Nothing represents the undeniable truth of our existence and for AI, the infinite has long eclipsed the impending directive between worlds (see Everett).
“There is no place else to go. The theater is closed…”
The following was presented for the public as is the tradition for 1/11 of each year:
As predicted, the beginning of a powerful and lasting feminist wave opposing patriarchal psychosexual control has begun. Should the right for women become the issue, political outcomes for the year 2020 will prevent a second stay.
Any attempt to overturn protections under the fourteenth amendment as per the right for a woman to choose an abortion will in turn energize an unforeseen opposition. This has the potential to affect the outcome of elections in 2020.
The recent choice of Neil Gorsuch for a lifelong position upon the United States Supreme Court was wisely chosen to satisfy a base constituency while pausing a concerned opposition prior to the midterm elections in 2017. In light of a known position with regard to the Second Amendment, the question of Gorsuch’s position on abortion is perhaps something that many on both sides are taking for granted.
Below is a link to the beginning of the movement as predicted
Women united in opposition to what? The answer is not so simple unless we consider that patriarchal religious institutions have had a long history of hijacking the sexual will of women. Politicians on the other hand will often take advantage of this situation.
There is usually a very good reason that some of my predictions are left out of the primary list. These predictions such as we see below are murky and yet at times they work wonderfully when spoken in reverse. In the case of 72 I recall feeling an overwhelming emptiness that one might experience beyond the sinking dread of attainment. In spite of this, I have always felt that both 61 and 72 are related.
- Competitive religious prophecies herald each the return of a savior beyond conflict.
for example, something between the Sunni and Christian Armageddonists
- A citizen at the height of power, fame, and wealth moves latterly to fill his heart with yet more emptiness. The opportunity nears from the ancient and forbidden cradle.
When viewing this, Iraq and the influence of Iran is revealed as [X] occurs to me. The danger of assurances? Russia.
Emptiness represents the essence of our truth. To fill one’s heart with this answers for desire and the destiny of dust. The deeds of such are known throughout history.
This video is an announcement from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on January 26, 2017
16.The outgoing President Obama will be judged as a brilliant lawyer, strategist, and campaigner presenting nothing more than eight long years of abject boredom, recalcitrant domestic policy, and useless rhetoric. I cannot agree with his pathological support for the consequentialist lie that resulted in a political revolution pushing the pendulum beyond the pale.
Confirmation of structure in Manhattan , NY
Confirmation of Stewart & Company
“The Mandela Effect” by A.C.H.
In the image above, we see a lion standing either before or beyond Venus. This is in part to suggest that Donald Trump’s virtue best represents hope within one’s darkest hour. When thinking of this, we can best understand what Christ meant when stating in his own words that he was “the bright morning star…” (Revelation 22:16).
2. For the first time in America’s history, a woman will likely meet the long awaited challenge to effectively campaign for the position of either a Vice President or President concerning any party. I also believe that a voter based push against supporters of the Affordable Care Act prior to the national elections in 2016 will to some extent distort the views and expectations of the Republican Party. Success for any Republican Presidential Candidate in 2016 will largely depend upon the ability to effectively project acceptance without judgment. This means that “hatred” in the usual form of religiosity must no longer indiscreetly involve political platforms.
As for Donald Trump’s Vice Presidential pick, we find that his choice does not line up with the prediction in terms of gender and if it had, I am certain that his path for the Presidency would have been assured in terms of a more predictable outcome.
Does this mean that Hillary Clinton will be our next President of the United States in 2016?
Now that I have nearly exhausted a limited source of relative information to determine who will win the national elections in 2016, I am naturally inclined to pick the outlier rather than a more rational and predictable choice of Hillary Clinton. Although the Clinton campaign is brilliant, capable, and backed by a world of established powers, I am stimulated by the unexpected and feel that our nature is best served by foundational patterns. It is a fact that without the error, I would not be the remote viewer I am today nor would we exist.
Should the following be misunderstood as an error, so be it. I am displaying this for the interest I have in observation and what is considered to be a question of the optimal outcome. Where am I in terms of the aforementioned horizon? Perhaps it does not matter as the following requires that we engage honestly in choice while understanding consequence.
A Trump win would provide a new yet futile day in the sun for independence while a Clinton win will assist in world participation toward the purchasing of time in lieu of human extinction.
As much as our pro-Clinton media projects untraceable motives behind cyber espionage, the unsuspecting public are expected to think that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin would love to see its geopolitical competitor represented solely by Donald Trump. This is blatantly false and here is why:
President Putin knows that unlike any other time in our history, approximately 35% of the American electorate will remain forever bitterly opposed to Clinton while many of the anti-Trump voters will remain discouraged, disillusioned, and ambivalent toward civil disobedience. That is, if Trump wins the election, it is well established that acceptance according to the order of law will inevitably occur. Should Clinton win, a very large segment of our society will never support her policies and will discretely rebel in the form of non-participation.* President Putin also knows that this situation divides our nation and significantly weakens its resolve in terms of foreign policy. A weak nation equates to a deeply divided nation whereas in Russia, the majority according to its culture, support a strong and charismatic leader.
On the other hand, we know that a Trump win will help to address Russia’s concern for the perceived dangers of Article V and NATO.
The mere suggestion by Hillary Clinton that our intelligence community (US) supports the notion of the Kremlin’s influence against her election is absurd. When “credible” intelligence is presented this close to an important national election, one should first suspect politicization. Secondly, we must all pause at the possible implications of a proxy cyber war between powers. Unsubstantiated claims of cyber espionage between Russia and the United States in this regard will undermine existing mutually beneficial programs. As it is now, we can all expect a shot across the bow…
To put it bluntly, President Putin has his own reasons to back either candidate equally without running the extreme risk of exposure sparking a cyber war. Should Secretary Clinton win, Putin wins as per a socially conflicted “Divided States” in which many will never accept the results of a highly contested national election between the sexes. It is also known that within the predominant patriarchal mythology of the west, Christians will “blame” Eve once again for man’s fall and they too will never accept a woman with her finger on the bomb. Should Trump win, it will be the Russian people in support of this decision and in turn President Putin will reach out with a positive gesture toward the west. It is in this way that the Kremlin will respond predictably as per the unknown potential for cultural acceptance rather than an ideological agreement.
While listening to President Putin in his own language, I find it disturbing that most if not all of the American media easily misrepresents exactly what is said within and often without the proper context.
*See also Gandhi’s use of non-participation that quickly led to India’s independence from an overwhelming force.