The Trophy Wine

The problem with giving out specific directions, or reducing relationships down to processes, is that people will widely think that this is all there is to things.

Certainly there are processes to every kind of approach that sentient beings – people – make towards other sentient beings: guys bring roses to girls, girls wear nice clothes for their potential romantic partners. These are all elements of social processes, and they are that because they have become traditions – and fundamentally because they work. They work as tools of communication, and often they are not verbal at all.

But they do not work because they are processes – they work for other highly complex, fundamental and permanently underlying, often very sophisticated reasons, whether you call these neurophysiology reasons or psychological reasons they are still quite orderly and so are thought of as mechanical or mechanistic. And they become thought of as processes.

The very word ‘Byzantine’ in modern times has taken on the meaning of describing any kind of highly complex process. Byzantine religious rites inside of an Eastern church are all symbol-based physical context wherein ritual human performance proceeds through a series of highly stylised re-enactments – but they are meant to derive actual experiences. They look like stylised processes – therefore mechanistic – but they are living experiences. That is how humans feel in consistent ways with each other: by sharing in similar actions.

The process is the surface path – the internal emotional and psychological experience is the intended destination...

Continuing the ‘Byzantine’ metaphor - numerous Byzantine texts for example, describe the figures in icons as coming alive to defend or heal people. Yet the figures themselves are only representations of particular events and claimed-to-be real historical people, or more-than-people...

But this is religious fiction or fantasy of course from our present-day scientific perspective.

Standing at a distance and analysing it, yes these people following the religion, carry out a process, and it is a process largely of symbolism with the addition of some deliberate sensory parallel elements.

But if it were really true that in every instance, someone performing what was simply a process - in other words they were doing a repeatable procedure – and then by that process have actual angels appear for real and ‘defend’ or ‘heal’ or do any other unusual, extraordinary or miraculous thing – it would make the process itself much more important than the object of having a living experienced relationship, and reduce things down to mechanisms and ‘machinery’ and it would certainly make it all quite scientific too. Because then we could all ‘do it.’ ...I mean have those mystical, or metaphysical-based, yet subsequently ‘actual physical material reality’ results.

Science, at least the modern iteration of it, does attempt to always and everywhere reduce everything down to inanimate mechanistic processes with objects and quanta and formulas.

There is simply nothing wrong with that as the intelligent primary means of identifying reliable repeatable facts, when operating in the face of unknowns. But it does not have the genuine scope to handle living existential aspects such as pure naked volition, or decision, or choice, or attraction and repulsion based on naked volition. It handles those things by in fact dissembling about them and employing parallel substitution fraud. It is fallacious about sentient volition.

It has no objective template of moral absolutes for example and tries to substitute such things with ‘survival imperatives.’ ...You could be making a tremendously serious mistake in thinking that super advanced ET Aliens were here on account of ‘survival’ needs. When in fact they were here on account of volition springing from the nature of their living character -, their social and sociological characteristics.

In fact it might be that Life is not about ‘survival;’ it is about volition.

That is the reason why if I were to disclose to you in complete critical detail, the kinds of things that were going on now, in here, in this adjoined dining and living room area of a more or less secret suite inside a mostly public-use high rise building – involving very advanced beings literally from another world altogether - you might construe what you were reading as simply some kind of process, as I have said, and thus easily repeatable in the hands of just anyone.

And that is simply not the truth about it.

So here is a less-than-critically-detailed, narrative description only, and from which you must derive a sense of underlying meaning in living being terms, not mechanistic process terms:

...In the dim light of the place I could see the circle of people, all their eyes shut, but yet with some inner sight derived from some other kind of light – which was invisible to me.

That circle of people was unable to any longer be distinguished in a certain sense each individual one person from the other – they were all the same being. That’s the impression I had. Their individual facial features were different and each one of them was unique but nevertheless the demeanour, the expression, the closed eyes, the sense about it all to the observer - was that they were tied in a circle of strong force which was one circle and one discrete whole thing.

The difference between this thing going on here and an occult ritual or an orthodox traditional – meaning simply mainstream – overt religious ritual was that those were all re-enactments and the occult ones whilst certainly claiming to have the objective of ‘raising energy/energies,’ were all nonetheless strictly-formatted recreations of set down ritual processes that you can read about in text books. Things of the past being recreated or re-enacted.

