Stanford’s essay: Heartstrings #1.
At the outset of Stanford’s essay, with the use of words “Tabta Tawila”, one wonders why there is use of language that no one understands, other than Stanford perhaps. I can see some similarity in this style with that of a village witch doctor, who every so often in the course of tapping into his/her powers to provide advice to an unsuspecting village person, performs a spontaneous intermittent water flick on said person with mumbling incantation, as though it invokes some magical power. One can make all sorts of arrangements of letters to make words, but do they really mean anything?
Stanford opens by saying effectively, that everything around us is illusion, part of a system of illusory layers, not to be trusted, and there is in reality something else going on. That’s in Stanford’s perception, but it is one that could reflect a particularly bad affliction of paranoia. Could it be in Stanford’s imagination that her alternate reality that we are tricked into not seeing is happening? Of course not everything humans say is 100% honest, and of course governments promote their own agendas in what they say. But it is just a matter of recognizing that as human nature, probably of necessity to some degree, not seeing it as some vast conspiracy where at every turn you think the system is deceiving you.
Stanford suggests trickery by the following:
- Large voices
- Small voices
This is just about every possible source from which we might receive information, and, thoughtfully, this does not exclude religious sayers like herself.
Implied is a suspicion of any repeated slogan. But repeated slogans are simply an effective means of getting people to think about and remember a message. Eg the “take it or leave it” slogan of Chiappalone. No doubt there are repeated messages in what Stanford writes, even if they’re not obviously slogans as such. I am quite fond of the slogan of BMW, “sheer driving pleasure”.
Slogans generally might be thought more cynically of as a kind of G-rated mind manipulation (unlike the more adult rating of brainwashing by religious sects). But not as evil trickery. You can minimise exposure, exercise critical thinking on any messages received, and simply filter out stuff that is deemed irrelevant or mere ‘noise’.
Apparently the trickery and illusion of this world extends to an interesting story involving:
King George III is thrown into the story, perhaps because a story is more interesting with a king in it, or an historical context gives a story more credibility. Regardless, because the king lost a battle, an alien backup plan as part of their efforts to conquer the world (almost like a Bond villian) lead to a major change in the direction of human evolution: the aliens allowed us to develop technology. ie all our technology today would not exist without the nod of aliens, so Stanford says. And the relevance of this is that it includes oil. Aliens were behind oil from the start.
Few would agree that aliens would be necessary for technological development by humans. Human intelligence is clearly sufficient to reason about complex problems and to think originally, to question, search and discover new things, as happens on a daily basis around the world. Historically, as we evolved, technological development became inevitable. The discovery of how to make fire and craft a spear would be among early developments. It is unnecessary therefore, that aliens would had to have played a hand in the discovery of oil, as Stanford suggests. No historian would see the discovery of oil and its utilisation as being out of step with the overall pattern of natural human evolution. But moving on to other extraordinary claims.
The most extraordinary claim perhaps that Stanford makes, is not only that aliens have an interest in oil like we do (and fight over it, unseen, like we do). But that oil can extend an alien’s life. And remarkably, this effect is possible by just being near oil. That is some elixir. Bearing in mind that oil, while having energy producing potential, is merely the result of decomposition over millions of years of aquatic plants and animals. Yet apparently it has such a special power with aliens! And aliens, despite technology that must be light years ahead of human technology, attach so much importance to a fossil fuel. How exactly would the health of an alien be improved by being near oil? Is it the smell?
This is all quite incredible stuff. Way beyond the capability of most to believe, or even bear for consideration as having any merit at all for belief. In a word, one would have to say it’s non-sense.
So how does NATO come into it?… America has huge oil reserves, and, apparently aliens want to preserve it as a bargaining chip in dealings with other aliens. This might be something like “spice” in the science fiction novel Dune. It seems Western leaders then, without knowing it, are seeking oil elsewhere, and NATO provides the force where necessary to get it. Here we are asked to believe further, that American oil is not being exploited fully because aliens are stopping it, that aliens are trading effectively on our oil even though they still remain “unseen”, and that leaders are directing the forces of NATO without knowing the reason why. Here, the “take it or leave it” slogan might be invoked.
Final questions: why would an inter-dimensional port, in Texas as it happens, require a drought? Would drier air have that much effect on an opening for inter-dimensional travel? Who are the Meraendians and Bu-swannee, or perhaps these have been described in earlier Stanford essays? And it might be more accurate to say, the royal family has outlived its relevance to modern day society, than its usefulness to unseen aliens.
Ironically, Stanford in this essay repeats her own message in closing, “things are not always what they appear to be”, the repetition by her own words being “markers that manipulators are at work”.