================================================

ITS SIMPLICITY MAKES IT UNBELIEVABLE TO YOU

================================================

Something strange is happening in the world today.
A frequent comment from those who see it is this:
the American and British electorates have an amazing tolerance for
being lied to and defrauded.

But no, there is nothing amazing about that.

Think of the Oxana Malaya video. She demonstrates vividly our
unavoidable imitation and repetition of our prominent early
experiences.

Next think again of my analysis of the mother-infant relationship.

EVERY MOTHER IS THE WORLD LIES TO AND DEFRAUDS HER BABIES.
All of us were lied to and defrauded by our mothers.
So when we allow politicians to lie to us and defraud us we are
imitating and repeating what happened between us and our mothers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You need to grasp it clearly - the basic truth about yourselves and
your behaviour.

Think about it.

The early mother-infant relationship is a sexual relationship. From a
scientific/zoological/biological standpoint, breastfeeding is
identical in its basic nature and content to vaginal intercourse, the
main difference being only that the erectile protuberance and the
orifice into which it is inserted are different.
Then the anal eroticism experienced by babies is the other major
feature of what is clearly a sexual relationship with our mothers.

As you gained movement and vocabulary, your mother went into reverse
and quickly ended her sexual relationship with you.
In this way your mother defrauded you.
She also lied to you by communicating toxic shame at you, conveying
that the most beautiful parts of our bodies have to be reclassified as
the opposite of beautiful and as being so evil and disgusting that
they must be concealed and never spoken of unless unavoidable.
Your mother also communicated to you that to continue your sexual
relationship with her and to allow you to return her love to her as
she gave it - would be both 'shameful' and abusive.

We all knew we were being both lied to and defrauded by our mothers
during that crucially formative episode.
As a baby you knew that exchanging pleasurable caresses to express
loving and caring for another person is not shameful and not abusive
but the opposite.
As a baby you knew that our breasts, nipples, buttocks, anuses,
penises and vulvas are not shameful but are beautiful.
As a baby you knew your mother was being unfair and fraudulent to
caress you all over your body while prohibiting you from caressing her
all over her body, and that the toxic shame she exuded at you to
enforce that fraudulent prohibition was the biggest lie of all.

That is what we all are imitating and repeating, Oxana Malaya style.

Thus, we accept being lied to and defrauded by politicians because it
is what we are familiar with, because we learned from our mothers that
it is what human beings do - in other words, lying and defrauding
others, or alternatively, being lied to and defrauded by others, or
some combination thereof, is what our mothers trained us to do, and so
that is why lying and defrauding each other is what our civilisation
consists of most of all.

So all those prestigious and verbose commentators who are proclaiming
their bewilderment at the electorate's 'amazing' tolerance for being
lied to and defrauded - can stop being bewildered now, because there
is nothing amazing about it.

Think of Oxana Malaya, then think of what it is that we all are
imitating and repeating.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some people build successful and lucrative careers on preaching that a
great awakening is just around the corner. These people are all fakes
and frauds.
Whether that is through stupidity or by design is sometimes hard to
say.
However, I can guarantee you that things will only continue to get
worse in our world.
No unusual intelligence and no prophetic gift is required to know
that.
I just know what happens in the mother-infant relationship, so I know
what we all are imitating and repeating.
And so I know that the only 'awakening' that can ever take place will
be based on restoring decency and caring to the mother-infant
relationship, so that human beings then will be imitating decency and
caring, instead of continuing to imitate and repeat our mothers' lying
and defrauding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frankly I am finding it increasingly difficult to live like this - I
mean to live surrounded by six billion mentally ill beings who refuse
to see the simple and obvious analysis of their condition and the
simple and obvious long-term healing formula.

It is simplicity itself: to heal you just change what you are
imitating and repeating, Oxana style, and you do that by changing the
mother-infant relationship back to what it used to be before we sank
into survivalist mode.
In other words, restore decency and caring to the mother-infant
relationship, by ending the lying and defrauding practised by every
mother as explained above.

