How Do You Kill A Zombie?

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." - Revelation 20:12 (KJV)

introduction: the origin of vampirism

What is the original sin? We are told it was committed by Adam and Eve in Paradise. But what, then, is the SECOND sin, that act that carried mankind's cursed nature out of the Garden and into our mortal lives today? That would be the slaying of Abel by his brother Cain, the first and second sons of Adam and Eve. So if the sin of Adam and Eve resulted in humanity's banishment from Paradise, the sin of Cain in slaying his brother Abel left the mark of mankind's exile upon Cain's offspring until the deluge, which supposedly wiped almost all of them away. But why did Cain kill Abel? It was because of JEALOUSY, we are told. Abel was the "favored son" so Cain killed him in a fit of jealous rage. It is an "open and shut case" of homicide, as even any modern detective could tell you. But what does the text tell us was the reason for Cain's jealousy? How was God's preferentialism of Abel presented in the text?

God is NOT a vegetarian. God is not a vegan. God is a carnivore. Or at least, he advocates men be so. In the story of Cain and Abel in the Old Testament of Torah, Cain and Abel both make sacrificial offerings to God. Cain, being a farmer, provides the first-fruits of his harvest, and all his finest herbs, spices and vegetation he offers on a funerary pyre to Jehovah, the Hebrew God. Abel, being a shepherd, provides the virginal meats from his flocks, and all his finest fats and blood he boils likewise on a bonfire to God. The smells of these offerings reached up to heaven, it is written, and God swooped down and devoured all Abel's meats, leaving all Cain's leafy greens untouched. So, Cain killed Abel because Cain was a vegetarian, and Abel was a carnivore, and the carnivore was shown preference by the carnivore's God.

Between the exile from Eden and the murder of Abel by Cain, mankind lived in constant temptation to sin, but had not yet done so. Since this action occurred, there has been no hope offered, nor any assumed, that mankind may ever reenter Paradise. It is simply permanently closed off to us. We MAY enter "heaven" by embracing Christ as "Our Lord and Savior," but to regain Paradise is a promise postponed until at least following the "Day of Atonement" or "Judgement Day." Because of this "original murder," a violation of what would later become the 6th Commandment (of Exodus 20:13) of God to Moses, humanity has become a cursed tribe of killers. In imitation of this action, all humanity has fallen from grace; all of us alive now are so only because our ancestors, at some point, were murderers. None are alive today but those who've been conceived in countless blood-baths and orgiastic conflicts, those born in blood, raised in blood, and fed on blood-lust. Some would call ours the "final generation." Some believe the stench of our sins to be reaching up to Heaven even now, and to be baiting God to return for his "just desserts" on the "final hour" at the "end of days."

God eats souls. This is the moral of the Bible, in full, as well as all Apocryphal Biblical literature as well; there is no single direct statement in all these to that effect, and yet this moral, like Ariadne's thread running throughout the entire Labyrinth to it's very core-most chamber, leads us to the single, inescapable conclusion, like an unspeakable "elephant in the living room," that God feasts on our deaths. "Death," the Mayan elders supposedly premised originally, "needs time for what it kills to grow in." Au-Puq, the Mayan God of Death, was never fully appeased in his own blood-lusts by the countless Mayan and later Aztec ritual human sacrifices performed in his name. There can never be enough blood shed to appease God. Such is, denuded of all veils, an unavoidable fact about the Bible's description of God.

part 1: what is a zombie?

There are various different religious schools that each define the same symptoms using different terms. In Roman Catholicism, the "Zombie" is called a "demoniac" and said to be "possessed by devils." In Orthodox Christianity, particularly in the Latvian provinces once belonging to Romania, the "Zombie" was called "vampire," and said to be "undead" and "blood-thirsty." In the bastardized African tribal religions that have been (recently) formalized into the doctrine of "Santeria" or "Voodoo," the "Zombie" is called a "zumbi" (Kongo for "fetish") and is a mind-controlled slave of the Bokor necromancer that raised it from the dead. In modern UFOlogy, there are rumors that the "greys" and the "Men in Black" BOTH may only be a form of space-suits worn by inter-dimensional shape-shifting EBEs, and that, thus, both the bodies of the "greys" and the "Men in Black" MAY actually be re-animated human corpses, or mutated hybrids thereof. The difference, ultimately, between a so-called "energy vampire" who drains off another's creative aspirations and wealth and a walking corpse without any mind or animating will-power of its own, that draws breath solely as a "servitor" for an evil and vengeful purpose, is moot, if there even is any. Whether they are called "demons," "aliens," "vampires" or "zombies," the same phenomenon persists throughout our history since the time of Cain and Abel: around the fringes of our "comfort zone" insulated in society's legal fictions, there is some form of hostile force that is preying off individuals who live on these outskirts of civilization and especially off children.

