Are Some Multinational Corporations Benevolent?

[donk]

OK, I'll buy it...I'm 100% on board with the idea corporations (and goverments, religions, etc) are thought forms, alive, and even capable of manipulating other consciousness' mentality.

Soooo, then it could take on benevolence given that "some of it's parts" do, maybe?

But their original intent, the purpose of their existence (once they are mega-corps, with shares/ownership traded) is maximizing shareholder's propers (according to my secondary school programming), is not benevolent--toward life as we know it, anyway. So it would be an accident, a case of an artificial intelligence (or is it more than that?), the tin man getting a heart (he always had)?

Wait a minute...I'm not sure I buy it completely. Paul/Amer/PL....being "alive" and having a decision-making consciousness...is that the same thing? How much power are you attributing to these entities (pardon me while I re-read Paul's post)

[Hervé]

Posted by araucaria (here)
Yes, I have posted several times myself about clones... your point?

That's the one that keeps looping:

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
[...]
It perplexes me to no end that you claim to understand, yet miss the whole point of my post which, so far, only Paul seems to have fully grasped.

[...]

[donk]

...Ok, found the piece I disagree with:

where each element is one of these self-organizing layers. The blood circulation system of warm blooded mammals is just one such element, one self organizing layer, amongst a vast number of such.

Corporations are not just tools, nor just assemblages of individual people. They take on a life of their own. The corporation is to the tribe, as the internal combustion engine is to the horse.

I feel like this a false analogy. The corporation starts as an idea of the tribe....the combustion engine is the horse's replacement, not an idea the horse came up with.

A circulation system of an organism does it's PURPOSE, with perhaps ancillary effects from that initial purpose idea...it does not choose to create completely new, unrelated things. Possibly components WITHIN the system do, but there's where 'individuals within the system' come in.

I personally cannot think of a corporation (or circulatory system, or a combustion engine) as a an entity possessing a consciousness absent the layers that created it. I agree it is a entity with life, but it is completely dependent (under the control of) the layers beneath it. Given their complexity, that's a lot of friggin' layers...and some of those benevelent ones may be expressed.

However--the idea itself is flawed, at least to the slaves they were created to control: nothing should have the idea of ownership, competition, individualism at the heart of its creation, at least for a type of life form that seems (correct me if I am wrong here) to thrive in a cooperative environment.

So in judging the entities "benevolence" does not seem as productive to me, as exposing them in all their layers...I guess I'm saying looking at the "greater than the sum of it's parts" side of them doesn't seem like a good direction to be going, it is assuming that they can be--but hell, we already know "in a vaccum" with no bad apples, they theoritically COULD be...and that they are capable of benevolence...but to me this is the deception, the big lie...look at the definition, look at the idea, the heart, the stated purpose of their presence...

[panopticon]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
Hi Panopticon,

I am not concerned with the corporation within its own bounds and structures. I am concerned with the interaction between corporations and the rest of the world. I see two major problematic areas of focus from the interactions between corporations and the rest of the world:
1.) collusion (illegally overstepping the bounds of their corporation to control government or control a government's oversight of a corporation), and
2.) health (issues under the broad umbrella of health/safety/human rights/ecological consequences)

Posted by panopticon (here)
The concept of malevolence and benevolence in relation to corporations is not really of relevance. It's like saying a tiger is malevolent if it eats a person or a gun is malevolent if it is used to shoot a small child. Neither the tiger, the gun nor the corporation is malevolent (which is interpreted as "acting evil") rather they are carrying out their actions in relation to their function. Just as malevolence has no meaning in relation to a corporation nor does benevolence. A corporation can be said to have characteristics of action that appear malevolent or benevolent but that is only our perception of it.

This appears to just be semantics, shuffling the onus. Several people in this thread argue that the corporation does become a real entity; others suggest is is merely a collection of people. To the creatures fighting for their lives in the polluted stream outside the corporate facility, it doesn't matter if an archon or tulpa is responsible for the toxins released, or a corporate board, or a CEO, or the night manager of Section 13 - it just needs to stop.

Collusion is, by definition, malevolent behavior. Some corporations are not content to make the most money for shareholders that they can, legally. Some will deliberately break the existing laws, knowing that the financial penalties are smaller than the financial rewards. This is often due to corporations successful efforts at lobbying, getting (corporate-sponsored) elected officials to soften or de-claw existing laws, or even "legalize" behavior that is clearly in violation of something I listed under "health" at the beginning of this post.

Posted by panopticon (here)
To anthropomorphise a corporation is to make a fundamental error.

The collection of decision makers, collectively, speak with one corporate voice. Anthropomorphising that voice as an entity is the only way that governments and citizens interact with the corporate policy of the corporate entity. We don't have the luxury of dealing with individuals. It would be a mistake to obfuscate the single voice of the corporate decision makers as a non-entity - this "entity" is all we have to interact with. I agree that in a way there is a major Catch-22 to allowing the corporate decision makers to speak as a united entity, and that is the lack of personal responsibility for the illegal actions of the entity. At least, with the crooked legal system in the US, corporate decision makers never have to face prison sentences for the illegal actions of the "entity" through whom they speak.

Posted by panopticon (here)
Corporations serve a simple function:
To make money for their share-holders within the bounds of the law.

Sometimes this means they move to different localities to be able to increase profits by reducing overheads (eg wages, laxer regulation,...

