Lawrence R. Spencer's Blog, page 202
January 1, 2021
SOURCE OF OUR MISERIES
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Painting: “PHILOSOPHY” – by GUSTAV KLIMT – 1899-1907
As an oil painter I have studied art much of my life. There are few painters in the history of painting whom I have admired more than Gustav Klimt. He was an Austrian symbolist painter and one of the most prominent members of the Vienna Secession movement. Klimt is noted for his paintings, murals, sketches, and other art objects. Klimt’s primary subject was the female body; his works are marked by a frank eroticism. — LRS
Quotation: from Aldous Huxley
Aldous Leonard Huxley (26 July 1894 – 22 November 1963) was an English writer, best known for his novels including Brave New World. Aldous Huxley was a humanist, pacifist, and satirist, and he was latterly interested in spiritual subjects such as parapsychology and philosophical mysticism. He is also well known for advocating and taking psychedelics.
On 21 October 1949, Huxley wrote to George Orwell, author of Nineteen Eighty-Four, congratulating him on “how fine and how profoundly important the book is”. In his letter to Orwell, he predicted:
“Within the next generation I believe that the world’s leaders will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience.”
Huxley died aged 69, at 5:20 pm on 22 November 1963, several hours after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Media coverage of Huxley’s passing was overshadowed by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, on the same day, as was the death of the British author C. S. Lewis, who also died on 22 November. This coincidence was the inspiration for Peter Kreeft’s book Between Heaven and Hell: A Dialog Somewhere Beyond Death with John F. Kennedy, C. S. Lewis, & Aldous Huxley. — (Wikipedia.org)
December 31, 2020
TESLA: SMARTEST MAN ON EARTH
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Nikola Tesla, the greatest inventor who ever lived, commented on Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in a 1934 article published in the :
“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.”
(New York Hearald Tribune, 11 September 1932)
Tesla was critical of Einstein stating that his theory of relativity was:
“a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a king” and “a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense… the theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors…. its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.”
He also commented:
” Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible – But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.”
Einstein’s Reply on this :
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.”
(New York Times, 11 July 1935, p23, c.8)
It is also rumored that when Einstein was asked how it felt to be the smartest man on Earth, he replied, “I wouldn’t know. Ask Nikola Tesla”.
PSYCHEDELIC VISIONS
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
The term psychedelic is derived from the Ancient Greek words psihi (ψυχή – psyche, “soul“) and dilosi (δήλωση – “manifest”), translating to “soul-manifesting“.
A psychedelic experience is characterized by the striking perception of aspects of one’s mind previously unknown, or by the creative exuberance of the mind liberated from its ostensibly ordinary fetters. Psychedelic states are an array of experiences including changes of perception such altered states of awareness or focused consciousness, variation in thought patterns, mystical states, and other mind alterations. These processes can lead some people to experience changes in mental operation defining their self identity (whether in momentary acuity or chronic development) different enough from their previous normal state that it can excite feelings of newly formed understanding ranging from revelation and enlightenment. Psychedelic states may be elicited by various techniques, such as contemplation or meditation, which cause spiritual transcendence beyond the body and the physical universe.
Delusion or hallucination, on the other hand, can be caused by drugs, shock, accidents, operations, duress, pain, hynopsis and other external impacts that force the spiritual being to leave the body against their will. Revelation, enlightenment, understanding and freedom are already within you. You can reveal them naturally with study, spiritual discipline and persistence.
PRESCIENT ESCHATOLOGY
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Some years ago I undertook the study of a heretofore unknown “science” which I named “Prescient Eschatology”. Being the inventor and first practitioner of this new “science”, I endowed myself with the honorary title of “Doctor of Prescient Eschatology“. My first action of “predicting the future” was that I would become a student and professor of this new philosophical / theological / ontological / logical discipline. Although highly esoteric in nature, the subject has maintained a vast appeal to nearly all of humanity throughout it’s brief history on Earth. Everyone wants to know the past and predict or create the future!
Pre·scient /ˈpreSH(ē)ənt/ Adjective — Having or showing knowledge of events before they take place.
Eschatology (from the Greek eschatos/eschatē/eschaton meaning “last” and -logy meaning “the study of”, first used in English around 1550) is a part of theology, physics, philosophy, and futurology concerned with what are believed to be the final events of history, the ultimate destiny of humanity. In the context of mysticism, the phrase refers metaphorically to the end of ordinary reality and reunion with the Divine.
