Ukraine Rebel Leader: Malaysian Plane was Full of Already Dead Bodies

Keith Davis kbob42 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 23 21:48:27 CDT 2014 

That is the question. 


Www.innergroovemusic.com

> On Jul 23, 2014, at 10:29 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm familiar with the general reality you describe. But how much of this have you personally experienced?
> 
> David Morris
> 
> 
>> On Wednesday, July 23, 2014, Michael Alan <michaelalancc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It begins with the simple realization that consciousness gives rise to physical nature, not the other way around.  The biggest, thickest, most durable and insidious string guiding our dummie-thoughts and actions, even though it's not itself a physical string, is the backward, inverted notion and belief that physical nature gives rise to consciousness.  And insofar as it is the case that consciousness gives rise to, or manifests, physical reality, "physics" then resides entirely in, and thus consists entirely of, consciousness.
>> 
>> You are a consciousness with a body and brain and even mind inside it, you are not a body with a brain that produces a mind that produces a consciousness.  This world is in your consciousness, your consciousness is not inside this world.  Thus it is simply your world, and you can do with it what you want.  
>> 
>> Since this is the case, ultimately this world is absolutely, on every single level and in every way, a game.  But you are not alone.  That would not be as fun as playing with others.  There is more than one consciousness participating in this world.  Players, certain consciousnesses, get together, and design the nature and structure of the game, which is the basic elements of this world, which in this case they--we--have called planet Earth.  There is a necessary agreement among the playing consciousnesses to certain foundational aspects of the game.  For example, that there will be what appears to be certain laws of physics, spatial and temporal reality, and various continuities.
>> 
>> None of these things actually matter, because the third dimension, with its horizontal time of beginnings and ends thrown in, is purely a construct of consciousnesses who exist on what is called, on this plane of existence, "higher" dimensions, and who are (yes they are 'whos', they all have personalities and individuality) thus higher consciousnesses to the consciousnesses playing this particular game, which is called, say, Earth Humans 2014.  A necessary agreement is that all players begin by having their memory erased of who they really are, and their true belief system turned upside down, inverted, at the beginning, "start" of the game, into such that physical reality gives rise to consciousness.
>> 
>> One of the particularly fun aspects of this game is that it takes "place" in a "time" where humans are doing two things simultaneously with to the "Sun's" "position" "in" the "galaxy"; humans are curiously, "naturally" realizing that it is consciousness that gives rise to the world, and human science is also in parallel fashion at the same time is arriving at similar conclusions.  In fact science is a type of symbol for consciousness.  Everything in physical reality is a symbol.  For example consciousnesses can communicate without physical apparatii; people are beginning to do it and science is beginning to agree.  All language is just a symbol of telepathic communications that beginning players are not aware of, and cell phones are similar symbols of telepathic communication between pure consciousnesses.  The internet web itself is a symbol.  Vehicles are exactly the same thing as the pieces you shove yourself symbolically around the square of the Monopoly plane board to acquire symbolic properties, which are as real and the same thing as the properties you sit around in to play that particular game within a game.
>> 
>> What will happen as this Earth Humans 2014 game continues is that humans will realize that it is their own consciousness that controls their game, not the "exterior" elements like transnational corporations.
>> 
>> Ultimately the game ends for an individual personality--you--when you learn how to reacquire the power you had before you designed and built this game, and can thus redesign it at your will and then play it, with full power, consciously, rather than in a forgetful hypnotized zombie state.  For example, since time and space don't actually exist, though they can clearly appear to exist, such a player can go back and play out different timelines of their own existence, and go forward in "time" and do the same, and yes, you can become other players, throughout "time", forward and backwards.  And then way ultimately, you can visit other worlds and trip out as a character in those (infinite) potential timelines.  Spaceships and other physical gizmos will never get humans to other worlds.
>> 
>> So right now, most humans on Earth still believe that first, there actually existed in time and space, following absolute laws of physics, a plane that fell out of the sky over Eastern Ukraine, and second that that's the only possibility and thus all that can be experienced.  But there is a timeline where the plane kept going and landed in Malaysia, every bit as real and valid as this timeline, and in fact there exist an infinite variety of timelines associated with that flight.
>> 
