So Paul Wheaton is a permaculture expert with an amazing array of knowledge. He states that he experiences great difficulty sharing his information, as [paraphrasing] there are 8 levels of knowledge sharing; people:
- you think are so stupid, ignorant, or stubborn that you'd like to bash their heads in - [who think you're crazy or certifiable]
- you could teach - [who think you're supercool]
- you can talk with - [who think you're cool]
- you can work with - [who are on your own level]
- you think are cool - [who are interested in talking to you]
- you think are supercool - [who are willing to teach you]
- you think are crazy - [who think you're ignorant or stubborn]
- you believe should be locked up to protect both themselves and those around them - [who would like to bash your head in because your attitude is so frustrating]
What Paul Wheaton [likely] does not understand is that he's talking about the 75%. It's contradictory anyway that he mentions this observation to a room full of people actually willing to listen to him; considering that he's talking about a vast array of work and insights, that means that either most of them will regard him as certifiable in regards to many of his topics. The fact is they're probably listening because most of them belong to the 25% and the 8 levels of ignorance do not apply to them.

That 75% suffer from the 8 levels of ignorance is (among other things) what drives people apart and into tiny social units. New information triggers the parameters of the authoritarian trauma because knowledge = power; and a change of power means a reevaluation of relationship (and if it only appears that you or your knowledge threatens the authorities the 75% consider essential to survival, you will be challenged and/or attacked). The 75% find it just about impossible to acquire any new information that has the potential to upset the status quo of authority. Also, it's because any expansion of information changes where they find themselves on the scale of 8 levels of ignorance. Let's take health as an example; health has to do with many aspects and i've listed my 16 points to illustrate that. That gives everyone 16 points to fight over! It is therefore virtually impossible for authoritarians to make any progress in regards to health since "health" inherently has to do with many things. For this reason many people have a pet peeve; for instance, they focus on how raw foods improve health. You don't hear them talking about minerals, hormones, good fats, or anything else; just rawfood. They do this for 2 reasons: either because they find it uncomfortable to consider other items that are new to them because they belong to the 75% themselves, or because they have experienced that it's hard enough talking about one single aspect of health, let alone many. If you only talk about rawfood, you'll find a number of people who already share your knowledge or opinions, as well as some people who consider you cool or even supercool; however, if you talk about health, you're inherently talking about 16 different aspects; therefore, it is impossible to talk about anything without running into people who either think you're crazy, certifiable, or wish to smash your head in! The few people who think you're cool or supercool would be drowned out in a cacophony of attacks; not only that, the people who think you're cool in regards to, for instance, rawfood, might themselves wish you institutionalized in regards to one, or many, of the other 15 aspects of health you're talking about!
In the end it's impossible to talk about anything intelligently, peacefully, and constructively as long as you allow people of the 75% into the debate. They are inherently incapable of dealing with information that excites their feelings; and when you're discussing matters that threaten to change anything [i.e. interesting matters!], you're talking about things that inherently bring people out of their comfort zone. People among the 25% can simply deal with uncomfortable feelings, while the 75% simply cannot. In the end only a tiny minority can handle change because most of the 25% will side with the 75% out of solidarity.

The dilemma for the 25% is that they are, genetically, disposed to being social, empathic, and giving. Unfortunately, as Jesus put it so eloquently, randomly offering information to the 75% is as unto throwing pearls to swine (who will trample the pearls and then turn and rend you [Mt 7:6]). Like i said, Jesus got it; not only do the 'swine' not appreciate the information you might share, they will actually start attacking you for having shared it. In other words, you would've been better off not sharing at all, since you drew their agression by exercising your (very human) tendencies.
Acknowledging the limits experienced by the 75%, therefore, might actually be called "Christian", i.e. with a capital C. However, since Jesus offered good advice but did not offer an explanation how or why things work this way, what i'm talking about goes much further than Christianity. Call it "Christianity 2.0", maybe.
The irony is that if you follow Jesus' advice to the letter, you might actually do alright, but it is not in the nature of healthy people to be so obedient. So Jesus' advice to the 25% is good, but it's the 75% who are the ones who might actually obey what their leader, master, or teacher tells them to do. But they avoid Jesus like the plague since he teaches against authority of all kinds and of truths that excite all kinds of uncomfortable feelings.