So how can we define this "lurking specter" of "Zombie-ism"? How can we seek to solidify it and make it corporeal enough to confront? The myth of the "resurrection of the dead" on the "last day," when Jesus returns as a warrior for God, and Satan is cast into Hell, has been hammered into our beliefs for the last aeon of 2000 years continuously. And during the Inquisition, how many supposed "witches" and other "heathens" were burned at the stake and offered as an auto de fe, a sacrificial "holocaust" ("burnt offering") to God, solely for having replicated similar crimes of "necromancy" to that committed by the Christian "Savior" when he resurrected Lazarus? If mankind CAN, but is NOT ALLOWED to, raise the dead, then how can it still surprise anyone to see the "Caduceus" staff symbol of Hermes being used as the structural basis for the modern concept of a DNA strand's "double-helix"? And thus, in this symbol, we may begin to break down our culprit's attributes into traits we can comprehend more concisely.

To understand death, we must understand what life is. When does life begin? What defines what life is? When does life end? Death, to reiterate, needs time for what it kills to grow in. And thus life, from conception and birth through individual maturation until the body's final breath, is but a prelude to death. And a dead body may long outlast a living one. Consider the Pharoahs of Old Kingdom Egypt, who had their corpses mummified after their deaths in such a way that their basic DNA remains preserved to this day; or the mummies of pre-Mayan south-America; or the Japanese Buddhist Sokushinbutsu monks who self-mummified themselves by a unique method of suicide. So the origin of life is ultimately irrelevant compared to the nature of DEATH being DECAY and the idea that, in some manner perhaps such as cloning from long-dead, though well-preserved, DNA, one who died long ago may yet be induced to live again. If one may live again, many aeons later than one originally lived and died, and thereby "cheat death," one may be said to be "resurrected" as a life-form, but such a homunculus, such a golem, such a re-creation of "man from mud," will NOT have the same soul as the original life-form it is cloned from, unless a certain specific ritual of summoning the soul (such as Jesus apparently performed in resurrecting Lazarus) is enacted. It WILL be, simply, an undead husk, re-animated and imbued once more with "life," but without any such thing within itself, nor any native concept of such, as a "soul."

And herein lies the true definition of what constitutes a "zombie": a zombie is undead. It is unliving flesh or matter that has been artificially and unnaturally reanimated and imbued with life causing it to resemble life, without possessing the trait of life that it has a soul. So, whether we see a "zombie" as "undead" because it is a "demoniac," a "grey" or "man in black," a "vampire," a "golem," etc. is irrelevant. The origin for this concept is irrelevant. The word "zombie" means "cloned." A "zombie" is a "clone."

But it is also a specific KIND of clone. It is not a clone replicated from a living source, i.e. from "living tissues" from a "living host donor," etc. If you create a clone of a living plant, for example, by chopping off a stem from it and replanting this stem, you have successfully "cloned" the plant without killing it in the process. Consider this: if tobacco ("nightshade") were a carcinogen in itself, the Native American tribes who'd smoked it prior to the arrival of European colonists would have all died of cancer; however they did not. Therefore, it is NOT the tobacco ITSELF that causes cancer in those who smoke tobacco today. We are TOLD that the carcinogenic aspect of smoking derives from inhalation of carbon particulates (ashes inside the smoke). These carbon particles suffocate our lung cells and eventually this causes the cells to choke to death and then to spread this effect to other neighboring cells in the form of metastasizing growth rates. But what if the carbon particulates that were inhaled were breathed in not from smoking DEAD LEAVES, as we do now, but LIVE LEAVES, as the Native Americans tribespeople who inhaled nightshade did? If the carbon particulates originate from a source that was, until it was immolated, a living plant cell, they do not remain carcinogenic once inhaled. Instead, they carry the chemical properties of the plant itself directly into the blood-stream via the lungs of the organism that inhales them. Smoking LIVE LEAVES is NOT CANCER CAUSING. Smoking DEAD LEAVES IS.

