sick of this and vote in someone like Thatcher! Makes sense.

Or lets say another government puts in bad policies by being over reliant on banks, and loads of people become unemployed. The people who are now unemployed are angry and they vote out the bad policies. Lets call the government in this case, the EU!

These are natural checks and balances of the free market. (it is notable that even the off days here can be partially explained by the markets!)

... and finally, we talk about small state and tax reductions as libertarians. But really what Adam Smith was about was common sense. We don't take these things seriously if a free market policy results in loss of life where a bandaid by the state is needed to counteract a dysfunctional and abused economic system:

Analysing sociology of women.

But not in a nice way.

Recently, the Archbishop of Canterbury has had a DNA test and through a few different methods, found out that who he thought was his father, was not his real father.

This apparently hasn't effected the man himself. But those of us who don't want to stop any legitimate emotion and quest for wisdom under the veil of a religious ideal, would perhaps be more alarmed and upset. Regardless of his views, the fact is this man has spent time growing up with someone who was not his biological father, (we don't know the real ramifications of this down to the genetic level). This real father of his wanted to see him on his death bed but did not.

The amount of suffering caused to any non zealot individual would have been immense. There is one person who has created all this suffering to three people. Justin Welby, his biological father and his unknowing foster father. Justins mother, has allowed this lie to continue to the clear suffering of those around her.

But there are no consequences for her. Just like there will probably not be any for Michelle Fields. Like there are not any for those that cried rape at American campuses. Those who managed to fire scientists for such horrors as clearly stating facts on the IQ and variability in tests between men and women. A throwaway comment about women fancying scientists gets another fired. A man is taken to court for disagreeing with feminists on twitter. A group of women lie about a man called Ghomeshi raping them and face no consequences.

This is not all. It is in the DNA of our society seemingly. Say a man and a woman get together, have a child. The woman goes off and is disloyal, or is negative in another way and the man is understandably angry.

The woman then, rather than facing the reality of her actions can just scream 'victim' and get the state to screw the guy over, through child support or tax and welfare. Therefore, she is essentially using the apparatus of the state to do negative onto the guy.

Of course, occasionally it is one sided in the other manner, a rich husband has a child with his wife, cheats and leaves her as a single mother, without welfare her situation would be very bad. However, this is not the situation of every single mother. This whole analogy also applies to other situations without a child or marriage involved. It can simply be social ostracism for being upset that the girl is treating the guy badly.

On and on it goes. Now I believe, that when these women do something negative there should be consequences for that, no matter how loudly they scream 'victim'; with any luck someday there will be; and for other transgressions.

Fair... Don't you think?

Brief interlude. Star Trek DS9:

I've been watching and just notice how unrealistic some of their problems are.

One episode had a group of people who jumped in and out of a thought dimension and only aged in the real world.

One episode was set in 2024. When the computers were not very advanced at all.

I have noticed that one of the actresses involved was involved in those two scenes, is very beautiful and shows something about the way women relate to the world in some of the scenes in the latter example.

The crew are put back into the past, and she has to navigate her way through the past without telling the truth about who she is. She has to constantly resort to girlish 'stupidity' and being nice towards flirtatious behaviour no matter how she really feels about it (because she is relying on those flirting.)

Interesting episode! Although, I stopped watching those two sets of scenes because of the inaccuracy.

Her character also gets killed right when some of the shows characters get twisted into unrealistic behaviours. Perhaps she has a grounding energy, has earth signs in her astrology!

Today for stocks.

New moon in Uranus at about 1pm today... Important!

We'll see if the DOW is able to break through its resistance, (as per the video in last blog). It is exactly on the line and will be the second time it has made the attempt in three days!

Into the valley of death.

Into the valley of death, rode the six- hundred.

- Charge of the light brigade. Alfred Lord Tennyson. 

Well, on the quiet, on the low down things are really starting to heat up!

Astrology:

The sun is approaching Uranus. We are at the end of the last moon cycle and heading into a new one on Thursday that will begin over ... Uranus:

Secondly, and admittedly it may not mean much, but this looks promising (first time it's fallen in a while!:

We have some very good analysis from just before this event, the drawings on these charts are beautiful (a kind of mathematical beauty):

This video clearly shows where the resistance line is that the momentum couldn't get through this time: 

However, whether a stock crash is still going to happen who knows. We have David Wilcock coming out against this idea now:

From The Ascension Mysteries Have Been Solved!

: 

The Cabal is desperately trying to prevent full disclosure. Recently they even cut a deal that holds off any economic collapse until some announcement is made. 

That may disappoint "preppers," but it ultimately will be a far more peaceful way for us to go through this. Clearly they hope to spin it to their advantage.

Who knows huh?

The difference I find between David Wilcocks and Benjamin Fulfords information is that Benjamin Fulford shows an array of somewhat selfish at times, intergovernmental actors. Whereas David seems to express his information from an overview perspective.

Personally, it seems very logical to me that something unplanned for could happen, and both sides could be taken by surprise, we are in a complex system are we not?

However, it could be that the negative has kept everything down so much that nothing unplanned for generally does effect the big game...

We'll see.

Regardless, there are two votes (nice to look at REAL events huh?) That can give us some information. First is Donald Trumps Wisconsin vote today, and we can see if what Benjamin Fulford says about the Pentagon stopping Silicon Valley messing with counting machines is true. (I.e. if Trump wins Wisconsin it probably is). Otherwise we will still be in a kind of square one.

The next day we have a Dutch vote on the EU. That could be interesting.

In the general news JP Morgan has almost had a small bank run, the smart money is still dropping equities, and many new migrants have changed their route from Turkey to up from Libya through to Italy!