>> And consciousnesses in physical garbs can jump between those timelines, and experience any of them.  It's already happening, "people" are already learning how to do it and doing it, cruising around infinite potential existences at their leisure, altering their physical garbs as radically as they desire.  Actually they always have been doing it, because there is no past or future.  This ability is not a thing of "the future".  If your you in this timeline will in the "future" learn to jump timelines, then he already has, and thus you already can, you've just not realized it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And How? 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Michael Alan <michaelalancc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Yes.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 23, 2014, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Here is an almost-metaphysical, Marcuse& False Consciousness and Gravity's Rainbow-related question: Can we rise above being a puppet ...at all? 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:07 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If your string are being yanked you might as well lay back and enjoy it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, July 23, 2014, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Heikki, I applaud your friends in Russia for opposing Putin - he's a vile dictator and should be opposed by his own citizens. Saddam Hussein was also a vile dictator, but I don't think the Iraqis who risked their lives and freedom to oppose him were well served by the US invasion. I don't think that poor Afghani woman, whose husband brutally disfigured her face with acid, and who was subsequently trotted out as a poster child on the cover of Time magazine to justify the US invasion, finds her country imbued with freedom, democracy, education and feminism as a result of that invasion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Now here's a funny thing: I think we'd both agree that the Chinese government is as at least as repressive as Putin's and Saddam's, but I, as an American, can't summon up the name of the head of state, or any "bad guy" there. Why? Because the US and its frothing-mouthed press has no interest in demonizing anyone over there, and aside from the occasional mumbling about "concerns" over human rights, could care less about China's foreign policy excesses. Here's a quote from yesterday's NY Times:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Apple Posts $7.7 Billion in Profit on Strong iPhone Sales
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "Apple earlier this year reached a deal to sell iPhones with China Mobile, the largest wireless network in the world. The partnership so far has resulted in healthy growth for the Silicon Valley company in China, an increasingly vital market for the company, especially now that the smartphone markets in the United States and parts of Europe have become saturated."
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The reality is, Heikki, that not only your anti-Putin friends in Russia, but all of us, who buy their products and vote their spokespeople into office, are puppets of the multi-national corporations.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Laura
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> >From: Heikki Raudaskoski <hraudask at sun3.oulu.fi>
>>>>>>> >Sent: Jul 23, 2014 7:41 AM
>>>>>>> >To: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>>>> >Subject: Re: Ukraine Rebel Leader: Malaysian Plane was Full of Already Dead Bodies
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >I don't have the heart to tell my anti-Putin friends in Russia the truth
>>>>>>> >that they are nothing but puppets in the service of multinational
>>>>>>> >capitalist corporations.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Kai Frederik Lorentzen wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> > From well back into the 19th century, and especially now that the US Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has granted corporations full personhood, these corporations have wielded tremendous influence on all branches of the US government. I think Russia looms as an inert glacier, a corrupt and oligarchical structure that's unwilling to play ball with the Western big boys, and that's what's behind the steady drumbeat to fuck with Russia in any way possible. Russia, whether it's described as a glacier, a bear (hibernating or growling), or just a bunch of commies, mobsters or commie-mobsters, is an affront to free trade. And there are too many power-players afoot, from Coca Cola, to Monsanto, to GE, that want something done about it, even if it means starting World War III.<
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Yes. The historian Detlef Junker, referring to US foreign policy, once
>>>>>>> >> coined the phrase "indivisible world market". That's what the
>>>>>>> >> Anglo-American interest is about. And the Eurasian economic zone Russia
>>>>>>> >> originally was going for (which included the Ukraine) would have taken
>>>>>>> >> too many profits away from the corporations. No one is allowed not to
>>>>>>> >> participate in the world market.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> > So regardless of who shot down that plane for whatever reason, I'm repelled by the aggressive, accusatory US response. I want the war-mongering to stop.<
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Me too!
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> On 22.07.2014 22:40, kelber at mindspring.com wrote:
>>>>>>> >> > David Morris: "But ask yourself.  Does anyone really think that Crimea or Eastern Ukraine is even remotely important enought for US or anyone else's interests to have plotted and polled off that act?  It is absurd in the extreme, but perfect for those that want to feed off such crap, like Russians following Putin's leadership back to the glory days of the Soviet Empire.  Is such a scenario is possible? Yes.  But do you really believe it is the likely truth?"