If you let yourself see the truth clearly, you will feel a quite
painful emotion of disharmony and disgust - disgust with a species of
six billion beings who are so emphatic in their determination not to
heal. Above all, you will feel disgust at humanity's refusal to
nurture and protect their young, their universal determination to
bequeath to their children and grandchildren poisoned bodies, a
wrecked biosphere, and the perpetuation of the same old pain-
generating, love-rationing societal arrangements, rooted in the
imitating and repeating of being lied to and defrauded by our
mothers.
If you see it clearly, you'll ask others to see it with you, and then
you will be horrified and alarmed and finally heartbroken as you see
people's absolute determination not to heal and not to nurture and
protect their young.

Those who read most of what I write notice that I am drinking more
now. You will too, if you see the truth, and then see people's
determination not to heal and not to nurture and protect their young.

And there's no use in trying to wriggle out of this. There's no
denying it.
There is only ONE way you can begin to nurture and protect the young
of our species, and that is to begin the re-education/reorientation
process aimed at restoring decency and caring to the mother-infant
relationship, so that future generations will start to imitate and
repeat decency and caring.
You insist that you will NEVER restore decency and caring to the
mother-infant relationship.
Therefore you are refusing to nurture and protect your young.
And that is why I need a drink.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is the core analysis and core healing formula.
It is not debatable; it is obviously true, and no experts are needed
to verify it.
Ironically, that is what makes it unbelievable to you, as your thought
processes are those of the survivalist emergency.
In the forgotten survivalist emergencies, to think for yourself was a
death sentence, as the only way the tribe could survive was to suspend
our intellectual and ethical functions and follow the ruthless
military leaders who would fend off competing tribes.
Healing means exiting survivalist mode, starting by establishing core
essential truths comprising the analysis of our condition and the
healing formula toward which that analysis points.
It's as stated above, and it's simplicity itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL STUDY AIDS:
Oxana Malaya demonstrates our powerfully intense urge to imitate and
repeat our major early formative experiences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMbf8R9BPyg

Niles Newton and others on the sexual nature of breastfeeding:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.uk.law/msg/fde3e9567813bc7e?q=collective+mental+illness&pli=1

Peter Newman on anal eroticism between mothers and babies:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_121hsrds9ww

Careless Hands - the lament of the Universal Infant:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dddp6bt4_187gpmt3sjh

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS - as stated frequently, I do not advocate immediate change in our
dealings with babies and young people, but a period of re-education /
reorientation among adults leading to a time when the entire
population will recover from our collective mental illness and make
the decision together to change our laws and reintroduce decency and
caring to the mother-infant relationship for the first time in eleven
thousand years.
Healing will follow, as all subsequent generations of human beings
will be
imitating and repeating that new decency and caring throughout their
lives.
Simplicity itself.

Hi. A while ago my daughter was asked by a cop to make a witness
statement and I sat in and signed it too.
The policeman taking the statement wrote it on a standard form in his
own handwriting, then asked us to sign it.

Whenever I sign anything, my habit is to make sure nothing can be
added to it after I sign it, and with that in mind, I might write 'END
OF DOCUMENT' and then sign after those words,
or, alternatively,
I draw a horizontal line under the text and then a diagonal line below
that, so that anything added on afterwards will have a line drawn
through it in advance.

I noticed that the form the policeman was using had a big, full-page
box for the statement, the text of which did not fill the box, and
then at the bottom of the page was the box for my signature.

I told him of my habit of drawing the horizontal and diagonal line
below anything I signed as a precaution against unauthorised
additions.
He replied with a bit of gobbledygook, indicating he did not want me
to draw the two lines.
As the case was of no great importance, I didn't argue about it.

There was nothing to prevent the cop from adding to the statement, in
that blank space, after he got back to his desk, so that my signature
would appear below additional text which I had not authorised.

I'd advise people to be careful about that when signing anything
important - meaning draw that horizontal and diagonal line below the
text so that any blank space is 'cancelled' in advance.

