January 16, 2017 . . . Late Night Commentary from ~Jean

I’m forced to publish this as a single post, in order to get it out. The trolls are doing everything in their power to shut me down, including completely disappearing my Late Afternoon News post yesterday  . . .  to the point where I am having to put my posts out and edit them afterwards, just to get them out before they destroy them. My site is labeled secure; what a joke that is!

A reader asked the question: Did you read Jean -websites. State of the nation – their take on you, please.

My response: No, I didn’t, Tom. Unless someone specifically draws my attention to their site, I just don’t go there anymore,  although just now I did find and read in their UPDATEd article, a section at the end called Special Note,[http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/01/the-new-atlantis-master-plan-of-the-ages-2/],

which says to me they are more involved in sitting in judgment against people who disagree with their presented facts — as if they are the only arbiters of truth — than they are interested in any real exchange of ideas. This alone makes me question their words as an expression of their understanding of spirituality. While I did not attack them personally, I presented some very different facts, which they apparently never accessed, but which are available to all.

I think I presented a very credible response to their words, and I would like to add here, that with the two huge slush funds available to us, I think we have zero need of any funds from St. Germaine. We are going to have to do this for ourselves, and although I do believe we are having some off-planet help, I don’t think we need once again to be tied to anyone else financially, now do we — really? I don’t know, but as I’ve grown in knowledge, I have to wonder if St. Germaine isn’t just one more diabolical false-flag plan created long ago to keep us dreaming that someone will save us—and the extension of this is clear in the article by SOTN, which thus keeps os from preparing for the inevitable and makes us extremely vulnerable to the shenanigans of the NWO when the financial collapse hits. I have great difficulty in believing that this is what SOTN really wants to convey to us.

It seems to me, instead, that what we actually need to do is to take back what is rightfully ours, the two huge slush funds that we already know exist in amounts so huge that we can use these funds at a minimum to transition people now employed in our corporate government and fearful of losing their jobs and pensions towards a more fair, just government. These slush find are the Corporate profits being stolen from us by the Corporation that is presently the United States, and the CAFR funds.

It was — and is not now — my intention to attack these writers personally, as they appear to be trying to do to anyone who disagrees with their presentation of the facts — you know,  ‘woe unto them’ kind of talk, and ‘These highly inferior authors and researchers have no clue about the actual progression of many profound historical events which are integral to the emancipation of the human race’. Here they clearly have broken a very basic spiritual rule: Don’t make assumptions! How do they actually know what other bloggers read and understand? To me, this smacks of great arrogance, and arrogance always includes a huge dose of ignorance! How do they know with certainty that the material they reference is not a part of the plan to move the NWO right into control? Unless they are willing to look at the other side of the coin in an honest way, do they not do us all a great disservice by demeaning ‘highly inferior authors and researchers’ — and bloggers?

Why can the only resort to intimidating others who simply disagrees with their presentation of the facts? Is this even being helpful/educational, let alone spiritual? Why are they in a kindly fashion, not correcting those of us they regard as inferior? I must question if they are really sharing information in order to help others come to a better understanding of reality! It seems to me they have a different agenda from me, one that may pertain to politics — and control through intimidation — more than spirituality, one that I think is certainly not helpful to humanity as it struggles to find its way out of the darkness, with which, considering their words, they seem to have little personal knowledge. 

If they had that spiritual knowledge, why were they led to material that has nothing to do with a spiritual ‘take’ on our reality, for example the actual words of Francis Bacon, which was really what my response to their presentation was all about. As my readers well know, I always try to go to the source, in this case, Francis himself, rather than what others may say about him. It was what I did years ago in 2009 when I researched that article, and it is what I continue to do. I would have found it so helpful if they would have debunked Francis own words instead of trying to intimidate ‘bloggers’! To me, this would have had some real value, and I would have found it extremely helpful as we all might have learned something from such an exchange! I hope my words, should those at SOTN read them, will make some basic sense to them and also to the rest of my readers . . . and to you, Tom, who brought this to my attention, for which I thank you. I look forward to hearing your responses . . . 