The most obvious point of departure for the student into the subject of Prescient Eschatology is the fundamental understanding that time in the physical universe is an “eternal now”. For the practical purposes of my study I use the following definitions:
A) Time is a measurement of the motion and change of position of objects in space within the eternal now of the physical universe.
B) The future is a logical extension of:
1) volition (the act or power of making choices or decisions) and 2) momentum (the product of the mass and velocity of an object) within the eternal now of existence in the physical universe.
Therefore, if we want to predict, change or create a future we must understand and/or alter volition and momentum by any means that can be effected on them. The means and methods of creating a future are nearly infinite in an eternal now of possibilities.
As for the “past”, time travel, changing the past, memory of the past, etc., these are a discussion of “subjective reality” or personal opinion. The “past” is entirely dependent upon the experience and opinion (whether agreed upon or not) from the unique point of view of each individual observer of the motion of objects in space, i.e. time. The study of “time travel” is the singular topic of interest for which I have become a member of the highly exclusive and secretive society: THE ORDER OF OMEGA TIME TRAVEL CULT. Should anyone be interested in becoming a member of this highly esoteric organization, please inquire using the contract procedures available through this Blog.
Enjoy The Journey of The Eternal Now!
OUR LEGACY
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
“The history of mankind seems blanketed in a simultaneous state of amnesia and deja vu. The ruins of ancient civilizations whisper a reminder that we have forgotten everything we knew.
A multitude of gods have shown themselves like shadows in the halls of history. We know not yet, except by our own observation and decision, which of them is real. We are betrayed by those who teach us that we must trust the Wizards of the West. While pretentious politicians defend the castles of the Witch, the media monkeys swarm to spin perverted lies to cover up their covert tricks.
The voiceless bones of wonderful wizards have dissolved to mortal dust once more. Their words have vanished in the smoke of sacred libraries, searing our souls with the stupefying stench of wisdom lost forever in their flames. From day to day the timeworn treadmill of survival forces us to worship at the soulless bankers’ shrine. Gold is still the god of the great and powerful Oz.
We have crash-landed in a twisted alien landscape of pain and mortality, far away from our home Universe. As a race we have amnesia. We are repeatedly bumped on the head by the recurring cataclysmic upheavals of a planet whirling in space like a farmhouse in a tornado.
The future is an extension of the present. We must live our lives in the present in a manner which will create the greatest good for the greatest number of beings in the future. If we are aware of our own past lives, we must also be aware that we are creating our own future by our present actions. We will inherit our own legacy.” –excerpt from The Oz Factors, by Lawrence R. Spencer
Read the book: 
December 30, 2020
December 29, 2020
TITANIC: ASSASSINATION BY SINKING
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Evidence that J.P. Morgan orchestrated the most important assassinations and the biggest bank heist in U.S. history:
1. J.P. Morgan owned White Star Line ships. J.P. Morgan was also the main conspirator behind the creation of the Federal Reserve Banking System. He was supposed to be on the Titanic but canceled at the last moment.
2. John Jacob Astor, along with Benjamin Guggenheim and Isa Strauss, were three very wealthy and powerful men, all of whom were vehemently against the creation of the Federal Reserve, and were quite outspoken on the matter. Morgan viewed Astor and Co. as a huge obstacle. These three men died when the Titanic — a ship built by J.P. Morgan’s White Star Line — hit that infamous iceberg and sank.
3. J.P. Morgan and John Jacob Astor both funded Nikola Tesla, who created a way to generate an infinite amount of electrical energy. Tesla planned to allow people to access that energy for free, but Morgan squashed Tesla because he wanted to profit from energy, not give it away. Astor, Tesla’s good friend, seemed to have deep pockets for Tesla. Not good for Morgan.
4. Once Astor, Guggenheim and Strauss were dead, there was no more public outcry against the Federal Reserve. It passed congress and was signed into law the following year on December 23, 1913. In addition, now Tesla’s funding was wiped away, his friend in Astor gone.
You must admit, all of this is extremely interesting. Could Morgan have created this plot to kill off his biggest opponents? Did Morgan “whack” Astor because he was getting in his way on too many wealth and power-generating projects?
Admittedly, there are some holes in this interesting theory. For example:
1. Why wouldn’t Morgan have simply had Astor, Guggenheim and Strauss shot? That certainly would have been easier than sinking an entire ship. Then again, then there would have been intense investigations into their murders. When multi-billionaires turn up dead, no stone is left unturned.