Special Care wrote:
> Hi. A while ago my daughter was asked by a cop to make a witness
> statement and I sat in and signed it too.
> The policeman taking the statement wrote it on a standard form in his
> own handwriting, then asked us to sign it.
>
> Whenever I sign anything, my habit is to make sure nothing can be
> added to it after I sign it, and with that in mind, I might write 'END
> OF DOCUMENT' and then sign after those words,
> or, alternatively,
> I draw a horizontal line under the text and then a diagonal line below
> that, so that anything added on afterwards will have a line drawn
> through it in advance.
>
> I noticed that the form the policeman was using had a big, full-page
> box for the statement, the text of which did not fill the box, and
> then at the bottom of the page was the box for my signature.
>
> I told him of my habit of drawing the horizontal and diagonal line
> below anything I signed as a precaution against unauthorised
> additions.
> He replied with a bit of gobbledygook, indicating he did not want me
> to draw the two lines.
> As the case was of no great importance, I didn't argue about it.
>
> There was nothing to prevent the cop from adding to the statement, in
> that blank space, after he got back to his desk, so that my signature
> would appear below additional text which I had not authorised.
>
> I'd advise people to be careful about that when signing anything
> important - meaning draw that horizontal and diagonal line below the
> text so that any blank space is 'cancelled' in advance.

I have given several witness statements in the recent past, on each occasion 
I signed immediately after the text and again in the box at the bottom. 
This is the standard procedure.

On Nov 6, 6:16 pm, "Mrcheerful"  wrote:
> Special Care wrote:
> > Hi. A while ago my daughter was asked by a cop to make a witness
> > statement and I sat in and signed it too.
> > The policeman taking the statement wrote it on a standard form in his
> > own handwriting, then asked us to sign it.
>
> > Whenever I sign anything, my habit is to make sure nothing can be
> > added to it after I sign it, and with that in mind, I might write 'END
> > OF DOCUMENT' and then sign after those words,
> > or, alternatively,
> > I draw a horizontal line under the text and then a diagonal line below
> > that, so that anything added on afterwards will have a line drawn
> > through it in advance.
>
> > I noticed that the form the policeman was using had a big, full-page
> > box for the statement, the text of which did not fill the box, and
> > then at the bottom of the page was the box for my signature.
>
> > I told him of my habit of drawing the horizontal and diagonal line
> > below anything I signed as a precaution against unauthorised
> > additions.
> > He replied with a bit of gobbledygook, indicating he did not want me
> > to draw the two lines.
> > As the case was of no great importance, I didn't argue about it.
>
> > There was nothing to prevent the cop from adding to the statement, in
> > that blank space, after he got back to his desk, so that my signature
> > would appear below additional text which I had not authorised.
>
> > I'd advise people to be careful about that when signing anything
> > important - meaning draw that horizontal and diagonal line below the
> > text so that any blank space is 'cancelled' in advance.
>
> I have given several witness statements in the recent past, on each occasion
> I signed immediately after the text and again in the box at the bottom.
> This is the standard procedure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
=====================

It's still best to draw the two lines as a precaution.

Special Care  wrote in message
news:69c2ab5d-536b-476e-a68e-dfcca439a989@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi. A while ago my daughter was asked by a cop to make a witness
> statement and I sat in and signed it too.
> The policeman taking the statement wrote it on a standard form in his
> own handwriting, then asked us to sign it.
>
> Whenever I sign anything, my habit is to make sure nothing can be
> added to it after I sign it, and with that in mind, I might write 'END
> OF DOCUMENT' and then sign after those words,
> or, alternatively,
> I draw a horizontal line under the text and then a diagonal line below
> that, so that anything added on afterwards will have a line drawn
> through it in advance.
>
> I noticed that the form the policeman was using had a big, full-page
> box for the statement, the text of which did not fill the box, and
> then at the bottom of the page was the box for my signature.
>
> I told him of my habit of drawing the horizontal and diagonal line
> below anything I signed as a precaution against unauthorised
> additions.
> He replied with a bit of gobbledygook, indicating he did not want me
> to draw the two lines.
> As the case was of no great importance, I didn't argue about it.
>
> There was nothing to prevent the cop from adding to the statement, in
> that blank space, after he got back to his desk, so that my signature
> would appear below additional text which I had not authorised.
>
> I'd advise people to be careful about that when signing anything
> important - meaning draw that horizontal and diagonal line below the
> text so that any blank space is 'cancelled' in advance.