PS This was part of my statement in my initial response to SOTN on January 9, 2017,  and I ask you if this makes me a ‘highly inferior author and researcher’, and blogger — or just an honest one? I do have my sources —sitting right here on my bookshelves. Also, I wrote my last research paper when I was in my early thirties, my Master’s thesis, and I absolutely hated doing them. I haven’t written one since, and I’m presently heading towards my 78th birthday. . . . .and I think their statements that I understand now are without doubt directed at me are way, way out of line! You know, don’t attack the facts; attack the messenger! Where have we heard that one before!

[…] I invite you to read this small portion of my informal paper to compare the difference in our thinking.  Let me say that I use the word informal, because my paper was only delivered once and has never been published. When I wrote it [back in 2009, long before I started my blog]. I did not annotate it properly, because it really made little difference. At that time, I was so very excited at what I was discovering about quantum theory, the understanding of which was the basis of my healing, and I was anxious to share what I was learning. Had I realized that I would quote it time and time again, I would have taken the time to annotate my sources properly. Still, if it would become necessary, I have all the materials and I suppose I could very laboriously reconstruct it, although I must say that I am loathe now to do so. I, therefore, ask forgiveness of those authors who may be unmentioned or not properly quoted.

* * * 

As I’ve tried, because I feel forced to defend myself against these ugly statements that need never have been made, to reconstruct a single event that took place some eight years ago, I pulled up my paper and found this information that includes a general Bibliography and demonstrates the very different research material to which I was drawn compared to those at SOTN. Energetically, I do not consider this an accident — like attracts like. My readers may also find it of interest as an example of topics which I was investigating and studying back in 2009:


#1 How to Have a Direct Experience of God by Father Peter Bowes

Many people say they believe in God, but believing in God is not the same as having a direct experience of God. Direct means first-hand—not second-hand. It is not hearsay or conjecture. Direct means something happens to you. You go through something, and then you can say you have had an experience. Throughout history, belief in God has resulted in people gathering for worship in churches, mosques and temples. All over the world people still congregate based on similar beliefs about God. But how many can really say they know God?

Love and faith are the two most important qualities that make a substantial relationship with God possible. Love pulls you to the Divine Being; faith expects that something real will happen. Love connects you and God together; faith brings trust that God will respond to your hopes. Love creates the opening for something genuine to occur in relationship with God; faith reaches out beyond what is comfortable, stretching you to feel and see what you long for with your whole heart, mind and soul.

A direct experience of God requires love and faith, both of which play integral roles in preparing you to meet God. With love and faith, you let the Divine Being know you care enough so that God will come and give you God’s Self. You have to silence the mind and the emotions and develop a stillness that can wait for a response from God. With meditation and prayer, a person can clear the mind of the world and the distractions of the senses in preparation for this meeting with God. God will come when you have cleared away all the other gods in your life, and this takes work, patient, and diligent effort.

The initial phase of this preparation can be somewhat discouraging because the most dark and detrimental parts of your nature show up for review. You just can’t ask God to come into a place soiled with dirt, confusion, and negative energy, so you will have to make a clean and wholesome space before you invite God to reside in you. Often you will need a Teacher–someone who has had a direct experience of God, who can see what needs to be drawn out of you–to help you clear the space within you.

All the mystics and saints have described direct experience of God in much the same ways. Each describes experiencing the love of their life in the embrace of God’s kiss and God’s presence. No fear can exist in the presence of God since God is all love and light. God is inside you and is loving you with every ounce you are willing to receive, and this experience will move you from belief to knowing. When you come into a direct experience of the God at the center of your being, it will change you completely, and you will know a profound peace that cannot be disturbed by the confusion of the world.

Innerchange • May/June 2009 21

 * * * 

# 2 Verse #48 from the Tao Te Ching

To obtain a diploma requires the storage of trivia.
To obtain the Great Integrity requires their abandonment.
The more we are released from vested fragments of knowledge,
the less we are compelled to take vested actions,
until all is done without doing.

When the ego interferes
in the rhythm of process,
here is so much doing!
But nothing is done.


Is Lao Tzu stuck in a literary mannerism involving paradox? Or is there a deep insight into the concept of “all is done without doing”, a repeated premise in many of these eighty-one verses?

What Lao Tzu means by “doing” is acting against the rhythms of natural processes and against the pretended natural inertia and laziness of human beings, to make something happen. That means that “doing” implies actions impelled by interference, force and coercion. Such actions are always in opposition to natural processes, and usually in violation of human needs and well-being.