In the same way that smoke produced from burning live plant cells can communicate the plant's chemical contents successfully into an organism's blood-stream by being inhaled, but that smoke produced from burning dead plant cells communicates only an increased likelihood for cellular suffocation and ultimate metastasizing growth-rates, e.g. cancer, a "clone" made from a "living host" will NOT be the same as a clone made from the tissue of a "dead host." A clone made from living tissues, such as the first cloned sheep, "Dolly," will age faster than its host, degenerate prematurely, and ultimately perish from illness or old age prior to the natural death of its host. The saying "the star that burns twice as bright burns half as long" seems to apply to clones of living animal cells produced in this manner. A clone, however, made from dead tissues will never be truly "alive" in the sense we understand it; it may become mobile, even apparently aware, but it is being animated from a distant, and most unholy, source. Such will the "end of days" begin with the birth of the first "Monsanto Man."

part 2: how do you kill what is not alive?

In legends, vampires can only be killed by having a wooden stake driven through their hearts and then having their heads cut off. In most "zombie" themed entertainment media of modern times, the same tactic is sufficient to stop the "living dead": decapitation severs their brain-stem and cuts their ability to control their corpse's central nervous system; if their spine is shut down, they cannot move. In short, in fictions, the undead are as easy to kill or paralyze as, in fact, living human beings ourselves are. But there is little thought put into such concepts to apply to them a logical nature. Considering the potential outbreak of the airborne flesh-eating disease Ebola inside the contiguous United States of America, FEMA has built and staffed numerous rural facilities to shelter victims of such a contagion, equipped complete with high-temperature burning ovens for disposal of any and all resultant corpses; FEMA has also contracted with a private firm to manufacture countless "plastic coffins" in the event of a mass outbreak leading to the necessity for mass burials. After all, if the "zombie bug" is an airborne pathogen, then immolating the infected corpses will only liberate the germ into the air on the smoke from such pyres. Thus, the options of EITHER immolation OR mass burial remain open to the "geniuses" at FEMA and the US CDC; still at least a century behind the modern innovations of La Cosinostra, the "mafia," in their use of "cement shoes" for corpse disposal.

But, in the logically explicable situation of being confronted, in real life, by a living corpse, its flesh decaying, its eyes milky, its mind lost, its soul gone, that is, yet, somehow still "alive," or apparently so at least, because it is still walking, still animated, still moving about, one cannot expect to be able to kill such a "zombie" simply by keeping its brain from commanding its limbs. Such an undead corpse is only a glove, only a puppet, only one small limb on a much larger, invisible, mental-only form of entity. You cannot kill the puppet unless you kill the puppeteer. If you damage the puppet in any way, it will still be animate enough to come after you, because it is merely meat being pulled on invisible strings by a commanding force you cannot see with your bare eyes. It is THIS force that animates such a husk, and causes it to think itself "living," although it is only a clone from a dead-host's decayed tissues.

To attack such an abomination with violence, however, is merely to sink to the same level of instinctual self-preservation upon which the brain-waves of this monstrosity itself dwell. If you fight the "tar-baby" you will eventually get sucked into it. If you fight against "demons within" you will eventually be sucked within your own "inner-demons;" they will win and you will lose. If you fight against ghosts, you will only be punching at the vapors of shadow and the mist of thin air. If you threaten the existence (such as it is) of such a "zombie," if you provoke it into its instinctive "fight or flight" mode by your fear of it, you will, and rightly so, likely be eaten alive by it, and become a similar such sort of undead "zombie" yourself as well. If your goal is to avoid this, then do NOT attack such "zombies."

But if you are confronted by such a monstrosity, you are probably going to be eaten by it whether you provoke it by moving or not. Therefore, it is wise, prior to being in such a situation, to ponder on the diverse manners to extricate oneself from it should it ever arise. Thus, directly: How does one kill what is not alive? The thinking of the novelists who've pondered on decapitation that to cut the limbs off from their commanding and controlling source is required is not entirely false, although they mistake the "brain" organ of such a corpse for this being's animating "source." The brain of a corpse is no more active as a thinking organ than their stomach is as a digesting organ, or their lungs as breathing organs. None of these organs are needed to function in order for the corpse to walk about "undead;" if they are needed in life for a being to be said to be "alive," then they cannot be needed in death for a being to be said to be "undead." If this were the case, then an "undead" corpse could be killed as easily as a person, and their "second death" would be no different than their first. But then, if this were the case, what would stop them from simply re-arising from the "dead" yet again, and again, and again?

