Bluffing

Now i’m talking about what happens at almost every meeting of persons that I go to. Someone says something, and it comes off as a bit rude, and I start to go off on a tangent about how the person is like, a bad person — but wait! I have found evidence that doesn’t suggest that it’s coming from somewhere else, or that the person is entirely not guilty of saying these things, but that these events are being carefully orchestrated by _something_ although we don’t really know what that something is.

The most obvious “something” is the need for negative energy. I often talk about this, how to have something positive happen, you also need negative to go with the positive, and so it creates this balance where it doesn’t even matter whether you do something positive or negative, if you do something negative, something positive happens, and if you do something positive, something negative will happen. Although we have spent alot of effort and energy on trying to get “more positive for our negative” that is not the subject of this deliverance.

The subject is that these “sayings” or whatever you want to call them are not originating from the persons “desire” to say such things, as is automatically assumed at first glance. So where are they coming from? I can point you to a palm tree, growing inside of a shopping mall, and how it got there no one knows, but no one pays any attention to it as somebody or something must have put it there, and that that is good enough for their curiosity. You see we have the notion of denying these events, where in fact the palm tree came from absolute nowhere, no one ever bothers to check, nor give it even a second thought, that nobody put the palm tree there.

We are latching onto an idea of these “sayings” originating from the person, because we want them to be guilty of saying them? I am not entirely sure why we do this, when the truth is blatantly obvious: It’s coming from the need for negative energy, and how these sayings actually end up inside of the persons head is a tale that goes back probably 3 thousand years, a build-up of energy that at last has found it’s escape.

We do know that these sayings, these negative sayings, come from the need for each of them to be said, that we have this conversation is the objective of whatever is orchestrating these events, and we can be absolutely sure of this. It looks like these people are “guilty” of saying such nonsense, it often is nonsense, or something that doesn’t altogether make sense, but in my case it comes out as something slightly different, something negative yes, but negative in a more blunt sense of things. It comes out as something as-a-matter-of-fact, that you can’t help but just assume that it’s coming from my own desire to say something like that, when I have no such desire to say anything of the sort.

Anyways i’m keeping track now, of whether the “year” was hard or easy. I’m documenting each passing year with a single designation: if it was hard, I write hard, and if it was easy, I write easy. The logic behind it is just, if it was half hard, half easy, then I write hard, and I only write easy if it was like, 10 months easy, and I give the hard designation off easier. I cannot remember exactly whether the years previous were hard or easy, mostly easy, some hard events yes, but mostly easy, and I only have memory of the year 2024 being hard, for all the tripping and the cold air you could possibly ever want, it gets the hard designation.

So that leads me to my point — When will a year ever get the easy designation? In the case of the logic behind the hard and easy designations, it will bring us to the fact that we will almost always give the hard designation, perhaps 80% percent of the time but that is a guarded answer (it’s probably more like 95%, but to cover myself I drop it down to 80%) so that in this system we always have the “hard” years go by, is it because we are only just starting out? It is in this that we can begin to see something emerge.

What is emerging is this notion of there being “only hard years” ahead of us, and that we cannot even possibly aspire to have an easy year, it’s simply out of the question. So why? It’s this mechanism we can almost see coming up out of the water, the water running off it like crackheads on a new, stolen pair of shoes they might be able to sell for $20 to get another fix, you see we are emerging out of the water, that water being the endless night, that it won’t all be bad, that it is mostly good, we can see in this light amongst the darkest night.

What i’m trying to say is that these events or sayings seem like they are physically coming from somewhere, when in fact something 100% percent sure of it all put those events, or at least orchestrated them. It would appear persons speaking out of stubbornness are, just speaking out of stubbornness, but that is not the truth, and we must strive to see the truth in the form of whatever that truth may be, whatever is really there, in this case, the fact that something is orchestrating all of these negative events taking place, and that something is something other than me, as I have no desire nor aim to try to cause something negative to happen. It is a tangled web you weave.

It’s really the strangest phenomenon, because what we must see is that there is a negative, that there _is_ a negative, but what we must do is something different, we must attempt to save lives, or avoid crashes, and that comes out as something like “stamp out the negative” but it’s not entirely connected, see one is the negative happening, and the other is us trying to influence the situation, or at least myself, not getting the way that he wants things to be, we don’t want that negative to be there, so we scramble and blame the nearest person to the problem: the person saying or doing something negative, or in the case of natural death, we regress to just chalking it up to something that is natural, when it is _not_ natural at all, natural is life, natural is staying alive for millions of years, where here in this case we have but only 100.

And i’m sitting here watching this “Prime Minister’s Questions” i’ll give you the link hold on;

At last, I can see proof that what I have been doing is working! The people are talking about politics, keir starmer and the opposition are talking politics at a level beyond me, I can’t even understand what they’re talking about half the time. This is almost 100% proof that all that data i’ve produced and equipped onto people is actually working. For example, while I can program circles around keir starmer, my objective was that HE in the same token be able to govern circles around me, that was my whole goal of creating the data, or that turned into my goal as I was just starting to work on it. The ultimate upgrade result is that the data has equipped itself and then modified itself to fit that specific persons needs, that is the ultimate objective of the creation of data, that the person be elevated to some of the highest levels, of course, is the objective of it, and that objective has almost certainly been achieved!

At the end of the prime minister’s questions, the guy says “Does the prime minister share my stance on sending to prison for life anyone that strangles and rapes young women?” And what’s my point? What, was there a chance he was going to say no, I think that people who strangle and rape young women shouldn’t be put in prison? This I cannot really understand why he said this, it’s so bizarre, but why is this coming up in a forum such as the one we are in? There’s just no rules, I have an asshole and I shit all the time, but I don’t shit in a bag and carry it around and tell people about it?? The inevitable crash!