Right. This is beneficial to shareholders, and often detrimental to everyone else, and the environment. Again, going back to the reality of collusion: most corporations are (probably) not megalomaniacal and want to rule the world, nor are they a cog in the wheel of the New World Order. Most want to just get legislation passed that will allow them to pollute more, pay workers less (that is, to inch closer to human rights violator status because of increased profits, not because they enjoy seeing people suffer - they don't care), to drastically reduce the taxes they pay, or to gain subsidies. Some are even successful at embedding a corporate shill in a regulatory agency as the director! To not recognize this malevolent behavior is to acquiesce to it.

Posted by panopticon (here)
To say that a corporation is malevolent ignores the fact that it is a collection of people cooperating for a common purpose while being supported by, and supporting, the local people ...

Corporations are the only true hope for the planet and humanity.

Again, you are not describing the Fortune 500 here, you may be describing a collective. If corporations "are the only true hope for the planet and humanity", we are doomed. Maybe if you substitute the word "collective" and rephrase that as:
"In a future where governments are entirely run by citizens, where all corporations have been replaced by collectives, and where collusion has been eliminated, citizen-government regulated collectives are the only true hope for large businesses interacting with the planet and humanity."

Then I could agree. :~)

Posted by panopticon (here)
There are some who move beyond the confines of their legal remit but they are in the minority and even then it is the individual people who are stretching the law, not the corporation itself. To think or say otherwise is ludicrous.

Again, the reality is that citizens and governments deal with corporations as an entity, not with individual board members, so the voice heard, the policy put forth, IS the corporate voice. Thus, the entire corporation commits a crime when the official policy of the corporation violates the law. I'll agree that in criminal lawsuits, it would be (it is) ludicrous to stop there, and the criminal probe should find the particular board members (or the entire board, when appropriate) that spearheaded and approved the illegal activity, and deal with them as individuals, not just as a corporation.

Posted by panopticon (here)
Mondragon Corporation...

In what way is this a "malevolent" corporation?

Well, they are a collective, not a corporation. Yes, they probably filed corporate charter for tax purposes, but they operate quite different than typical C corporations. I applaud collectives, and believe it is the evolved way for groups of people to have a business enterprise. Since this is not a mutinational corporation, and since a collective acts entirely different than a typical corporation, this was a bad example of a multinational corporation that is benevolent. Go down the list of the 500 most profitable multinational corporations, and it will be obvious that any actions that can be construed as benevolence are few and far between. Multinational corporations are high-tech gladiators in the world arena. The arena is full of severed heads, and there is a river of blood. Read a bit of John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hitman to see who I am talking about when I specify multinational/supranational corporations.

Posted by panopticon (here)
Most corporations now have a 'statement of business ethics' that their employees try to operate within. Yes, sometimes individuals within the corporation make mistakes and sometimes those who directly manage a corporation are short sighted but this is not the corporations fault. If anything it is the fault of the system under which a corporation operates. The system requires profit. The system requires middle class share holder ignorance (particularly when it comes to Superannuation Funds). The system necessitates that corporations sometimes take work elsewhere to increase profits. It isn't the corporations fault, nor even the individual employee in many cases, rather I would argue that it is the system that is to blame. A system designed and organised by Governments to reinforce the hypocrisy of the Nation State.

But, due to collusion and embedding of corporate shills in government positions, it IS the corporations that are steering the ship. It IS their fault. They created the systemic problems by lobbying/bribery, candidate sponsorship, political party sponsorship to get the "system" (the laws) set up the way they want.

Just as politicians say one thing and do another, so too do corporations attempt to hide behind lofty and altruistic "mission statements" while their actions demonstrate sociopathic and malevolent behavior.

Your entire response may have been kind of a "devils advocate" position for the discussion, but entirely ignores the very real problem the world is facing right now: the collusion between governments and Big Money (what I often refer to collectively as the "Financial Elite", which includes multinational/supranational corporations, international banks, and a few "old money" oligarchical family empires) resulting in not just national but global corporatocracy/fascism.

Major shareholders are financial winners, the rest of the 999 septillion life forms on the planet are the losers. Surely this must be obvious to everyone.

Dennis

Thanks Dennis,

I went to bed last night thinking I was going to have to critique the position I'd presented myself.

In forming it I used classic practices and arguments I've had presented to me over the years.

I defined parameters for my argument to start with then ridiculed the premise of the opposing argument (ie malevolence/benevolence & anthropomorphisation). Then I reduced it down to a defendable position (ie corporations only serve one purpose, people run corporations). Finally I blamed the share-holders, middle class greed and Government ineptitude as the reason corporations are the only solution.

I had to laugh when I wrote:

Corporations are the only true hope for the planet and humanity.

I actually had someone say that to me once!

Then I used the example that proves the rule: the Mondragon Corporation (which I really do think is the way Corporations should act/behave). The rest of the post is about mixing in truthful statements and repeating what I'd already said to shore up what was stated earlier.

The Rio Tinto argument is also a mislead. They adopted these practices as a consequence of major miscalculation in Papua New Guinea (they backed the Government and the rebels won) and being forced to work with Indigeneous people in Australia following the Mabo decision and the resulting legislation leaving traditional land owners in control of their own country and the Miners having to negotiate with them.