The 75% have a problem dealing with changes in power,, be it brute force, financial, or in regards to knowledge. Politically this works out as follows:
- communism = control of financial means
- fascism = control through brute force
- fundamentalism = control of knowledge and ideas
Mainstream culture, however, applies the words "communism", "fascism", and "fundamentalism" in ways that make no sense at all. I won't get into the myriad contraditory and meaningless ways they use such words, because it would waste valuable time and space; as always, authoritarians are only about how things appear and care nothing for actual content. They talk a lot without actually saying anything, i.e. without actually communicating (i.e. anything except their position in regards to power). Political variations all use some combination of communism, fascism, and fundamentalism; since it's just about power and not about principle, how they achieve their ends means little to them. All variations, though, are ultimately simply authoritarian and totalitarian and those are the words i usually use when referring to such forces.


A lot of books start off with history, or with an origin story, but i think it's better to start off with practical advice; hence my choice of content so far. If it's the last thing i do, though, i should share some essential information about who and what you really are. It often plays a big part in important considerations. If you grew up with the popular myths, presuppositions, and best-guess (so-called) science of the 20th or 21st century,, the following introductory statements may rattle you; i remind you that my research is based on data, logic, and common sense. Not only that, but i actively avoid prejudice, presuppositions, and preference; that means that i consistently try to not let my own drama, upbringing, or feelings into my considerations, let along imagination, wishful thinking, or unsubstantiated speculation. Much of what i'm going to be talking about now had me confounded, as well, when i first heard of it. Lacking the pegs to deal with them in my own mind, it often took years to find the research to be able to make sense of them and how they related to other (important) matters. With that warning in place, i continue with the following:
- the Earth is hollow [all planets are]
- mankind is one of many intelligent species living on this planet (and one of countless others in, and beyond, our solar system)
- humanity is a hybrid lifeform that consists of a mix of no less than 4 different original species
- the Inner Earth is a paradise compared to the surface; it has it's own Sun, is inhabited by a number of intelligent species, and not subject to cosmic destruction the surface is.
- a kind of rogue planet or solar system passes through 'this' solar system every 2148 years or so
These matters are linked.

When a planet forms, it is spinning even before it is (finished) forming. Centrifugal forces are always balancing gravitational one. According to one of the most important books i've ever read, Kevin & Matthew Taylor's The Land of no Horizon, any body larger than 150km in diameter will therefore create a hollow center. It's very logical; the mass on the outside is pulling UP just as much as it is drawing DOWN; by extension, gravitational forces in the center must balance each other out, creating a gravitational vacuum.
As the planet ages, lighter elements are drawn by gravity to both the surface on the inside [i.e. within the vacuum] as well as to the outside surface, i.e. gasses and water. Infrared radiation that escapes into space on the surface of the planet [i.e. outside], creates a furnace on the inside, since it cannot escape. That means that expanding gasses create pressure that adds to centrifugal forces pushing mass away from the center. The ever-increasing heat ultimately creates a kind of plasma ball that settles in the center of the expanding vacuum; this later becomes the inner planet Sun.
200 million years ago all this built-up pressure caused 'our' planet to start expanding to a much greater degree. This ballooning of the planet is what gives it (and all other planets) it's spherical shape. This expansion caused the thick outer crust to drift apart, creating what we now know as the continents (which all fit neatly together if you take away the oceans). The sea floor ranges in age from 1 to 180 million years, as mainstream data confirms; it is thin compared to the much thicker land masses of the continents (that are 4.5 billion years old).
At some point the Inner Earth became habitable. Without the cold of night or seasons to contend with, life there evolved quickly and without cosmic interferences that periodically devastate the surface. Intelligent life that emerged there, at some point buried down [for us: up] to the surface; the surface of Earth is a harsh environment compared to the inside; the Sun is very bright, it is seasonally very cold or very hot, storms occur (that our Sun causes), gravity is much stronger, and the wildlife therefore relatively strong. The Inner Earth intelligent species tried to genetically engineer a primate-inner-Earth hybrid race that could stand the outside conditions but also be intelligent; they failed. Their best attempts resulted in Homo Erectus.

The rogue planet or solar system that orbits through 'ours' is called Nibiru. There live the Anunnaki. They came to Earth, supposedly in search of gold (which they wanted in order to protect their planet from cosmic influences). A lot of the information on the Anunnaki stems from the translations made by Zecharia Sitchin; he was the first one to make it his life's work to translate the 50,000 6000 year-old clay tablets found in the area now called Iraq, anciently called Sumeria. His first book was called The 12th Planet (all references to the 10th notwithstanding). Though he did not know about [or take seriously] information regarding Hollow Earth, his translations were ground-breaking. They are also quite scholarly written and i believe they should be taken seriously. According to Sitchin's translations when the Anunnaki ENKI [as Sitchin consistently refers to this figure] studied Homo Erectus, he was surprised to discover that it was already the product of genetic engineering. However, the Anunnaki possessed much more advanced genetic engineering capabilities and they created a Homo Erectus-Anunnaki hybrid to work for them that was both intelligent and strong enough to endure the surface conditions. The Anunnaki, however, are themselves a hybrid lifeform, being part Reptilian and part Human; therefore, in the end, humanity is made up of Hollow Earth, primate, human, and Reptilian genes. [Much much more on Reptilians later.]

