What I don't write about

My best essays are the ones I never put out

As a bit of fun, I thought I would write a one-off article on all the subjects I normally keep away from. One of the concepts I picked up on my professional journey was defining your region of uncertainty and doubt, so you don’t stray away from your conscious competence. By itemising the things I don’t feel confident talking about I am describing that peripheral zone of problematic punditry. It is arrogant and foolish to lay claim to understanding that you do not have, and speculation has limited value to the reader, so I don’t go into these places.

I have learned enough about information warfare to know that every misdirection, false front, or dark psyop has a kernel of truth to draw you in. Even if a topic ends up being “crazy” there will be something to learn from the framing, the divergence of beliefs, or the pollution of the historical record. Having an open mind means recognising that at a meta level you still don’t know what you need to learn in life: the very nature of the “universe of discourse” for acquiring wisdom changes as you grow in understanding.

I don’t write about ETs, hybrids, clones, nephilim, and chimeras. It is clear that there are “Very Big Deal™” subjects here, and formal disclosure of our true nature and place is the cosmos would be desirable. We are bombarded with science “fiction” that seems to be revealing the bigger picture to us at a rate we can psychologically absorb. At the same time, there are good societal stability reasons why we cannot have this offered to us in any official way — yet. There are also those with evil motives who wish to obfuscate what is really going on, and have essentially unlimited budgets to do so. I don’t have the energy to unpick it all.

I don’t write about human origins and genetics. It seems that we were engineered, and not an emergent process of evolution as taught; that’s a lie. The evidence for the signature of the author is written through our genome, so it’s not “woo”. The actual nature of humanity remains a mystery to me: without knowing about the existence of higher or previous civilisations, it is hard to discuss the topic meaningfully. My profound ignorance suggests I stay silent, as so many strong opinions have little empirical and epistemological backing. I wonder if we are some kind of bio-engineered escaped slaves with a “bit too much to think”, but I sure can’t prove it.

I don’t write about unidentified craft, hidden technology, or off-world activity. There is ample evidence of extremely advanced technology in “black budget” projects and with possible off-world or extraterrestrial origin. Some of it is disclosed via patents. I am not a physicist, chemist, or materials scientist, so it is hard to make sense of. My capacity and competence to sift through this is very limited. Hence I stick to what I understand, which is a classical cybernetic view of information and its flows, plus my daily life — and how it relates to that professional knowledge.

I don’t write about the “closer to home” subjects of “Flat Earth”, the firmament, Antartica, or underground civilisations. There are a lot of interesting cultural anomalies around maps and symbology that suggest I don’t have the full picture. I haven’t looked at the offered evidence of the geometry of where we live being different to the model offered. I am aware of a false binary: for example, maybe we are on a bigger sphere than suggested? It is costly to pull apart the evidence and replicate any experiments to eliminate fraud. There is something odd going on at each of our polar regions, but I have no means to go there to check it out, so why discuss it?

I don’t write about 5G, “poisoned everything”, militarised medicine, biowarfare, or nanotech. I am an expert in telecoms network performance and I understand why 5G is a marketing term with insufficient substance. I know little about electromagnetism and its interaction with biological systems, so I can’t meaningfully say much about “5G the bogeyman”. I believe that these technologies can and have been weaponised, but it is not my area of competence to comment upon. I know transhumanism is a bad idea, and that weaponry has gone “invisible”, but I have to rely on the military professionals having done their job to contain the risks.

I don’t write about the corruption of our timeline, especially geology. It is pretty likely that “fossil” fuels are a lie, and hydrocarbons are constantly produced via natural processes. The scarcity model is used for social and economic control via fear and lack. If something that big can be a fraud, it invites inquiry into what else is, and I suspect it is pretty much everything to some degree. Powerful monied interests seems to have been running “science” as an “official lies for profit” enterprise for a long time. I can add uncertainty to my sense of the world, and be comfortable not knowing how badly we have been misled.

I don’t write about “lost” history: Tartaria, Atlantis/Lemuria, giants, Nibiru, or cataclysms (cyclical or otherwise). It is all fascinating stuff, and I hope that more is revealed in the fullness of time, since this knowledge appears to be hoarded by secret societies. If you have an infinite amount of patience you can wade through thousands of YouTube videos that tentatively present it all. I can say for certain there is a lot more to learn than what you were taught in school. The cost of figuring out the curriculum is high, however. Maybe the Vatican’s vaults can reveal the truth? Who knows!

I don’t write about modern faked history, although I am absolutely convinced a lot of it is pure fraud. The wars all seem engineered by a small and horrific “elite”, who are so lacking in compassion and care that you wonder if they are really humans. The Nazis didn’t lose WW2, although the German people definitely did: they just changed tactics (invasion to infiltration) and regrouped in the Americas and Antarctica. It won’t surprise me if the IRA were ultimately working for the British Crown; treason and treachery is standard business operations. Nothing is as it seems…

I don’t write about the Bible or comparative religion. It is my belief that the Bible is an incomplete and edited set of truths and wisdom, but I cannot tell you what apocrypha are needed to complete the picture, or what has been subverted. I am extremely slow to change or accept new spiritual concepts, having seen how easily people are misled via my childhood brush with the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult. What people refer to as a singular “God” may be many nested higher-order systems in play. My best guess is that longstanding traditional “folk” knowledge is more reliable than a lot of “modern” materialist intellectualism.

I don’t write about consciousness, inter-dimsionality, or quantum anything. We can experimentally prove that consciousness is non-local and thought affects matter. That opens up a lot of possibilities, and talk of “demonic possession” as a kind of “consciousness parasite” starts to make sense to me. The quantum coupling of vibrations in space and time explains a lot of phenomena like remote viewing or prophesy, but I don’t understand the mechanics at all. I know next to nothing about the fundamental (mathematical) nature of nature, so I just giggle at my ignorance, and laugh at those who pride themselves on their superficial feeling of knowing.

One of the things I am glad I have done over the years is to ruthlessly stick to what I am qualified to talk about. My own life experience is “pure truth” to the extent that it is faithfully reported, so cannot be challenged except as psychotic delusion. I do my best to make sense of the world, but what I offer is the base evidence and the reasoning model, not a final answer. The downside is that many subjects go unacknowledged, and failure to mention them approaches a “lie by omission”. I care about these things, but am not equipped to comment upon them. So I don’t write about them.

Except, paradoxically, I just have.

What do you mean “you don’t believe in gruffalos”? Hardwick Country Park.