I enjoyed your critique and again can only say how glad I was that I didn't have to do it myself!
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

BTW psychopath's within corporations is a major problem and personally I agree with the video I presented on that. The corporations promote these people because they represent what they want. In the Union movement there's a saying that reflects this: "Sh!t floats to the top".

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by donk (here)

the very real problem the world is facing right now: the collusion between governments and Big Money

I dunno, I think that kind of thinking is the problem. The idea of gov't and $$ in bed together seems like a cartoon. Sure they are both as alive as you believe them to be--I picture it like Voltron: Black lion is govt, the others big media, big pharma, (for mind control), military and TBTFs (for the rest of control)

Psst: Volrton isn't real...somebody made him up!

Well, I think you're being pedantic and dismissive.

The specific (public) mechanism for bribery/muscle/"favors" for collusion is called lobbying, and it is done with human beings who are the representatives of their organizations. It is not a metaphysical construct or a cartoon. Again, that's the bribery/muscle/"favors" that the public are aware occurs, and it would be pretty naive to believe that most collusion occurs in public.

You can pretend that massive collusion does not take place, or try to distract the issue by literally interpreting the words "Big Money" to be a pile of dollar bills incapable of collusion - that's your prerogative, but isn't adding anything to the conversation. Back here in the real world, I challenge anyone to find the last piece of legislation passed by the US Congress that is truly (not Orwellian doublespeak), truly citizen-centric or eco-centric. If you make that diligent search, you will be overwhelmed by an avalanche of pro-corporate/corporate-centric legislation - quite a wake-up call as to who the elected representatives actually represent (if you didn't already know.)

Good luck pretending the US (and probably the world) is not under the rule of corporatocracy. At least 12 million families in the US had their homes foreclosed in the past 18 months or so - performed by banking corporations enabled by collusion with government. Tell the people who lost their homes it wasn't real, that "government" and "corporation" don't really exist unless you believe in them.

Dennis

[panopticon]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
I also understand (loosely) that the corporate charter specifies that the pathway toward the highest returns for investors/shareholders MUST be maintained. Corporations thus may not, by law, make decisions that are beneficial to the Earth or to their workforce or to humanity - if it affects shareholder returns negatively.

I was reading back through this thread and was wondering if you could provide an example of this for me as I'd like to have that in my lil bag of tricks.
-- Pan

[araucaria]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by araucaria (here)
Yes, I have posted several times myself about clones... your point?

That's the one that keeps looping:

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
[...]
It perplexes me to no end that you claim to understand, yet miss the whole point of my post which, so far, only Paul seems to have fully grasped.

[...]

If no one except Paul is getting it, as a latecomer to the thread I cannot be responsible for such broad incomprehension. There must be something you are not making clear. Your asking me a question is not improving clarification, but I am not going to press the matter further beyond the following, which may or may not be relevant to the discussion.

A company executive who is a clone is a physical, probably technological humanoid: you can shake their hand and likely mistake them for a real human being. This is a very different thing from a corporate tulpa.

The other day I was watching a tennis match when a player knocked off the K from the KIA sponsor’s name on the net. The commentator said, ‘That leaves us with IA’: which of course it doesn’t. You need to think like Jordan Maxwell to realize that the unbarred A is a capital lambda and what you had was IL instead of KIL – in other words the ILlness of the KILling.

The corporate illness however predates cloning. You are sometimes dealing with entities that are an inextricable blend of good and bad. The rabid dog was the analogy used on a psychopath thread about a year ago. ‘Sidney Warburg’, the pseudonym of the banker who blew the whistle on the funding of Hitler which he had personally supervised, described his struggle of conscience when dealing with people who were sometimes family.

There are moments when I want to run away from a world of such intrigue, trickery, swindling, and tampering with the stock exchange. Every so often I mention these things to my father as well as to other bankers and brokers. Do you know what I can never understand? How it is possible that people of good and honest character—for which I have ample proof—participate in swindling and fraud, knowing full well that it will affect thousands. The powers in Sinclair Trust have brought in millions of dollars to Wall Street, but ruined thousands of savers. When one questions the reasons for the dishonest and morally indefensible practices of financial leaders one never gets an answer. Although their private lives are orderly and good, it can’t be that they discard their true characters as soon as they enter the financial world, forgetting all concepts of honesty and morality in favour of money, sometimes millions of dollars.

[Fred Steeves]

Here's a little personal anecdote. My wife works for a major corporation, and hates it by the way. 10 years ago it was more of just a regular business, and family run. In the last few years, and especially the last couple of years that has gone bye bye. I don't even think they are concerned any longer with performing their stated business, it's more just busy busy busy work, all the time. Control control control.

Every so often I need to meet her there for some reason or another, and yesterday was one of those days. It was creepier then ever, and even watching the employees coming in to work looked zombie like. The only other time I've had that exact sort of feeling was standing at the front of the Federal Reserve in D.C. 2 years ago. Creepy, artificial. Tough to desrcibe...

[ulli]

In my view the top end of all multi-nationals is connected with the alien invasion agenda, as is the top-end of governments.
The Bilderberg meetings are probably not the only places where there is corroboration between the various leaders of the elite.
All we can do down here at the bottom of those pyramids is wait for more trickle-down effect, more whistle blowers.
Can we influence the course of events decided upon by those people?
Only if we know what exactly their plans are. For that we need special people, since we don't have access to high-tech. Because as it stands now, they can see us, but we can't see them.
Yet Im sure that even if there are no benevolent companies up there, there must be some that are at least not malevolent.