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > I have no idea what the truth is, but it seems vital for some sort of international panel of experts to examine all of the evidence available. My best guess is that this is going to be impossible to sort out to anyone's satisfaction. But there does seem to be a steady drum beat towards isolating Russia economically, and possibly threatening it militarily, that started long before regime-change in the Ukraine escalated things.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > I don't want any more wars draining the US budget at the expense of our domestic programs. Do you? Even if Russia swooped in and took over the entire Ukraine (which I think is unlikely, but I suppose it could conceivably happen), I don't think most Americans would give a shit, unless they were whipped into war hysteria by demagogues and the corporate press. Before the Ukraine crisis, Obama and Kerry were trying to drum up support for military intervention in Syria, despite the fact that polls showed most Americans were either indifferent or opposed to such intervention. In fact, it was only after Putin seized on a stray rhetorical comment by Kerry, in order to broker a non-military solution, that the US had to back down. Most Americans are pretty sick of war, I'm guessing. The various Middle East invasions have gotten us nothing.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > I've finally gotten around to reading The Education of Henry Adams, and just finished the chapter titled Teufelsdrockh (1901), in which Adams describes a visit to Russia. He described it as a cultural wasteland, from which he was glad to leave to the much more culturally advanced Scandinavian lands. His opinion was that it would take many generations (if ever) to close the vast gap between Russia and Europe, but that, by virtue of its huge size and large population, Russia could not be ignored. He likened it to a massive glacier, threatening its neighbors by virtue of its vast inertia.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > It seems to me that this must be the attitude that corporations with a global reach must have towards Russia in the present day. What do they want from Russia (or any country)? Tariff-free trade, unlimited access to consumer markets, and the chance to exploit a docile, rights-free workforce (which China has kindly offered up, but doesn't seem to be an option in Russia, or the US, for that matter). From well back into the 19th century, and especially now that the US Supreme Court, in its wisdom, has granted corporations full personhood, these corporations have wielded tremendous influence on all branches of the US government. I think Russia looms as an inert glacier, a corrupt and oligarchical structure that's unwilling to play ball with the Western big boys, and that's what's behind the steady drumbeat to fuck with Russia in any way possible. Russia, whether it's described as a glacier, a bear (hibernating or growling), or just a bunch of commies, mobsters or commie-mobs
>>>>>>>  !
>>>>>>> > ters, is an affront to free trade. And there are too many power-players afoot, from Coca Cola, to Monsanto, to GE, that want something done about it, even if it means starting World War III.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > So regardless of who shot down that plane for whatever reason, I'm repelled by the aggressive, accusatory US response. I want the war-mongering to stop.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > Laura
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> >> > From: David Morris
>>>>>>> >> > Sent: Jul 22, 2014 3:03 PM
>>>>>>> >> > To: "kelber at mindspring.com"
>>>>>>> >> > Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org"
>>>>>>> >> > Subject: Re: Ukraine Rebel Leader: Malaysian Plane was Full of Already Dead Bodies
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > As I said in my post re. Zerohedge: "If any of this is true, things will shake out very fast now. Let's just wait and see."
>>>>>>> >> > If the "Ukraine and the United States deliberately plotted to shoot down the passenger jet," or anything even close to that, Russian evidence won't be escapable. Period.
>>>>>>> >> > But ask yourself.  Does anyone really think that Crimea or Eastern Ukraine is even remotely important enought for US or anyone else's interests to have plotted and polled off that act?  It is absurd in the extreme, but perfect for those that want to feed off such crap, like Russians following Putin's leadership back to the glory days of the Soviet Empire.  Is such a scenario is possible? Yes.  But do you really believe it is the likely truth?
>>>>>>> >> > David Morris
>>>>>>> >> > On Tuesday, July 22, 2014,  <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> > OK, David, Zerohedge is a bunch of kooks? Fair enough. So let's look at the NY Times coverage:
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > Under the headline: Russia's Message on Jet: Conciliation and Bluster
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/world/europe/putin-calls-for-talks-in-ukraine-and-a-robust-crash-investigation.html?rref=homepage&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Home%20Page&pgtype=article
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > Buried near the end of a very long article is the only mention of the photos and video described in the ZeroHedge article:
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > "Hence two senior Russian military commanders, sitting in a vast briefing room and dwarfed by the giant electronic screens overhead, used various satellite images and charts to raise a series of rhetorical questions that suggested that Ukraine and the United States deliberately plotted to shoot down the passenger jet. The unusual bilingual briefing was broadcast live on state-run television."
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > In a different article, the Times makes much of a photo of a piece of the wreckage that they gave to an expert at Jane's military analysis, who reported that it looked like it had been hit by shrapnel from a missile. Now why on earth wouldn't the Times or the State Department not want to get similar analysis of the photo/video evidence presented at a televised, official Russian press conference, if only to officially debunk it?
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > Laura
>>>>>>> >> > -
>>>>>>> >> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=nchon-l
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> -
>>>>>>> >> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >-
>>>>>>> >Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20140723/ea0e2a0d/attachment.html>

More information about the Pynchon-l mailing list