Monday, October 27, 2014

sharing.:::.On Edith Bramley’s Vision (1893), Jesus, Apollonius of Tyana, and Absolute Time in the Universal Equation :::.New Rules or a Game without Rules

***
Translate   /traducir/ Vertaal /  ♪ → → → ► → → →
Terjemahan/μεταφράζω / übersetzen / ♪ → → → ► → → →
переводити/Traduire/ переводить ♪ → → → → → → ►
 ترجم / לתרגם   翻訳する
  ***
***   * * *
Sharing:


On Edith Bramley’s Vision (1893), Jesus, Apollonius of Tyana, and Absolute Time in the Universal Equation
 
by Georgi Stankov Posted on October 27, 2014

by Jon Roberts and Georgi Stankov, October 27, 2014
www.stankovuniversallaw.com

Dear Georgi,

Sorry to vent on you in my last email, I was going through it as I know we all are. I have come to call that day the “Ides of October”, but onward and upward.

Firstly, I hope you are healing well, I meant to say that last time, but was a bit erratic when I emailed you last. Energies have still been thick at times but my mind seems to be spiraling more and more in deep thoughts.

At any rate, a few orders of business I wanted to get with you on. I want to apologize from the outset for not being able to link pages from this email, but my computer is on the brink of crashing and am not sure it will make it if I try searching and linking, so I am really sorry about that.

I wanted to tell you about an intuition I had that fits well with things and also ask you a few questions for clarity. First, I got an inkling the other day to search for the artist, N.B. Starr, who channelled the painting of Apollonius and signed it, “The Nazarene” Raphael, that we see in “Antiquity Unveiled”. I got to looking for him and ended up finding a document written by his wife, Enola Starr called “Edith Bramley’s Vision, 1893 (This is what I need you to find and read, its a 32 pager you can google.)

Apparently, some of this document was taken from J.M. Roberts publication Mind and Matter, which I sent you that link,iapsop.com for which was hard to read. Anyway, it ties in well with what you have been talking about as of late as it talks about the Jesuit order and plans to basically stop the Ascension, plus it has some new stuff with a channeling from the founded of the Jesuit order (Ignatius) talking about wanting to kill J. Manning Roberts (Jon’s grand-grand father, note George) etc., but I wanted you to read it and see what you think.

I was also hoping for some clarity on a few things. I know we had touched on the Christ story, how it relates to different timelines or dimensions. Now, I won’t lie, while you were gone, I was following Jahn and I remember some of the channelings were talking about Jesus, not that he was crucified, but still speaking of him instead of Apollonius, and I was a bit concerned. Then when I read what you wrote about it happening differently across timelines/ dimensons and that made sense, but here is my dilemma, if all this Catholicism stuff is such a pitfall in the afterlife like we read in “Antiquity Unveiled” and “Edith Bramley’s Vision” of 1893, then why confuse the issue if this is so dangerous.

Again, I apologize for not linking, but Jahns’ channeling of St. John, the Revelator, was that also Apollonius? Paul? Now my other question, was the Jesus story created independently of the Apollonius story in this or a different timeline /dimension and if not created independently, was it formed from all the thought energy it received from its manipulation at the hands of Constantine, Eusebius, etc…? Again, if we can trust “Antiquity Unveiled” that this Jesus manipulation is such a problem in the afterlife, why confuse the issue? Also, was not Apollonius, Paul and St. John the revelator all the same person?

Please, note that I am not in anyway calling out Jahn, I love his stuff, but I just don’t understand this all. I am trying to think critically and make sense of all this like you have taught us. Heck, I’m actually really reading Volume II and am on page 54 as of today, but need some help here.

Love and Light,
Jon
_________________________

Dear Jon,

I found this text and started reading it, but I will finish it tomorrow and then comment. Here is the link:

http://ssoc.selfip.com:81/texts/1893__starr___edith_bramleys_vision.pdf

Now to your question. I also do not feel very comfortable with Jahn’s book on Jesus, as it does not say anything about Apollonius of Tyana, but you must know that Jahn was not aware at that time of this story and that is why he was not given this information. As a channeller one only gets the information, one can digest without being confused.

Now, this is my interpretation that satisfies both versions. I have always said that the Christian myth of Jesus Christ was based on the amalgamation of two historical personalities – Apollonius of Tyana and Ben Jeshua -, who was a Jew and a pupil of Apollonius when he founded the Essene order in Jerusalem during his first visit there.

The Christian fraudsters wanted to cover the true story of Apollonius and created the saga of Jesus in the four gospels as we now know it, by taking mainly the biography of Ben Jeshua and attributing to him the miracles Apollonius did and the knowledge he had. Of course Ben Jeshua was not crucified, but went to South France and founded the order of the Katharer there, about which I have written some articles.

Apollonius went twice to India and then became a counsellor of two Roman emperors and visited in his late years Jerusalem one more time after it was destroyed. These facts one can read in “Antiquity Unveiled“, although I have now forgotten the details.

The Christian myth of Jesus is so strong itself that it is as real as a historical personality or even more in the higher realms. Hence the preoccupation of many channellers with this saga. And it also explains why different stories are given, so that the people begin to doubt the official Christian religion. They are only pedagogical means for the people to start thinking.

Now the advantage of your grand-grand father was that he was an expert in the history of antiquity and was able to understand the true story. There are very few such experts and most of them are no longer alive. I know the best of them as I have read their books and they are all dead. The others have absolutely no idea about this epoch.