What Lao Tzu means by “getting done” is to flow with and facilitate natural processes, and never violate the needs and harmony of human beings in the process of producing the needs of the community. “Getting done” is always cooperating with nature and with other people. “Doing” is always a violation of nature and the exploitation of other people. Therefore what he mans by “all is done without doing” is that everything is accomplished without coercion.

Furthermore, there is a coincidence between form and content when Lao Tzu expresses the idea in paradox rather than logic.

Logic is the province of the left cerebral hemisphere, which functions through verbal commands. It is the medium for the scientific method, which requires that experimenters divorce themselves from the subject of their investigation so that they can manipulate and control the conditions of their experiment and observe the outcomes as an outsider. Paradox, on the other hand, is the province of the more intuitive and holistic right cerebral hemisphere. It is the medium for artists who merge with their work in the process of creation. Artists who carefully plan all the details of their work in advance of the creative process are acting more like scientists, predominantly engaging their left logical brain, and thus preventing their work from emerging spontaneously “without doing.”

What Lao Tzu is always concerned with is the re-establishment of the Great Integrity. For him, the Great Integrity is the return to intuition and the merging of self and non-self. For us, having evolved to a different stage of evolution, we don’t want to throw away our hundreds of years of scientific experience. For us, our return to the Great Integrity means an integrity at a much higher level than Lao Tzu could imagine. Our Great Integrity is to integrate our now advanced scientific left-brain with our intuitive artistic right brain. For us, returning to the Great Integrity is to end our schizoid patterns of acting and thinking by establishing a planetary community in which cooperation replaces competition, war between countries becomes an anachronism because there will be no separate countries, and where all the fragmentations and coercive acts of the past will be exchanged for a Great Integrity beyond the wildest dreams of Lao Tzu.

This 48th verse has also been translated in an even more cryptic way:

Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk, do not know.

* * *

Reading List

The Tao of Physics             Fritjof Capra

Animate Earth                     Stephan Harding

Blessed Unrest                     Paul Hawken

Fractal Time                         Gregg Braden

Heart [a personal journey through its myths and meanings]* Gail Godwin

Molecules of Emotions     Candice Pert

Quantum Theology *         Diarmuid O’Murchu

Recreating Eden                 Julia Rogers Hamrick

The Dancing Wu Li Masters *   Gary Zukov

The Divine Matrix               Gregg Braden

The Field                               Lynne McTaggart

The Isaiah Effect                 Gregg Braden

The View from the Center of the Universe (Discovering our Extraordinary Place in the Cosmos)         Joel R. Primack and Nancy Ellen Abrams (husband-wife team)

What the Bleep Do We Know? *   William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, Mark        Vicente 

* Denotes books used most extensively in preparation of this paper.

From Wikipedia: Quantum Theology is a 1997 book by Diarmuid O’Murchu, a priest and social psychologist from Ireland. O’Murchu discusses how certain concepts from the modern quantum theory may point to deep spiritual truths, while admitting that this interpretation does not ring true to mainstream scientists:

“Meanwhile, scholars of other disciplines detect far-reaching implications of the quantum theory for their respective fields (e.g. Chopra 1989, McFadden 2000, Zohar 1990, 1993, Wheatley 1992) leading to radical new understandings of this theory, often baffling and bemusing to mainstream scientists.” [pg 29]

O’Murchu takes an overtly feministic and anti-religious stand throughout the book, suggesting that the paternalistic organized religions, as part of aggressive, paternalistic cultures, have divided and weakened the world. He suggests that the solution to this problem is the adoption of a more feministic, holistic spirituality, independent of organized religion.

A revised edition was released in 2004, subtitled The Spiritual Implications of the New Physics. O’Murchu has also published a sort of follow-up book, in which he applies the principles described in Quantum Theology to Jesus Christ and his teachings: Catching Up with Jesus: A Gospel Story for Our Time.


Note from Diarmuid O’Murchu: Mainstream Christian theology tends to adopt the largely unexamined worldview of classical Greek metaphysics, a creation set in place by divine ordinance for the use of humankind. Quantum physics proposes an entirely different world view, more flexible, dynamic and open-ended; humans are integral to this creation, but not masters of it. What would theology begin to look like if it took seriously the cosmology emerging from quantum physics? That is the question I seek to explore in Quantum Theology. To label the book as feminist or anti-religious totally misses the point of what the book is about.