[panopticon]

G'day Araucaria,

The concept of a Tulpa, as I understand it, is a physical manifestation of thought (ie a thought form).

I think Amzer Zo is referring to something else (though I could be wrong and I hope Amzer Zo will correct any errors I make so I can better understand what is meant).

A Corporation is created on a number of levels. It is not just the physical representation of its manifest actions and possessions within our perceived existence (ie offices, employees, products, share price etc). On other layers and levels the energy that is manifest, from this creation, interacts within its circle of influence so as to be able to further its aims (ie survival).

Again I come back to the concept that I use to describe this form of multi-layer and multi-level interaction. That of: Money, Control and Power.

Within the physical realm (aka mundane) a corporation is a created entity that has no real individual status outside of the legal framework that supposedly governs its actions. Within other levels (aka transmundane) it may well be the case that a corporation has an energy that operates within that level bound by different rules that many are only aware of in an undefined or instinctive way (if at all).

In the first instance it is relatively easy to trace how a corporation gains Power through increased Money (though this is better described as currencies [for example: social capital is not money per se]). From this increase in Power and Money comes an increased ability to influence (eg lobby groups, peak bodies, foundations, media control) which allows for the corporation to exert control (for example legislative changes, buying out competition, revolving door practices). This is easy to trace and I would encourage anyone interest to examine the history of the United Fruit Company (Peter Chapman's 'Jungle Capitalists' is a good book to start with).

Within the transmundane levels it is more difficult to trace, however it is possible to look at results of actions and see how influences have occurred. In this way it is also possible to explain how people who are carefree and happy civic minded people in their everyday life can act in ways at odds with this in their corporate position. I am not saying that the transmundane corporate energy is able to possess (or something equivalent) the individual, only that there is an influence exerted that wishes to promote the success of the corporation (at all levels) as a means of survival. At any stage those on the board of a corporation (to a lesser extent this also applies to employees, managers etc) are able to change the way in which they act on this (mundane) level and modify the corporations behaviour (on all levels). The problem is that the tendency for psychopathic personalities to be promoted within corporations has a self reinforcing effect at the tranmundane level. The "whisper in the ear" encourages a corporate culture that promotes psychopathic personalities and this reinforces the transmundane corporations energy notion of how best to survive.

Might seem a bit convoluted but if corporate behaviour and culture is looked at through this lense many actions that make no sense at all can become quite clear. It is a lot more complex than this of course but I hope I've explained my understanding of it a bit.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[Maia Gabrial]

I wouldn't try to convince you, Dennis because I believe as you do. Here's what I think about any of these multicorporations, for every ONE good thing they do, they do hundreds of awful things.

I think transhumanism is another way to destroy our perfect humanism. There's nothing wrong with our bodies period.... But if they want to tamper with our bodies, why not just reconnect our other 10 strands of dna then we would be the people we used to be before our attack.... We'd be much more than people with pieces of machinery replacing a natural part of our bodies. They want to put chips into the brain to enhance intelligence, but again, I say reconnecting our dna would increase our intelligence and more.... What's the deal with transhumanism? Once a person becomes a machine then they've not only lost their humanism, but also their freedom because they'd be under someone else's control.... For someone like me, it's just plain dumb....

I can tell you multicorporations are our biggest problem. That's what we should focus our attentions on disabling and getting rid of....

But that's just me....

[Hervé]

I guess that the post regarding "Big Heads" got somehow ignored or too "unreal" for some reasons... so, there it is as an example of what I am talking about, whether one considers a multinational or a family business:

**********************************

Posted by Taurean (here)

The trail of the Octopus, also known as the Shadow Government can be detected by following the money.

[London Olympics, 2012]

Most people are led to mistakenly believe that "the arms of the octopus" are just a metaphorical way of describing the ever increasing control of... "something."

Well, there IS a REALITY to it:

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Franz Erdl on Bigheads

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/erdlb...s14jun12.shtml

June 14, 2012 . E-Y posted Sep. 25, 2012

http://www.psitalent.de/Englisch/Bighead2.htm

Perhaps they might also be known under a different name. I have no idea. I had a lot experiences with Bigheads in the last two weeks and I would like to tell you about them.

First, I don't know to this day whether all Bigheads are soulless. I tend to believe that they are. Perhaps they have deceived us at previous meetings and feigned a soul. Or there may be some with a soul and others without, a biological robot version, as it were, like some small grays. The answers are still open.

Second, I do not know whether they all have the same body shape. The shape of the head seems to be at least very similar. It may be that there are some with bodies which have arms and legs (sometimes even more than two arms). Others have energy sucking, hose-like tentacles.

Third, I've discovered a portal in the body of a Bighead. Logic tells me that they all probably have one and that they can send stolen energies into another dimension, for example.

I have put up a picture here that a friend had drawn for me. It should not stop you from seeing them in a different way. This is how I saw one, but I am not a certified psychic.

Important aspects of the picture:

-the big head with a small face,

-the portal in the body,

-and the energy tubes for manipulation and energy-sucking.

They manipulate and suck energy from men and women (in this image, only women are shown), as well as animals and perhaps even other spirits.