There must be a whole set of guidance for this
sort of thing.
Anyone know where to find it?
Technical term for it all ?

It includes why legalese does
not have punctuation other than full stop.
Why alterations have to be initialled.
All the width of the paper must be used , no gaps in the
text. Text should run from one page to the
next (numbered), not at the end of a sentence.
Pages to be written on , on the
original pad , for ESDA if necessary.

I had communication to police Chief Insp level to try
to get to the bottom of apparently missing
3 pages from a 5 page witness statement.

His reply
"The original statement is two
pages long, and it is quite clear that the officer recording the statement
incorrectly put the figure "1" in the space marked "consisting of  ...
pages".
This figure "1" was crossed through with a squiggly line making it appear on
the
photocopy as a "5". The number "2" was placed alongside the crossing out.
Whilst the alteration was not initialled by the person making the
statement, it would appear that the failure to get this alteration
initialled was
an oversight by the officer taking the statement. There have certainly not
been
any pages removed from the statement itself, and you are incorrect in
assuming
that this was the case. "

A squiggly line that certainly looked like a 5, not a fully curvy line
then crossed thyough with a vertical 1
The text did not flow from one page to the next and changed topic
between them, adding to the suspicious nature.


ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

Remote linking to that host site seems to now work
5 crossed out with a vertical 1 or 1 crossed out
with a linear+curvey squiggle ?
http://www.nutteing2.50megs.com/nov22.gif


ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing2.50megs.com/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Valid email nutteing@fastmail.....fm (remove 4 of the 5 dots)
Ignore any other apparent em address used to post this message -
it is defunct due to spam.

"Mrcheerful"  wrote in message 
news:0KZIm.2322$Ym4.1949@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Special Care wrote:
>> Hi. A while ago my daughter was asked by a cop to make a witness
>> statement and I sat in and signed it too.
>> The policeman taking the statement wrote it on a standard form in his
>> own handwriting, then asked us to sign it.
>>
>> Whenever I sign anything, my habit is to make sure nothing can be
>> added to it after I sign it, and with that in mind, I might write 'END
>> OF DOCUMENT' and then sign after those words,
>> or, alternatively,
>> I draw a horizontal line under the text and then a diagonal line below
>> that, so that anything added on afterwards will have a line drawn
>> through it in advance.
>>
>> I noticed that the form the policeman was using had a big, full-page
>> box for the statement, the text of which did not fill the box, and
>> then at the bottom of the page was the box for my signature.
>>
>> I told him of my habit of drawing the horizontal and diagonal line
>> below anything I signed as a precaution against unauthorised
>> additions.
>> He replied with a bit of gobbledygook, indicating he did not want me
>> to draw the two lines.
>> As the case was of no great importance, I didn't argue about it.
>>
>> There was nothing to prevent the cop from adding to the statement, in
>> that blank space, after he got back to his desk, so that my signature
>> would appear below additional text which I had not authorised.
>>
>> I'd advise people to be careful about that when signing anything
>> important - meaning draw that horizontal and diagonal line below the
>> text so that any blank space is 'cancelled' in advance.
>
> I have given several witness statements in the recent past, on each 
> occasion I signed immediately after the text and again in the box at the 
> bottom. This is the standard procedure.
>
>

Ditto, although not so recentely.