This entry was posted in Financial/economic information, Illuminati/Terrorism/Corruption, Political. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to January 16, 2017 . . . Late Night Commentary from ~Jean

  1. Nine says:

    Dearest Jean,

    I am your biggest fan.

    In that Sotn article they said that the ability to comment upon any persons work such as their own is unacceptable.

    I will say this?

    I expect your commentary upon what is going on in the alternative media.

    More to the point is that I need it.

    I expect you to continue to do so. It is a sacred duty to humanity.

    What was Pilots contribution to that grand bible story?

    What is truth and so he washed his hands and another perished and so who was responsible?

    I am responsible and so one must get a simple pronoun correct.

    I will say this and that is I read you everyday and need your “feel” of things.

    Don’t let them get you down.

    I believe in the end that love shall overcome….



  2. Tracy says:

    Hi’ya Jean, I too got “censored” from the original S.O.T.N. post after leaving my testimony of the Lord of Lords teachings (with my comments pointing to how the context of the article gave me the “shivers.”) I saw my comment posted [for at least half a day] then it disappeared. I didn’t know what happened? I thought if you had removed it (after pondering I stepped past my ego & made peace deciding it was your blog/your right….even though I did go on my faith jag a bit) As I have said in past posts I see nothing wrong with “asking questions” [isn’t that what discussion and learning is about?] if this causes “friction” with others perhaps they need to take a step back to digest what is really causing their discourse: is it ego, is it pride, is it lack of respect, is it a bold face lie, etc. and then proceed forward and list grievance in a respectful manner. (Even if it means stating IMHO “you are clearly stating a false pretense”, or “I’m in disagreement with your perceptions”.)

    From what I see after reading the article entirely I am still left with “inner perceptions” what is stated is not my truth, [bits & pieces perhaps shed truth however overall no so much IMO w/out further hard evidence to sway me.] And I would like to say that if the Vatican, as well as all of the individual “Nation State Governments, and their private National Archives, and all Public/Private Universities, Think Tanks, Secret Societies et. AL” would release all “historical information” they hold sequestered (that has been held away from Earths heirs to our CREATOR, for private gain and control); released so that ALL would have free/open access to our ancestral truth perhaps we the “every-day-people” wouldn’t have to conjecture in our “opinions” what we think we know (from inner perceptions) what we feel is unfolding in this “relative present”.

    I esp. take offense to the “intimidating force, and fear baiting” of this first paragraph in the section marked “special note”: quote {“Let this essay serve as a serious warning to those who have taken to heaping scorn and disrespect on some of the greatest men of English and American history, as well as some of the most spiritual personages of all time.”} That is “foisting a mandate” upon others using intimidation IMHO; if there was a shred of “ethical, or spiritual integrity” one wouldn’t use “intimidation, or fear” to present a “truth”, this goes against the universal laws of “do no harm”. Especially when advocating what the “ascended masters” gifts to Earth are said to be, why would fear be used to lift up the works of an Ascended Master? If one wanted to elucidate the truth one would offer any evidence collected to validate points of view to the peoples, while allowing others the respect to come to their own truth whether in agreement or not. After all we are entitled to think for ourselves are we not? In Christ Consciousness may we ALL gently learn to live in everlasting peace without force.

    • Jean says:

      That article was IMO way off target. I haven’t had time to go back and see if they referenced the Treat of Paris in which our Congress (treasonously) gave our country back to the British. This ends their argument, doesn’t it? Sadly, I think these are not people of the dark, but they are very likely not on a spiritual path, and they may have misinformed many, many people, leading them in a wrong direction. Sad, isn’t it?


  3. Ewen MacKinnon says:

    It would be interesting to know what is hidden behind “Necessary background 1-Reader Input/December because it is impossible to open on my iPad.

    You mention two slush funds of ‘hidden’ wealth available to the free American people with arms and legs. Anna von Reitz, in offering perhaps her most inflammatory revelations yet in Words and Terms, Or, Stop Being Stupid Part 19, indirectly points to an unconsidered source of funds larger than either of the other two you mention — that being the true, assessable damages for fraud committed against the free American people and their states, if the perpetrators and beneficiaries are not all hung first.