What the image fairly represents is that Bigheads can handle people much like marionettes. They manipulate, change feelings, create misunderstandings, create narratives, provoke events, etc. And they do it completely unnoticed. Bigheads are also very difficult to detect, like the snakes we have written about. Perhaps it's because they have no soul. If you, as a psychic or a healer, want to find them, it's good to know how they act.

Here are some examples:

Undermining a spiritual project

A group of people has a spiritual project that they would like to undertake, but the Dark Side beings wish to interfere and stop it. So a Bighead pushes himself quietly and unnoticed over the project, including all those involved and those which might have an influence on the project like the members of the project, their spouses, all their enemies, competitors, suppliers, etc. . These people can be geographically dispersed, but in the Ethereal, they are close because they are subject related and connected. The Bighead sits astrally above about them and connects a power hose to everybody involved.

And then the show begins, or better said, nothing happens. The project does not move forward. They only encounter expenses, but no results: The competition is causing trouble, the enemies perform black magic, the spouse is constantly looking for a dispute, etc.. This is a very typical Bighead manipulation.

(I am just remembering how many free energy projects have gone nowhere...)

Monitoring gifted people (psychics)

Bigheads can be used to control specially gifted people. Their skills and abilities can be blocked. That will make them feel depressed or aggressive; the family does not understand them; they try therapies that do not really work. In such a case, the family, as well as all the doctors and therapists involved, have been tapped and manipulated by the Bighead. Wherever the gifted person goes, nobody can really help him. I suppose that the skills of these people are either sucked or remotely accessed, or used for dark purposes via mind control. In the latter case, those who are involved as handlers or programmers are also controlled by the Bighead.

Supplying upper echelon NWO people with life energy
So where do you think they get their energy from? Of course, from powerful women (perhaps not exclusively). Poor women! They may be sick, without power, in any case they won't feel good. This group of Illuminati or Freemasons I could perceive, performed black magic rituals every now and then against their female victims, which delivered new energy to them.

The Bighead takes care of the transfer of energy to the men, but this Illuminati were probably also very heavily manipulated by the Bighead. I noticed this when I removed the Bighead of the whole group, victims and perpetrators. There was something like a deep breath, a relief, or even a joyful feeling between those top managers. I had never expected something like that. The further development of this story is yet to be seen.

How to discover Bigheads and what can I do against them?
I use my soul channel for healing and the power of decision of my solar plexus, to destroy soulless beings or astral machines, because you cannot heal them. Certainly other methods can be used. I rarely see them.

I discover the Bigheads mostly through conjecture. When I suspect there could be one, then I ask my soul, whether that's true and I get the answer as an energy reaction or accordingly, no reaction. If I get a positive response, I take away all power sucking hoses by pronouncing this intention. It is useful to find out who else is tapped.

Good luck!
Franz Erdl

Comments
Subject: Franz Erdl on Bigheads
From: Claude
Date: Thu, September 27, 2012
To: Ken Adachi

Hi Ken,

[...]

Anyway, I wanted to tell you about an incident that occurred back in August of this year.

I don't want to reveal specific names and locations of those concerned out of respect for their privacy, so I will explain what I can without real names.

My friend, I'll call him Fred Stubborn, is the son of a now deceased native hereditary chief here in Canada. His family is well known, so I cannot give details away that could easily identify his family.

From anecdotes related to me by the Stubborns and other family acquaintances, the Stubborns have had a number of difficulties in terms of crazy patterns of unexpected turmoil that deeply upset their three currently living generations.

I am deeply touched that Fred kindly allowed me to spend time away from the city and place a trailer on his large property, where I can spend time close to nature, and appreciate the connection.

He has also imparted me with much of the old native wisdom and knowledge of the interconnectedness of the entire living body that is Earth.

I was wondering one day why his family had suffered so many tragedies and upsets, and the spirit of Fred's mother approached my wife and touched her on the shoulder. My wife mostly senses entities from an emotional/empathic standpoint. She can often sense and see them, but it is I who can hear them and communicate directly with them. We complement each other well.

At that moment, she told me that someone was there and needed to be heard. When this happens I usually ask who they are, and what their purpose is.

So, I asked her who she was, and she told me that she was Fred's mother, and that she was here to ask me for help. I asked her what she wanted help with, and at that moment we both (my wife and I) felt was must have been at least a few generations of this family present.

She told me that what they needed was a shaman. I was quite surprised, because I do not consider myself a medicine man, shaman, or other terms used for that. I asked her what made her think that I could be of help, and she said to me that I was the first one to ever hear them.

So, I entered my meditative state and very quickly found an entity that looked very much like what Franz showed a picture of, though I perceived it as a large, black, octopus-like creature with an over-sized head. It appeared to me to be sitting on top of a portal, and its tentacles were reaching out to all the members of the Stubborn family, both alive and deceased.

When it became aware that I was tracking it, it actually tried to seize me or attach to me with a tentacle.

It was not a conscious decision on my part, more an instant reaction, but I used spider medicine: started winding a long thread of light tightly around the body of the critter, slowly choking it off from its tentacles, which made it release its grip on all the souls.

When I started winding, I called unto he who is known as Michael for assistance, someone you could say I have a bit of a working relationship with.

I kept winding tighter and tighter and tighter, until I commanded it to leave this plane. At that moment, it seemed to slide into the portal and disappear, leaving no portal behind.