Hence I would not delve too deeply now into this topic on your place – it is enough to know that Apollonius of Tyana was the actual prototype of Jesus and a student of him rendered the bigger part of the biography. It is noteworthy to mention that even in the gospels nobody knows what Jesus did until he was 31 years old. We all know what he did in the last two years, which is a clear fraud. This is how the Church tried to camouflage the facts.

Jahn channelled once St. John, the Baptist as far as I remember and not St John, the Revelator, who is an aspect of Apollonius as St Paul is. In fact the biography of St Paul is very close to that of Apollonius and this is how the archons hid the historical personality of Apollonius. It is a fact that St Paul was the actual founder of the Christian religion and this elucidates the paramount importance of Apollonius, while Ben Jeshua remained a marginal figure. I think that this interpretation reconciles both narratives and explains the broad space for various interpretations and stories about Jesus, which are only parables and not historical facts.

George
__________________________

Dear George,

Thank You! That makes much more sense. Especially about all the attention giving rise to energetic thought forms.

I know this may sound dumb and probably already read it, but could you please describe “absolute time, f” I keep looking at your equations and that keeps bothering me. Is that like the whole U-Set of time in linear 3d?

I suspected I would need to read Volume II more than once, at best, but don’t feel too bad as I suspect I am not alone here. I am actually getting excited about math again. The Orion schools here beat the fun out of it, so it feels good to have that little zest for math again. Usually we just count bills, ha.

Jon
___________________________

Dear Jon,

absolute time is frequency and frequency is a number. You have so much waves in a certain period of linear time and this gives you the frequency. And frequency f is reciprocal to linear or conventional time t : f =1/t. That’s all.Absolute time = frequency f is proportional to Energy E. For instance, if you stay on the coast in the shallow water and are hit by 10 waves in a minute f = 10 and each wave has the constant energy package of EA, then the total energy that you receive during this time is;

E = EA . f = EA.10.

I define EA also as “action potential“, which is a constant energy package for each system. It is very simple when you know that all systems, also all material systems, are wave systems and can be reduced to this equation, which is the general mathematical form of the Universal Law (Universal Equation).

I hope this helps you for the beginning.

With love and light
George
______________________________

Dear Jon,

I read Edith Bramley’s Vision, 1893 with great delight for two main reasons:

See PDF here:

http://ssoc.selfip.com:81/texts/1893__starr___edith_bramleys_vision.pdf

1) I admired the clarity and intelligence of this piece and how well it discloses the heinous tactics of the dark ones, in this particular case of the Jesuits such as the current Pope to mire humanity. All the arsenal of their dark psyops, which we now also observe with respect to the New Age movement in a very massive manner, have been already developed and used in the past against all “spiritualists”, as these light warriors called themselves in the 19th century, when modern esotericism began with the foundation of the Theosophical society.

In this context, it does not matter if this encounter and conversation of the lady with the black Jesuits has really taken place in an out-of-body experience, as it is presented in this wonderful text, or whether it should be read as a literary piece of spiritual prose with great value. The only important thing is the clarity of the ideas and the message to the reader about the insidious character of the Jesuits and all other human stooges of the dark archons on the earth and how one can discern their pernicious tactics against all spiritual humans.

2) The second reason why I very much enjoyed this reading is that it shows in a compelling manner how much more evolved and educated the predecessors of the New Age movement were compared to the present-day light worker-cretins, as I am discussing it currently in my serial article on

Ten Reasons Why the New Age Movement Has Declared Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy – Part 6

This a very timely lecture from the past that illuminates many shadows of the present and shows that there is nothing new on this earth, except constantly growing level of human stupidity and subsequent enslavement of the masses, until the final resolution makes an end to this despicable reality. We are almost there.

George

This entry was posted in Ascension 2012. Bookmark the permalink.


* * *
***
Translate   /traducir/ Vertaal /  ♪ → → → ► → → →
Terjemahan/μεταφράζω / übersetzen / ♪ → → → ► → → →
переводити/Traduire/ переводить ♪ → → → → → → ►
 ترجم / לתרגם   翻訳する
  ***
***   * * *
Sharing: 

Video:

▶ Putin Blames U.S. for Destabilizing World Order - U.S. to Blame for the World's Major Conflicts - YouTube 

* * *


New Rules or a Game without Rules: “We Need a New Global Consensus of Responsible Powers”
by Georgi Stankov Posted on October 26, 2014



Vladimir Putin, Speech at the Valdai Club in Sochi, October 24, 2014

www.stankovuniversallaw.com



24 October 2014. Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks at the wrap-up session of the 11th Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi (RIA Novosti / Sergey Guneev)

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F9pQcqPdKo

We are publishing full text of today’s address of the Russian President Vladimir Putin to the members of Vaidai International Discussion Club. This year the main topic of the event was The World Order: New Rules or No Rules?

Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, friends, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the XI meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organisers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organisations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.

I hope that these changes in organisation and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the ‘Valdai spirit’ will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.

Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realise that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.

We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.

Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.

Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants’ views on some points and differ on others.

As we analyse today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.

The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organisations are also going through difficult times.

Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.

The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.

It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.

Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I have always spoken of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces and use double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?

As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels’ ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states’ affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the “Evil Empire” in American propaganda, the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world’s biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: “We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, an Evil Empire, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course.” In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one’s own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under threat”, and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States’ prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries.

The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries’ or their regional groups’ desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure.We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on.You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe – such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions – and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.

Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this ‘soft power’ resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.

This entry was posted in Other Articles. Bookmark the permalink.


* * *
* * *

No comments:

Post a Comment