2. How could Morgan guarantee Astor, Guggenheim and Strauss would be on the ship? Maybe there were behind-the-scenes events, put in place by Morgan, to ensure those men would be on the ship. We’ll never know.
3. Moreover, how could Morgan be sure Astor, Guggenheim and Strauss would go down with the ship and not get off onto lifeboats? Maybe Morgan knew well of the truly high character of Astor: “Colonel Astor was another of the heroes of the awful night. Effort was made to persuade him to take a place in one of the life-boats, but he emphatically refused to do so until every woman and child on board had been provided for, not excepting the women members of the ship’s company [4].” Apparently, Guggenheim and Strauss did the same.
4. Why would J.P. Morgan have believed that unless Astor, Guggenheim and Strauss were killed, his coveted Federal Reserve Act wouldn’t have passed? It seems strange that these three men would have had the combined political power to diffuse Morgan & Co.’s clandestine plans.
However, even with the doubt these questions raise in this theory, one cannot help but look upon the story of the Titanic with suspicion.
Is it just a coincidence that J.P. Morgan owned White Star Line, the company that produced the supposedly unsinkable Titanic, and that it went down with his enemy, John Jacob Astor, as well as Federal Reserve opposers Guggenheim and Strauss?
And is it merely coincidence that Morgan and Astor both funded Nikola Tesla, whose innovations could have been either the greatest gifts to mankind or the greatest wealth generators for the few, depending upon who controlled them?
Could the Titanic have been the most ingenious assassination in history?
_________________________________________
Here’s the back story behind the “smoking gun”: Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank
In 1908, financier J.P. Morgan planned a brand new class of luxury liners that would enable the wealthy to cross the Atlantic in previously undreamed-of opulence. The construction of the giant vessels, the ‘Olympic’, the ‘Titanic’ and the ‘Britannic,’ began in 1909 at the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast, Ireland.
Unfortunately for Morgan and his personal bank balance, this money-making venture went a little awry. The Olympic, the first one of the three sister-ships to be completed was involved in a serious collision with the British Royal Navy cruiser, HMS Hawke in September 1911 in Southampton a few weeks after its maiden voyage and had to be ‘patched-up’ before returning to Belfast to undergo proper repair work.
In hindsight, it does seem strange that although the Olympic, the first of the ‘sisters’ to enter service, was never given the publicity her younger sister, the Titanic, enjoyed the following year. Why would that be?
In the meantime a Royal Navy inquiry into the accident found the Olympic at fault for the collision and this meant that the owner, White Star Line’s insurance was null and void. The White Star Line was out of pocket to the tune of at least £800,000 (around $90m today) for repairs and lost revenues.
However, for Morgan and the White Star Line, there was even worse news. It is believed that the keel of the ship was actually twisted and therefore damaged beyond economic repair, which would have effectively meant the scrapyard. The White Star Line would have been bankrupted, given its precarious financial situation..
According to Robin Gardner’s book, ‘Titanic, the Ship that Never Sank?‘ the seeds were sown for an audacious insurance scam – the surreptitious switching of the identities of the two ships, Olympic and Titanic.
In his well-documented work, Gardner presents a long series of credible testimonies, indisputable facts and evidence, both written and photographic, that suggest that the two ships were indeed switched with a view to staging an iceberg collision or other unknown fatal event.
According to Gardner, “Almost two months after the Hawke/Olympic collision, the reconverted Titanic, now superficially identical to her sister except for the C deck portholes, quietly left Belfast for Southampton to begin a very successful 25-year career as the Olympic. Back in the builders’ yard, work progressed steadily on transforming the battered hulk of the Olympic into the Titanic. The decision to dispose of the damaged vessel would already have been taken. … Instead of replacing the damaged section of keel, longitudinal bulkheads were installed to brace it”.
How significant then in the light of this statement, that when the wreck of the Titanic was first investigated by Robert Ballard and his crew after its discovery in 1987, the first explorations of the wreckage reportedly showed (completely undocumented in the ships original blueprints) iron support structures in place which appeared to be supporting and bracing the keel.
This was never satisfactorily explained either at the time or subsequently but would certainly be significant if correct and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it is not correct, as it was reported by the puzzled Ballard himself who of course at that time knew nothing (and probably still does not even now) about the alleged switching of the two ships’ identities.