Almost immediately, my wife and I both felt a massive lightening feeling around us, the entire property and the Stubborns themselves, that persisted for the rest of our vacation, and since.

All seems quiet now to this day with this family, six weeks on.

It was a strange occurrence, but I had almost entirely forgotten about it when I read the Bigheads article yesterday.

Thank you for this article Franz, now we have a better idea of what it is I was dealing with.

Does anyone know what these entities have been called, historically? I'd be curious to know, myself. I also wonder if their 'controllers' still have as much power here, since I dispatched it so easily.

My wife and I both felt it important to share this info, as others may find it useful.

Thanks Ken, keep up the great work, your site continues to live up to its name.

Claude
***

Subject: Canadian Reader Confirms Bigheads Manipulative Influence
From: John (Netherlands)
Date: Fri, September 28, 2012
To: Ken Adachi

Hello Ken,

Exceptional information. I do believe there are so many of these situations where a family is under this kind of influence and for sure it's happening to me. And a lot more.

greetings
John
The Netherlands

Whatever name one gives that "thing," whether it is thought-form, golem, tulpa, postulate or eggregore; it is an entity with a life of its own created to regulate the life and activity of a family/ bloodline/ group/ business/ corporation/ society/ religion/ etc... and best described by Steve Richards in the line of the shamanic tradition as "evierything IS alive" and "all life forms are seeking survival within its own dimension of time":

Today, I believe our world is being controlled by another dimension that has entrapped the spirit of man into its game; and when you enter the game of another, you are governed by the laws of that game, by the creator of that game.

Randy: Yea. Steve, you mentioned how in the terms of this festival you had gone to, to the elders of the community. It sounds like there are key linkages or key people that line up in terms of authority or being able to give permission in this area. How would you identify those people? Obviously here you have, what, a tribal council? So you’ve gone to the tribal council, they, in effect, have authority over this event and over the people who will or won’t enter into it.

Steve: Okay. If I decide to form a company, and I got together with two or three other people, their intent and their ego will create the entity at the structure of that company. That entity, once created, a body of intent of all three of that company, of their intent and their ego, will always be part of the entity that creates that company. It’ll never change.

When you go into community, they organized this festival. Therefore, they were the creator of this festival. Therefore, I’m entering the game of someone else’s creation. Therefore, I need the creator of that creation’s permission to activate that dimension. You can’t invade the space of another without authority, because the moment you enter the game of another, you violate lore. The moment you violate lore by entering into the game of another, it can be taken over by whatever’s in that game. This is why this is so important for people not to be playing around with other dimensions. There’s so many people that think they know what they’re doing and they have no idea what they’re doing.

... it all comes down to the INTENT behind the creation:

Steve: Okay, okay. One of the interesting things I look at here is you’ve got to understand how homeopathy works and osteopathic frequencies work. And, you know equal force against equal forces become null and void. Interesting. So, I look at this, Aboriginal culture says, ‘everything is alive.’ So, I had a woman that comes into me from Chile. Doesn’t speak good English. Her daughter said, “my mum can’t sleep, she’s on two lots of sleeping tablets and can’t sleep.” I said, ‘well that makes sense, she’s got two separate entities in there, they both need to keep her awake before she feeds them.’ Everything’s alive.

So what happens is for these drugs to be created they’ve got to have an intent behind their creation. The first is the law of intent and the law of agreement. So what is the intent in the creation of that drug and what’s its intent? It now becomes a life‐form that needs to survive like anything else. Therefore, an anti‐depressant means it has to keep you depressed so you’ll feed it. And when you feed it, it will make you no longer depressed. It's got it’s food source, thank you very much. Another life‐form taking over the vehicle. Stunned.

Miranda: Wow. I had a question for you Steve. I actually just got an email from somebody who’s familiar with your work. And it reminded me to ask this, do you have, the people that you work with, do they sometimes feel a lot of interference or resistance or get a lot of attacks prior to coming to you because the entities know, sort of, that their end is near and try to keep the people away from achieving this healing solution?

Steve: Okay, well there’s two‐fold question you’ve got there. And I’ll go into two parts of it. First off, the moment you, whether becoming aware of it or not, the moment you want to make changes, and you want to be clear of whatever’s affecting you, just that intent is put out for these beings that are aware. And the moment that takes place, you’re going to come under attack. And the attack’s going to come from the closest people to you sometimes: you mother, your father, your brother, your sister, your husband, you wife, your friends, your neighbor – whoever they can get access to.

Steve: By telling your Spirit, ‘this is my vehicle, Spirit don’t let anything in this vehicle, I do not invite anything in, do not let anything in the space of this vehicle.’ By laying out that, speaking to it, this is your field. Between you and your Spirit made that agreement, ‘thank you, nothing’s allowed in, if it gets in, it’s going to get dealt with.’ You may already have a lot of stuff in there, in other dimensions, in separate dimensions. There’re probably many layers of dimensions within you that’s let things in from the past. But when you stop feeding these things, it’s interesting, when you become aware and you want to make changes, and you decide to stop feeding these beings, then they’re not going to obtain energy. If they’re not going to obtain energy, they’re not going to get fed, they’ll have to starve, or find somewhere else to go to get fed. So eventually, they’re not going to hang around, are they?

... and it doesn't matter how many trillion of years ago a group or secret society was created... it's still alive and seeking survival through recruiting individuals "resonating" sympathetically to the intent behind the creation of that group or society...