But this was not that. This was people, alive but so outside of normal ‘life’ as you know it and experience it in your daily world that it was completely obvious in a very visceral way to any external human observer. What they were doing was a living dynamis, and a praxis, and they were non-verbally relating to each other as well as with some unseen outside force.

‘MacGregor’ the leader man was not with them in that strange ‘hive group’ transformation.

He was over with me where the dining table was. And now he was reaching forward with a hand towards one single bottle there on the table, as yet unopened. It was a rather slender bottle, long-necked, new design – nothing old about it. The label read ‘Sweet Viognier Cellar Reserve.’

“Do you know what this is?” He asked me.

“No.”

“The name of its grape variety is from the Latin phrase ‘road of the valley of Hell,’ This was the kind of wine served to Julius Caesar – in fact the greatest wine ever served to him.

“The particular exact wine Caesar enjoyed was at a banquet in 60 BC celebrating his victories in Spain. And the wine they served was the Opimian Vintage of 121 BC. Regarded as the greatest vintage in antiquity for this already great wine.”

I raised my eyebrows. After all, what were we considering here...

At this point and before I tell you what transpired next, I think it is necessary to tell you who I am – at least not so much who I am but in what context you can place me in the real world.

I am someone who is known to important and very well-known people but I am not at all well-known publicly myself.

And who do I know and who knows me? Well, the following are not just facts, and we cannot use the phrase ‘true facts’ because that is a tautology – a fact is already automatically true – the following things are verifiable facts.

I am known personally to a few serving and also some retired national political and government leaders at the highest level of a small number of countries. Some will have little immediate recollection of me and that was entirely by design – but with a little detailed prompting they would definitely blanch at the reality when reminded of it.

Shirley Maclaine is someone too, that I have conversed with once or twice – of course to some extent on the ‘interesting’ subject of ET Aliens – although I never met her one-time Australian boyfriend, the then Deputy Prime Minister Andrew Peacock.

With some considerable sense of private honour I can say that I was a personal friend too – although few knew it either – of one of the people who laid the foundation stones of the original World Trade Centre twin towers. This man was a brilliant industrial designer and town planner, who was despised by quite a number of professionals both in his direct fields as well as in governments around the world.

He devised a system of very inexpensive PVC and acrylic flat-packed and rolled up ‘escape tubes’ in case of fire, long long before the events of 9/11, that he would have had fitted into the upper floors of the WTC buildings. No one adopted his plan and as far as I know things, they laughed at him. His plan would have saved many thousands of innocent people’s lives – people who eventually died in most horrible circumstances as things turned out.

My own perception of why he was so roundly despised by many people, was that he seemed to be inexplicably prescient. And they didn’t like that. ‘I told you so’ was a phrase I think he was very used to using against authorities, even though for a very long time in his life and professional career, he was a person in authority, in planning departments particularly.

As I have already mentioned, I was also physically in and around the same places that Guy Savelli and Lieutenant Colonel Jim Channon were and I may have run into Savelli here and there but that was a long long time ago now.

Of course there is a reason the architect/designer/planner who laid one of the foundations stones at the original WTC was ‘seemingly prescient.’

He was not so much ‘prescient’ as being critically well-advised -, let us simply say.

And in other words, what you should take from all of this, is that I am also critically well-advised...

But it is one thing to be able to say something bad is going to happen, and try and encourage people to steer clear, or do something to prevent the worst of the consequences – and quite another to say something extremely good is going to happen and why and where it will.

People don’t like ‘Jonahs’ generally, and resist with their whole might and main often, any doom and gloom talk. This is often despite all logic that sides actually, with the doom-sayer.

Certainly there is always a segment that indulges in ‘conspiracy thinking’ - which basically means they think there are hidden hands in government and in all forms of authority, who do bad things and act against private people’s interests and serve themselves as a secret clique. Well so what though?

These same ‘conspiracy thinkers’ are equally inclined to discount and to disbelieve assertions by the knowledgeable about really bad things about to happen when those are set out simply on the basis of sound logic: there is no question but that a nuclear warfare incident or several of them could easily take place in the current geopolitical and global alignments conflict circumstances -, killing hundreds of thousands or millions. There is no question but that a serious outbreak of Cholera could happen either in the West Coast or in the East Coast cities of the United States killing countless hundreds of thousands.