————————————————————————————————–
References:
1. http://www.world-mysteries.com/doug_t...
2. http://www.titanic-whitestarships.com...
3. http://www.rense.com/general70/goodc.htm
4. http://www.logoi.com/notes/titanic/wo...
5. http://www.pacinst.com/terrorists/cha...
6. http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topi...
7. http://www.historyonthenet.com/Titani...
8. http://hubpages.com/hub/The_Titanic_H...
9. http://www.reformation.org/nikola-tes...
10. Begich & Manning, “Angels Don’t Play This HAARP” p. 12-13
11. O’Neil, “Prodigal Genius” p. 175
December 28, 2020
EVERYTHING LOGIC
Republished by Blog Post Promoter
A–“WHICH IS THE WAY BACK TO KANSAS?”
“I’d give anything to get out of Oz altogether, but which is the way back to Kansas? I can’t go the way I came.”–Dorothy
“The only person who might know would be the great and wonderful Wizard of Oz himself. He lives in the Emerald City and that’s a long journey from here. Did you bring your broomstick with you?”–Glinda, the Good Witch of the North
“No, I’m afraid I didn’t.”–Dorothy
“Well then, you’ll have to walk. It’s always best to start at the beginning and all you do is follow the Yellow Brick Road.”–Glinda in ‘The Wizard of Oz’
One of the primordial questions Dorothy was trying to answer in ‘The Wizard of Oz’ was, “which is the way back to Kansas?”
Trying to figure out the answers to the mysteries of life here on planet Earth is even harder than Dorothy trying to get back to Kansas–none of us have a broomstick to ride, we don’t have a good witch to ask for directions and there is no Yellow Brick Road to follow. So, we’re stuck here having to figure it out for ourselves, logically, using the information we have in our environment.
To begin at the beginning, the Land of Oz is a type of Universe. According to Webster’s Dictionary, a universe is defined as: “an area, province or sphere, as of thought or activity, regarded as a distinct, comprehensive system or world.”
The physical reality we all share on Earth and everything throughout the surrounding space is called the Physical Universe (PU).
On the other side of reality is your own imagination, your personal perceptions, viewpoints, dreams, hopes, desires, and creations, which comprise Your Own Universe (YOU).
The Land of Oz can be considered to be a Universe dreamed up by Dorothy, as conceived in the mind of L Frank Baum, the author of the book. (It has been speculated that the author created the “Land of Oz” after glancing at his file cabinet. The two file drawers were labeled “A-N” and “O-Z”. Dorothy could just as easily have been transported by the author’s pen into the imaginary “Land of AN”.)
In the movie version of the story, Dorothy creates the Land of Oz in a dream, induced by a knock on the head, using remnants of Kansas in the physical universe mixed together with creations from her own universe–which, for Dorothy, existed over the rainbow in the Land of Oz.
Every Universe seems to be made up of its own, peculiar set of Laws. The PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, for example, is built on a set of agreed upon Laws. A few examples of these Laws are:
The Law of Motion: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
The Food Chain Law: “In order for one life organism to live, another life organism must die.”
The Law of Gravity: “Whatever goes up, must come down.”
The Law of Time: “Time marches on.”
Most of us take the Laws of the Physical Universe for granted because everyone seems to agree with them. However, such laws leave a lot to be desired when compared to the Laws of a Universe we might create for ourselves!
In YOUR OWN UNIVERSE you can create any set of Laws, or have no Laws at all. You can make them, change them or break them. The Laws of YOUR OWN UNIVERSE can be anything or nothing, limited only by your imagination.
In YOUR OWN UNIVERSE, everything you wish comes true, because you are the “wizard” of YOUR OWN UNIVERSE!
In Dorothy’s universe, Scarecrows and trees can talk; witches can be beautiful and fly in magic bubbles; Munchkin girls join the “Lullaby League” and Munchkin boys have a “Lollipop Guild”; horses can change their color; and, Dorothy can dye her eyes to match her gown.
Dorothy’s first awareness of the particular universe she calls the Land of Oz is the realization that she is definitely NOT in Kansas. When she opens the door to her farmhouse, which has just crash-landed in Oz, Dorothy compares her past experience in Kansas with her present experience in Munchkinland. The Technicolor flowers, a good witch in a flying bubble, all the little brightly dressed people, a yellow brick road, etc, are definitely NOT similar to anything she has ever seen in Kansas.