Later i will be sharing what my research has uncovered in regards to the Anunnaki planet and their solar system, commonly referred to as Nibiru or Planet X. I find it likely that the 13,000-year cycle of global cataclysms is connected to the coming of Nibiru, though it's coming may in turn also be linked to cosmological cycles that have to do with the Milky Way galaxy itself. There are simply too many numbers that coincide when one starts looking into the disciplines involved. The number 26,000 and 13,000 come up regularly, and 6 x 2148 [orbit of Nibiru] is, again, 12,888 [and 2 x 2148 is the 4,300 number i've mentioned earlier]. Years of research and considerations have led me to believe that there's a big chance that global catastrophe related to galactic cycles, perhaps (more or less) coinciding with the cycle of Nibiru, might happen very soon. If there is a 'twin (unignited) star' to our Sun and a rogue planet that causes cyclical destruction that wipes cultures off the face of the planet every 13,000 years, there you have your explanation for humanity 'popping into existence' about 12,000 years ago, together with the fact that we were only engineered into existence some 400,000 to 250,000 years ago.

The matter of human origins comes up in a number of disciplines. For instance in regards to health, logic and common sense cause one to ponder what is the natural human diet and how could it have come about? However, if our genes stem from a subterranean paradise in which fruit grows everywhere all year round, that could account for clues that point to mankind being fructarians; such considerations fly in the face of mainstream ones that, quite rightfully, point to a lack of opportunity for such evolution to ever have taken place on the surface of the planet. The human species, though, doesn't appear to make sense to begin with [when viewed from mainstream considerations]; compared to all other large mammals [excepting perhaps sloths...], we are weak, slow, have poor eye sight, thin skin, etc. etc. In fact, we do not appear to belong on this planet at all, if you really start to think about it. Lacking the data, logic, and common sense to make heads or tails of such matters, people commonly fall back on presuppositions and speculation; clutching at straws, so to speak. It's quite frustrating to see people who are generally speaking very learned deal with reality from their ignorance of mankind's origins. Zecharia Sitchin, for instance, translated that there was a "portal" between the 'upper' and 'nether' realms of Earth; ignorant of Hollow Earth, he guessed [best-guess science again] that it must refer to the northern and southern hemispheres of the planet, even though the "portal" was guarded and crossing the equator obviously has nothing to do with 'passing through a portal'. As well, Sitchin didn't know what to think of ENKI's discovery that Homo Erectus was already the product of genetic engineering; he simply glosses over it in his books, though he is honest and scholarly enough to leave his translations intact and share them with his readers.


Having discussed the matter of the Anunnaki and our 'extra-terrestial' genetic origins, we might as well carry on to the next step: physical immortality. Alan Alford's book Gods of the New Millennium makes a very good argument that biblical years of the first generations of the Messiah were the result of poor editing in the past. He explains his reasoning in coming to the conclusion that Noah, just to name one figure, wasn't 800 years old or something, but probably around 72,000 years old! It does seem that even though the Anunnaki [specifically ENKI] did succeed in engineering a hybrid that was both strong and intelligent enough to be useful/helpful dealing with the conditions on the surface of the planet, they still did not succeed in engineering a race of beings that was docile enough to be obedient to their masters. Humanity, it seems, was too much like the beings that created it. There are not only sources that suggest that mankind was changed to die an early death, but modern genetic research appears to confirm this. Indeed, we seem to have an immortality allel which is supposed to repair damage to our genes' telomeres, but which is 'turned off'!
From about the age of 22 i've been convinced that physical immortality must be possible, based on sources i came across that i deemed trustworthy. In the course of time i have come across very few sources that take the matter seriously; the most famous, and most impressive i believe, is The Eye of Revelation by Peter Kelder [1946], discussing in detail 6 exercises one can do to keep, or get, the body young.