    If Trump opens the 9-11 can and the people demand answers to all the issues raised in Dr. Judy Wood’s book Where Did the Towers Go, then free energy technology can no longer remain hidden and unavailable. Antarctica is a convenient, controlled diversion from what has been right in front of us for at least 15 years.

    mainerepublicmailalert.com has an extensive opening article today on the British based conglomerate, Serco, detailing its many tentacles into the corporate government of these united states of America. A good read.

    We just keep trying to open the doors to a larger audience, hopefully. Thank you again for all of your considerable efforts.

    • Jean says:

      I should have the link corrected to the Necessary Background Page, which btw does not include ‘1-Reader Input/December’ 🙂

      It is also correct now on my blog post. . . There was a problem, and I think I’ve resolved it.For sure, don’t miss this read!

      The slush funds are mentioned in conjunction with Anna’s great statements Stop Being Stupid. These are readily available and ones that everyone can see. Yes, all that was stolen from us is more than enough to re-invent our democracy – and I will go read this new post of Anna’s right now.

      Before I leave, however, I invite you to find some time to get into Engdahl’s post about Christian Zionism. What a revalation it truly is . . . even if you don’t have time for the entire thing, you will get an idea of the massive corruption involved. It is truly amazing, even to me! I had no real idea. . . I’m always interested in Serco . . . so thank you. In that regard, be sure to take time to view my 3 posts (yesterday, I think) Day 83 from George Webb which explain how the entire operation is set up and run, including finally the involvement of our police in pedophilia, used to control them – and the reason I suspect that they constantly go free

      Hugs, ~Jean

      PS Please let me know if you continue to have any problems. I’m not always sure from where these problems come 🙂

      • Ewen MacKinnon says:

        Thank you, Jean. Necessary background loads perfectly now. Reader input attempts to load repeatedly but unsuccessfully until it finally quits with an unable to load error message. This unable to load error happens frequently with your webpage depending upon the sensitive nature of the stories covered that day. There are stories which they do not want widely publicized, as you well know.

        I have always enjoyed Engdahl as globalresearch.ca has offered his articles and books for years. Another ‘prince of Light’, that’s for sure. Thank you again, Jean.

        • Jean says:

          Thank you, Ewen. They are making my blog life extremely difficult right now, and I hope my readers like you will be kind enough to bear with the problems they are throwing down before all of us. I can only move ahead the best I can. I do appreciate your kind and helpful support . . . 🙂

          I am glad you appreciate Engdahl’s work. It is careful and thorough and so well written. What a picture of greed. lies, thievery and outright deception he has painted that once again has been perpetrated on innocent Americans, this time by people they believed were guiding them spiritually. How painful will this recognition be, but then this is just one more difficult reality to be faced as we walk our path to freedom.


  4. mary says:

    🙂 Understood, Mary, and thank you! Hugs, ~Jean

  5. mary says:

    From Jean to Mary:

    Mary, allow me to thank you! I will not publish this, but permit me to say that I think these people at SOTN do not want to cast or align themselves with the dark as others that you have named.

    Instead, I think they need to be ‘right’, no matter the cost, and to me this is very wrong. If I am correct. it is all about ego. Maybe you will understand why I gave up editing for them. In their statement yesterday, there were no questions to me about my sources. None. And this would have been a logical question. Did they really think I didn’t have any? Why would I lie about such a thing, because this only creates a problem for me, putting me in a very weak position.

    There was no intent to discuss my information, or learn from it. It felt like it was all about overpowering me and shutting me down.

    Why haven’t I the right to speak, if I do so, offering my information/opinions/knowledge in a respectful way? Why am I led to feel by them that I must placate them? Why must I feel the need to defend myself!

    Their behavior, in my opinion, is all about 3D thinking, and I would think these people would want to move beyond that place.

    This had nothing, zero, nada to do with achieving unity!


    PS . . . and BTW, this is a perfect example of what I have taught for so long on my blog — if we present our ideas politely and respectfully, and someone takes exception in the way that they have, then the problem is theirs. I am free in every way. Let them resolve the issues that are clearly theirs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s