Makes one wonder about how many people confuse such multi-tentacles "Vishnus" with their spirit guides or "higher selves?"

Interview with Steve Richards:

Download MP3 Audio Dreamtime Healing: Ancient Aboriginal Modalities with Steve Richards-Part 1 (right click, "Save as")

Full Transcript -Dreamtime Healing-Hour 1-PDF (right click, "Save as")

Download MP3 Audio Dreamtime Healing: Ancient Aboriginal Modalities with Steve Richards-Part 2 (right click, "Save as")

Full Transcript -Dreamtime Healing-Hour 2-PDF (right click, "Save as")

[Hervé]

As for the concept of "reality" vs. "unreality" or "illusion"/"imagination," let me give you the example of the "Third Man In The Room" from http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/timeline.htm:

There is a little known fact about hypnosis that is illustrated by the following story:
A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper" suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.

Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.

So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was brought out of the trance.

Guess what happened?

He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.

Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.

The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego are established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society - our peers - to believe.

Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subject's awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous" activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.

So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapy to stop bad habits does not work - they attempt to operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)

One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.

In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS, whether it is truly objective, or only a consensus reality. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessable to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe - the hypnotist or his own, unfettered observations of reality. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his "belief center" - even if that activation was fraudulent.

And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the "official culture" - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. And in the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him.

Thus... anyone can be hypnoptized, it's just a matter of taking advantage of the individual's belief system.

Thus "magic" and all these supernatural phenomena... rendered unable to see who's doing it.

Thus "terrorism"... inquisition... crusades... Hashshashins... genocides... all for the "good cause" and with little justifications needed like "the commies are invading Panama/Guatemala/Honduras/Chile/etc..."

Thus abductees and their recounts of how an entire planet can be programmed... here is a reference about it: Programming of a Planet... a simplified version of it being the one of the magician getting tired of chasing his flock of sheep around and ending up hypnotizing the whole lot... that it's good for them to keep together and be sheered and slaughtered and roasted and...

... and on, and on, and on...

[donk]

I think I got misunderstood AZ, my response is basically believing in the big-head, though with no soul...and my posts questioning whether it had "consciousness"...which PL, 9E9, Rahkt, anotherbob cleared up for me on the thread linked to earlier...so I appreciate you, at least

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Dennis: I apologize, I wasn't attempting to be either...

[panopticon]

Wow, thanks for the posts Amzer Zo. I've not read the Ra/Archon thread.

I am wondering if I am understanding what Steve is saying here correctly:

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
If I decide to form a company, and I got together with two or three other people, their intent and their ego will create the entity at the structure of that company. That entity, once created, a body of intent of all three of that company, of their intent and their ego, will always be part of the entity that creates that company. It’ll never change.

Does this mean that the company/corporate culture (I use that word with multiple meanings) is unable to change because of the intent of the original creators or that the company's basic "essence" will always be the same (ie its innate nature). Personally I view that every long-duration corporation/company changes over time as a result of the changed personnel and "environment" within it exists. In the mundane this is viewable through altered practices and on the transmundane through altered energy flows, "whisper" practices and survival strategies.

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
When you go into community, they organized this festival. Therefore, they were the creator of this festival. Therefore, I’m entering the game of someone else’s creation. Therefore, I need the creator of that creation’s permission to activate that dimension. You can’t invade the space of another without authority, because the moment you enter the game of another, you violate lore. The moment you violate lore by entering into the game of another, it can be taken over by whatever’s in that game.

Is this another reason for employee and corporate contracts within the mundane as it gives permission for access at all levels and layers?

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
This is why this is so important for people not to be playing around with other dimensions. There’s so many people that think they know what they’re doing and they have no idea what they’re doing.

This I agree with completely.
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

[Hervé]

Posted by panopticon (here)
Wow, thanks for the posts Amzer Zo. I've not read the Ra/Archon thread.

I am wondering if I am understanding what Steve is saying here correctly:

[...]
Kind Regards,
Panopticon

Pretty much so...

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
If I decide to form a company, and I got together with two or three other people, their intent and their ego will create the entity at the structure of that company. That entity, once created, a body of intent of all three of that company, of their intent and their ego, will always be part of the entity that creates that company. It’ll never change.

Does this mean that the company/corporate culture (I use that word with multiple meanings) is unable to change because of the intent of the original creators or that the company's basic "essence" will always be the same (ie its innate nature). Personally I view that every long-duration corporation/company changes over time as a result of the changed personnel and "environment" within it exists. In the mundane this is viewable through altered practices and on the transmundane through altered energy flows, "whisper" practices and survival strategies.

Imagine that a corporation is created with the intent of infinite growth, prosperity and profit... what would be the actions/influences taken/effected by the "ethereal" entity created with such a marching order in order to survive?

That's the stated intent at a conscous level; the problem is complicated by "their" mind's content at the unconscious level and which introduces counter-intentions, fears, aprehensions for the future, etc... which also get infiltrated into the birth/creation of that entity.

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
When you go into community, they organized this festival. Therefore, they were the creator of this festival. Therefore, I’m entering the game of someone else’s creation. Therefore, I need the creator of that creation’s permission to activate that dimension. You can’t invade the space of another without authority, because the moment you enter the game of another, you violate lore. The moment you violate lore by entering into the game of another, it can be taken over by whatever’s in that game.