The Bible begins with "The Word"; some modern explanations of this (that i think make sense) suggest what is meant by this is "sound"; some sources explain that all matter is connected to energy via vibrations, which are all sounds in a way; when energy moves, it always moves in waves of some sort; when enough energy comes together, it creates matter. So in the end, this movement of energy is the beginning of everything, hence, "In the beginning there was The Word" or something.
I think it's good to start with a definition of words, too; i believe all thinking is rooted in words and how we use them. Since i was a teenager i have tried to take words literally. I believe it has served me well. Popular culture would have us all believe that it's things like good intentions and feelings that should matter when you're expressing yourself. So much so, in fact, that the words one choses to use are, by implication, more or less irrelevant. With what i've explained about popular culture so far (being rooted in the psychosis of the 75%) one can understand that it's logical that the mainstream approaches words from a cosmetic point of view rather than one of content. The way i see it, though, concepts and principles are made up of ideas and sentences, and these are made up of words; so if you don't have the building blocks for ideas and sentences at your disposal, how can one ever master concepts and principles? In other words: all of your mental constructs will have no integrity unless you have a good command of the elements that make up the foundation for them. If we continue the analogy for a moment: how can one build beautiful, strong, or high buildings if you're sloppy in your use of bricks?

Not only is the literal use of words useful, efficient, and conducive to success,, but i believe it is a way to heal psyche and trauma. Your mind uses words as a link between your subconscious and your conscious mind. Popular thought has us all believing that the subconscious is hidden, that it is a mystery; however, the subconscious mind is surfacing all the time. Every time something 'pops up' in your mind, that is your subconscious at work. One amazing tool, therefore, are rhetorical questions; rhetorical questions are questions you pose to yourself. They should be answered, and if you wish to heal any disconnect between your conscious and subconscious mind, they must be. Answering rhetorical questions should be a discipline; it is a tao; everytime you pass up the chance to answer a rhetorical question, it's like letting a fish get away that you could've reeled in; yes, you might catch that fish later, but it could be much later and it could also be that you pass up a chance today that might spare you from the consequences of bad conditioning or hidden disinformation tomorrow. "What the fuck?!", is a rhetorical question and it should be answered; it should, therefore, not be dismissed as just an expression of amazement or irritation. Your mind is a complex computer making use of the connections you made in the past, both conscious and subconsciously. In other words, when your software issues forth a query, your hardware allows that to take place. When you deny this reality, acting as if the activity taking place in your mind is random and purely reactionary, i.e. as simply superficial and irrational reactions to the environment, you are in fact denying the existence of your past. Your mind did not forget the past; it works with it constantly. Hell, as the authoritarian trauma shows, your mind is constantly working from associations that were established in the past, even as far back as your birth (indeed, there are signs that conditioning that took place during conception can even effect your reality today). Only when you take words seriously, are you taking your brain seriously, i.e. are you making use of the brain's potential.
So if someone is suffering from infant trauma, the mind will constantly be trying to heal itself, bringing today's reality to bear on yesterday's programming. You either fight this process or you make good use of it! Indeed, these are your 2 choices: your subconscious becomes an ever-increasing collection of conflicting input and conditioning, or you are constantly taking advantage of the opportunities to get the conscious and the subconscious in sync with one another. One route leads to ever-increasing stress, inner strife, and disfunction,, the other leads to ever-increasing maturity, intelligence, and inner peace. Words are a force of nature; you cannot opt out; you must either live in peace with them or you will suffer under their power. Having been born with a human brain and having grown up in a culture that uses speech, there's really no choice in the matter.

Every successful man or great genius has 3 particular qualities in common. The most conspicuous of these is that they all produce a prodigious amount of work. The second is that they never know fatigue. And the 3rd is that their minds grow more brilliant as they grow older, instead of less brilliant. Great men's lives begin at 40, where the mediocre man's life ends. The genius remains an ever-flowing fountain of creative achievement unt the very last breath he draws.
Walter Russel [1871-1963]

This might be a good point for you to reread everything you've read so far, from the understanding that every word i've written was meant to be read literally.
Indeed, there are many kinds of English; there's 'the King's English', there's the colloquial, we have slang and idiom; there's the matter of legalese, which is contract English; i would add a new one: literal English. In literal English, just like in all the other kinds, it doesn't matter how 99.99% of the people use a word in everyday context; all that matters is how it's used literally. It can change the meaning of an expression or a context completely. It is important, though, because of how the brain works; if you tell someone "Fuck you" when you mean "I love you", this has subconscious implications, no matter your feelings or good intentions. Indeed, what your intentions really are, has a lot to do with the very subconscious you are constantly forming by your actions and choice of words. Therefore, it matters; it matters on levels you may not be aware of at the moment you speak, but it matters. Do you "want" something or do you "desire" or "choose" it; why did you choose to use the word "want" when you could have used other words? Your sloppiness of words probably mirrors a sloppiness of consciousness and intent. Read, speak, and think very carefully. It's one of the main differences between a child and an adult...



The S.E.E.D.