On Nov 8, 8:19 pm, "R. Mark Clayton" 
wrote:
> "Mrcheerful"  wrote in message
>
> news:0KZIm.2322$Ym4.1949@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Special Care wrote:
> >> Hi. A while ago my daughter was asked by a cop to make a witness
> >> statement and I sat in and signed it too.
> >> The policeman taking the statement wrote it on a standard form in his
> >> own handwriting, then asked us to sign it.
>
> >> Whenever I sign anything, my habit is to make sure nothing can be
> >> added to it after I sign it, and with that in mind, I might write 'END
> >> OF DOCUMENT' and then sign after those words,
> >> or, alternatively,
> >> I draw a horizontal line under the text and then a diagonal line below
> >> that, so that anything added on afterwards will have a line drawn
> >> through it in advance.
>
> >> I noticed that the form the policeman was using had a big, full-page
> >> box for the statement, the text of which did not fill the box, and
> >> then at the bottom of the page was the box for my signature.
>
> >> I told him of my habit of drawing the horizontal and diagonal line
> >> below anything I signed as a precaution against unauthorised
> >> additions.
> >> He replied with a bit of gobbledygook, indicating he did not want me
> >> to draw the two lines.
> >> As the case was of no great importance, I didn't argue about it.
>
> >> There was nothing to prevent the cop from adding to the statement, in
> >> that blank space, after he got back to his desk, so that my signature
> >> would appear below additional text which I had not authorised.
>
> >> I'd advise people to be careful about that when signing anything
> >> important - meaning draw that horizontal and diagonal line below the
> >> text so that any blank space is 'cancelled' in advance.
>
> > I have given several witness statements in the recent past, on each
> > occasion I signed immediately after the text and again in the box at the
> > bottom. This is the standard procedure.
>
> Ditto, although not so recentely.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That doesn't preclude the possibility of some unauthorised text being
put into the blank space when the cop goes back to his desk, the new
text appearing above your signature at the bottom of the page.
So drawing the two lines on the blank space is a wise precaution.
I'd advise everyone to do it.
Dick Holland is dead, but his spirit lives on.

Special Care wrote:
> On Nov 8, 8:19 pm, "R. Mark Clayton" 
> wrote:
>> "Mrcheerful"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:0KZIm.2322$Ym4.1949@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Special Care wrote:
>>>> Hi. A while ago my daughter was asked by a cop to make a witness
>>>> statement and I sat in and signed it too.
>>>> The policeman taking the statement wrote it on a standard form in
>>>> his own handwriting, then asked us to sign it.
>>
>>>> Whenever I sign anything, my habit is to make sure nothing can be
>>>> added to it after I sign it, and with that in mind, I might write
>>>> 'END OF DOCUMENT' and then sign after those words,
>>>> or, alternatively,
>>>> I draw a horizontal line under the text and then a diagonal line
>>>> below that, so that anything added on afterwards will have a line
>>>> drawn through it in advance.
>>
>>>> I noticed that the form the policeman was using had a big,
>>>> full-page box for the statement, the text of which did not fill
>>>> the box, and then at the bottom of the page was the box for my
>>>> signature.
>>
>>>> I told him of my habit of drawing the horizontal and diagonal line
>>>> below anything I signed as a precaution against unauthorised
>>>> additions.
>>>> He replied with a bit of gobbledygook, indicating he did not want
>>>> me to draw the two lines.
>>>> As the case was of no great importance, I didn't argue about it.
>>
>>>> There was nothing to prevent the cop from adding to the statement,
>>>> in that blank space, after he got back to his desk, so that my
>>>> signature would appear below additional text which I had not
>>>> authorised.
>>
>>>> I'd advise people to be careful about that when signing anything
>>>> important - meaning draw that horizontal and diagonal line below
>>>> the text so that any blank space is 'cancelled' in advance.
>>
>>> I have given several witness statements in the recent past, on each
>>> occasion I signed immediately after the text and again in the box
>>> at the bottom. This is the standard procedure.
>>
>> Ditto, although not so recentely.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That doesn't preclude the possibility of some unauthorised text being
> put into the blank space when the cop goes back to his desk, the new
> text appearing above your signature at the bottom of the page.
> So drawing the two lines on the blank space is a wise precaution.
> I'd advise everyone to do it.
> Dick Holland is dead, but his spirit lives on.

but your signature in the middle of the text would prove where you had 
agreed the text up to that point, anything after could be realistically 
contested.