Is this another reason for employee and corporate contracts within the mundane as it gives permission for access at all levels and layers?

My guess is, it's an "as above so below" proposition.

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
This is why this is so important for people not to be playing around with other dimensions. There’s so many people that think they know what they’re doing and they have no idea what they’re doing.

This I agree with completely.

So do I

[donk]

Dennis, I don't understand how your post is not completely contradictory to everything else you posted on this thread (and in agreement with what I was trying to say).

To clarify: I believe corporations are real, but only as constructs--and can only act based on "individuals colluding" as you say. Also, their only benevolence comes from some individuals' (included in the set of "those who make them up, make them real") actions DESPITE their created purpose: by definitions in my econ101 courses: maximizing shareholder (OWNERS) profits.

I believe the conversation got a little disjointed, and hope you forgive my futile attempt at humor (and nostalgia, I love Voltron, and he's real--to me!). I have little disagreement with anything you posted, and feel I was trying to integrate your ideas with AZ's...and failed miserably. Oh well...I still appreciate you, and like the thread.

[T Smith]

Posted by Fred Steeves (here)
Here's a little personal anecdote. My wife works for a major corporation, and hates it by the way. 10 years ago it was more of just a regular business, and family run. In the last few years, and especially the last couple of years that has gone bye bye. I don't even think they are concerned any longer with performing their stated business, it's more just busy busy busy work, all the time. Control control control.

Every so often I need to meet her there for some reason or another, and yesterday was one of those days. It was creepier then ever, and even watching the employees coming in to work looked zombie like. The only other time I've had that exact sort of feeling was standing at the front of the Federal Reserve in D.C. 2 years ago. Creepy, artificial. Tough to desrcibe...

Perhaps people who are immersed in that type of environment project a protective cocoon around their energy and being; hence the zombie-like appearance. If they are amid (or within) a consciousness, and a dangerous and predatory one at that, this would seem to describe a self-surviving response.

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by donk (here)
Dennis, I don't understand how your post is not completely contradictory to everything else you posted on this thread (and in agreement with what I was trying to say).

To clarify: I believe corporations are real, but only as constructs--and can only act based on "individuals colluding" as you say. Also, their only benevolence comes from some individuals' (included in the set of "those who make them up, make them real") actions DESPITE their created purpose: by definitions in my econ101 courses: maximizing shareholder (OWNERS) profits.

I believe the conversation got a little disjointed, and hope you forgive my futile attempt at humor (and nostalgia, I love Voltron, and he's real--to me!). I have little disagreement with anything you posted, and feel I was trying to integrate your ideas with AZ's...and failed miserably. Oh well...I still appreciate you, and like the thread.

Hi Donk,

Oh, I was just getting pissy because it seemed like the concept of the actions of *corporations* being benevolent/neutral/malevolent was being sidestepped in favor of the semantics of defining a corporation as either a collection of individual humans acting solo with solo onus, or as a group "entity" composed of a cluster of individuals with a collective onus. (I don't take it further, to the metaphysical construct of a living entity.) My focus was not on which construct was right and who is to blame (or praise, if someone came up with a valid reason for praise), but rather just opening the floor for someone to explain how they have witnessed multinational corporations being benevolent.

The original idea for the thread was sort of doomed before it was posted, as I must have misinterpreted blufire's words. I was trying to find out what she meant, and thought if a thread was opened, that she'd let me (and others) know in what way she sees the positive side of (at least some) major corporations.

So, at this point, wherever the thread goes is fine, and I won't wag a finger.

Now to address what you're saying... I see corporations kind of like Mob families: when a crime is committed, every member of the family shares some of the guilt (some are direct actors in the crime, others fulfill support roles.) If a corporation is caught in criminal activity (not likely with the judicial system in the pocket of the Financial Elite, but let's pretend), then first, the indictment is on the corporation, and if convicted (hahhahahahahah now I'm really dreaming), the corporation may be ordered to pay a fine. At that point, I say, screw the corporate veil, and find out who planned, executed, and covered up the crime - those individuals are guilty *as individuals*, too. In fact, unless this is done, the criminals will always have that corporate veil to hide behind, and will not fear prosecution.

So, to me, corporations are both an entity and a collection of individuals. (But that distinction was not important for where I was hoping the thread would go.)

Dennis

[Carmody]

Posted by panopticon (here)

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
I also understand (loosely) that the corporate charter specifies that the pathway toward the highest returns for investors/shareholders MUST be maintained. Corporations thus may not, by law, make decisions that are beneficial to the Earth or to their workforce or to humanity - if it affects shareholder returns negatively.

I was reading back through this thread and was wondering if you could provide an example of this for me as I'd like to have that in my lil bag of tricks.
-- Pan

It comes in the form of case law, precedents in decisions handed down where the given corporation's executive office did not act in a manner that was toward the benefit of shareholders. The precedents shape the future decisions, by being prior legal arguments and decisions. this is the exact way (but via falsification) that corporations earned the 'personhood' entitlement. It was a situation that was shaped and used to create an atmosphere of legal rights and privileges for corporations, at the same time the man behind the curtain (operating board and shareholders) could escape blame and legally enforced losses in all future court decisions against said corporations. Prior to that moment/time, people running corporations where held responsible for ALL actions/results/motions of the given company.