The Land of Oz is an example of what Earth scientists would call an anomaly. For Dorothy, the anomaly is a departure from the usual arrangement of things as compared to her past experiences. In the universe of Oz, everything is so completely different from the universe Dorothy is familiar with in Kansas that she thinks she is lost.
How do you find the way back home when you are lost?
One way is to ask someone for directions. Of course, if you’ve ever been sent on a wild goose chase by a stranger, the experience taught you that it is a good idea to be somewhat selective as to whom you ask for directions. So, how do you know who is a reliable source of directions or information?
Perhaps it would be a good idea to find out something about the person from whom you are asking directions before you act upon what they tell you. Right? (Or, is it left?)
In our example, should Dorothy be asking for directions back to Kansas from the local natives, the Munchkins?
The main reason one would ask a local resident for directions is that one makes the assumption, otherwise known as an hypothesis (which is the first step in creating any scientific theory), that someone who lives in the area will be a reliable source of information and will give correct directions.
Well, in Dorothy’s case, the Munchkins have lots of familiarity with the Land of Oz, but they have no familiarity with Kansas. Fortunately for Dorothy, they are honest enough to tell her that they don’t have a clue where Kansas is, and they pass the buck to the Wizard of Oz, who they believe knows everything. And, based on their familiarity with the Yellow Brick Road and Munchkinland, they are certain that it leads to where the Great Oz lives.
Most would agree that a certainty is better than an assumption. When one has no familiarity based on personal experience or observation, it is best not to assume that one knows the correct directions. So, one asks for information from someone one believe knows–like a scientist, for example–who is supposed to be familiar with the area or subject in question.
Do the local Munchkins or local scientists of Oz give Dorothy the correct directions to help her get back to Kansas?
When Dorothy crash-landed her house in Munchkin City, the Munchkins cowered under the bushes and flowers in terror of retribution for the death of the Wicked Witch of the East from her mean, nasty, ugly sister, the Wicked Witch of the West.
Their benevolent, all-powerful protector, Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, who the Munchkins trust implicitly, is not much help in solving Dorothy’s problem, either. To begin with, Glinda does not have all the information regarding the situation, because she was not even there when Dorothy crashed her house into Munchkin City and inadvertently killed a wicked witch.
Undaunted by her lack of factual information, the first thing Glinda does after coaxing the Munchkins out from their hiding places, is to sing them a song about her assumption, or hypothesis, regarding Dorothy’s crash-landing. She sings: “Come out, come out, wherever you are, and meet the young lady who fell from a star. She fell from the sky, she fell very far, and ‘Kansas’ she says, is the name of the star.”
So, where did Glinda get the idea that Dorothy came from a star? Dorothy never said that she came from a star! But, somehow this all seems very logical to the Munchkins. Even Dorothy doesn’t object to Glinda’s false statement!
In our analogy, Glinda’s assumption that Dorothy fell from a star could be called a scientific theory. The theory proposed by the Good Witch of the North is that Kansas is a star! This theory is based on an assumption derived from an apparent anomaly as measured against her own personal experience and by information received from the Munchkins who are supposed to be a reliable source, but, who did not actually see the house crash because they were all in hiding. In truth, none of them have any familiarity with Kansas or cyclones or farm houses or dogs or little girls, either!
To complicate matters further, Glinda has to put on the appearance that she knows what she’s talking about in front of all her Munchkins followers, even though she is really just making a wild guess. After all, she has a very good job being the protector of the Munchkins, who appear to be utterly defenseless against their enemies, the Wicked Witch sisters. Anyway, Glinda is a good witch, which means she is probably really trying to help, so, they all believe her scientific theory that Dorothy has fallen from a star.
In their cute little minds, the Munchkins have accepted, without question, the logic, which underlies the assumption that is the basis of Glinda’s scientific theory:
SKY equals VERY FAR equals STAR equals KANSAS.
This kind of reasoning process could be called “Everything Logic”; i.e., Everything Equals Everything. This sort of logic might also be the definition of stupidity.
Example: If KANSAS equaled SKY equaled STAR, one could theoretically gaze up into the heavenly firmament to watch Kansas cattle grazing on the twinkling prairies in the stars above.
Unfortunately, much of what we call “science” on planet Earth is based on “Everything Logic”.”
— Excerpted from THE OZ FACTORS, by Lawrence R. Spencer