How exciting!

I just wanted to say how EXCITING the whole thing is.

It may happen next week, it may not happen for a lot longer, but eventually, there will be movement in this global war between the forces which want to keep the current hegemony going, and the forces that are seeking to arrest the wrongdoers and change society.

There are a lot of people invested in the establishment to varying degrees of intensity. There is a lot of pain that the establishment is causing that we all know is going to have to end (and puts our own pain into perspective!)

Also, there are ways in which the people that are shoring up the establishment, for their annoying insistence on their own point of view, will start to feel life infringe on them, forcing them with slowly greater intensity to accept a different point of view. There are American elections, there is the declaring of the EU official out campaign designation; there is the sliding defeat of Da'esh. There is the mass migration crisis and problems in the EU. Greece still exists as do many other indebted countries. Sometime at some point one of these things is going to destabilise the whole system and either harmoniously, or disharmoniously, we're going to learn a lot more!

(Obviously I hope for these changes sooner rather than later!)

The narrative is subtly changing on finance.

Wow, on a personal level, I'm tired. For whatever reason, my body seems to be taking on a lot of aches from moving around a little. I often intend to do something and then just realise I am exhausted.

However, that REALLY doesn't matter as to what I am going to say here.

I have noticed a subtle shift in the narrative on finance matters amongst the alternatives, and amongst those in the mainstream the alternative quote every so often. (Some bank or analyst somewhere, or mainstream media article or pundit, is very often the source of alternative media's articles).

Whereas it used to be 'the crash could happen tomorrow' or 'the crash could just begin with a slow disintegration into nothingness'. It has changed to 'when it happens, it is really going to crash very quickly.'

The theory behind it is this:

Two alternative investment strategies:

I invest in a company. A few years into its startup I decide, based on evidence and due diligence, that a company that is manufacturing free energy devices is very promising and will make me money, plus I like the people that run it.

The stock market has its ups and downs. I pay a little attention to them. I also pay intention to all the financial reports coming out of FE, and all the fundamentals the connect with it.

The price of lead goes down by 10%. The stocks go up for FE. The company lays off 100 workers. The stocks are pretty much unchanged. The company expands. Stock goes up. The company has a legal problem with sexual harrassment. The stocks go down 2% but when everyone find out it's an attention seeking whore who will not be able to get anywhere with her accusations, the stocks go back up to unchanged.

The price earnings ratio is reliable. The price of lead, zinc and copper is fairly unchanged. The price of the building is relatively unchanged and capital expenditure is kept up with.

There are also other things going on. There is a master magician nearby, a central bank that decides various things, however, most of these announcement effect the finance industry, there are changes in governments, but it doesn't matter, there is value in the company.

One day stocks make a massive fall across the board and several people do get out of the company I have invested in. Thinking of selling stocks and I decide that the fundamentals hold up, there is no reason to assume everything is going to be awful. So I keep my stock. Along with others that do the same thing, and all in all we're all OK. The company after all is a good company.

Second alternative:

As an experienced finance manager I invest in a company. This company is a restaurant say. A fast food chain. (Eek, but yes this is the best example I can think of because it travels so perfectly in line with the DOW). There is one big financial crash and everything gets skewed a bit. Rather than paying attention to any of the restaurants or the wider economies stats, I decide that paying attention to the central bank is the way to go.

After a while it seems like I really am on easy street. I make a bad mistake in not following the central bank at one point and lose a bit of money. After that I just buy a lot of the time because that's what the central bank wants me to do.

There are increasing alarms from various people that this is stupid and won't work, but a wide array of mainstream economists to hand keep me secure in the knowledge that the central bank, backed by the government, will not fail, and also give me some reasoning of which to fight back any of these crackpots arguments.

So, I just pay attention to the central bank. The name of the company is sort of secondary. I have money in it, when the central bank gives the right word on a struggling countries loans, or an interest rate I find favourable. I buy, and it is glorious, I always gain money.

There are several things that are bad about the company I have invested in but I ignore them. For instance, the company announces a massive corporate buyback program, I think; Surely that is not good if a company is buying its own stocks! The company I have invested in is almost an appendage. Although they release good reports some of the time, the overall market is something I basically ignore most of the time. If there are more or less employed I usually don't think too much about it.

Plus, I have invested in some all- market futures that should make everything OK.

But then, the unthinkable happens!

One day stocks make a massive fall across the board

OH MY GOD WHAT JUST HAPPENED! There has been a lurch. The people have in some way risen up and voted against the markets interest. This new guy... He's not really into all this speculative finance. He's an ex business man and believes in creating real businesses that are 'great for our countries prosperity'. What a jackass! Plus there have been a few too many corporate defaults and there is an important company nearby that has gone bankrupt.

Everyone lost everything! The company survived with about 30% of its revenue and this went to the largest shareholder.

This could happen to me. I could lose hundreds of thousands, perhaps MILLIONS!

SELL. HOLY FUCK SELL!

I haven't looked at this company, I have no confidence in the company. I know they have been buying back their own stocks. I know that I am losing money regardless of what happens. All the other investors were also just looking at the central bank. What's wrong with these fundamental anyway? Wages have not been going up, that's important for a restaurant business and people will lose money from this stock crash; employment has been going up a little but it looks like several might be laid off in the next few weeks.

Holy FUCK. Why didn't I buy gold? At least I can salvage the situation a little.

SELL. SELL. SELL. SELL. SELL!

And there you have it:

Zerohedge: Danish Central Bank Warns Of "Risk Illusion", Fears "Fire Sale" Plunge In Asset Prices

SGT report: SO, WHERE IS THE COLLAPSE? -- Bill Holter