Again, immolation of their each and every last little speck of existence into ashes is necessary to purge the earth of even ONE such "undead" walking corpse; but to do so MAY merely release their contagious pathogen into the air and thus infect countless others. Therefore, there is NO real way to be SURE you have killed, finally once and for all, a "zombie." There is, thus, NO SAFE WAY TO KILL A "ZOMBIE," and therein lies the difficulty, because if they cannot SAFELY be killed, then the risk of even one is ultimately infestation of the entire globe.

Therefore, if you cannot KILL a "zombie," but a "zombie" is only a "meat-puppet," being remote-controlled by a distant, intelligent faculty, then you CAN "cut the strings" that connect the "zombie" to its mental "host." To render a "zombie" once-more lifeless, limp and inert, a corpse, and to remove from its lungs the breath of its "undead" status, to knock its knees out from under it and remind it that it is dead, one must first understand the nature of this "mental only" being, this "intelligent faculty" or "force" that is controlling the "meat puppet." If we are told, as we have been for countless aeons, that it is the Hebrew God "Jehovah" whom shall raise the dead on the "day of atonement" or "judgement day," then we can understand that it is this entity, by whatever definition, that is animating the corpse we would be seeing before us. God is the puppet-master of the undead "zombie" walking corpses; he is the brain, and each of them is merely a nerve inside his over-arching, though invisible, system of control. God is the controller of these walking corpses. And so, to liberate them from this condition, we must then debate the matter of doing so with "God" at the "final hour" at the "end of days."

The question is often posed in "zombie" films and elsewhere, "what kind of a God would do such a thing? What kind of loving, forgiving, fatherly God would allow such things to happen?" Yet, look around us. There either IS NO GOD, or else the "God" there IS is, in fact, EVIL; either the "good God" is merely absent, or else His existence was merely a trick, a lie and a deception all along, posited by that king of all liars, the devil. If the devil IS real, but God is NOT, then the world we are living is exactly upside down enough to warrant discussion of "zombies" and, in particular, the pinnacle of such tedium: how to dispose of them.

Therefore, one should have no hesitations of conscience, or qualms of a moral nature, in addressing the "true nature" of the "God" described to us in the Bible. This "God" is none other than the "devil" himself, for what more vainglorious spirit exists that would kill our kind by the millions solely to boast about having done so and caused such? Yet to whom else but to this monotheist "God" have all our wars and sacrifices been fought and made for the last 2000 year long aeon? So whom else could this "God" be BUT the "devil" himself? The "devil" disguised himself as "God," and that is why we have believed that a "God" exists. How can it be that a "devil" may exist, yet no "God"? What "greater good" has ever been proven successful in the end? It is inherent within "human nature" to destroy and rebuild. Our cycle of abuse can only persist until we have depleted all our eco-sphere's resources necessary for our survival. Then, like lemmings chasing their "ghost king," like "the blind leading the blind," we will all collectively realize our doom, only just too late to prevent it from occurring to us. But is it beyond the realm of possibility to imagine such a trend as our own, such as our "human nature" itself, could manifest as an ethereal archetype, dwelling within all our minds simultaneously, to some small extent, as merely an idea, dormant within the "collective unconsciousness," merely waiting for the right moment to awaken within us each, and to exterminate us all at once.

The question remains open, and my time in addressing it has expired. Any further suggestions are welcome. PEACE.

[12 STAR G3N3RaL]

Thank you for the insight Jonathan.

Lucifer does love meat Brother. This is a fact and godsmack verified today. He has his nets and still fishing, loves aquariums or cubes, prefers the finer meats raised by the the purest standards and prepared with the finest spices and herbs. Strange daze. All of these alignments occurring now, three crescent moons in Cancer - Hells gates of Hades333 (Pluto) are open since August 23rd and shall shut on September 3rd, as well, the Moon, Mars and Saturn trined in libra, balance, scales of a Fish, scales of a Serpent, scales, two disks of Thoth that form an 8 or ATE, even the Lions gate of 08-08, the symbology as you know is D33P, A LOW HaHa! This island is nuts !

He came to me today and taught me how to be a survivor and just work the land and the city in every moment, never wasting time, which I do much, Hermes/Pythagoras/Anubis the Canaanite Canine 12 Star General, god the dog is a teacher too, correct? All is self.

One may read this blog and react with fear or an atmosphere of scarcity. At Most Fear or the mark, this scar received in the "scare city" of being without. Fear is not the path and Lucifer is not complete evil, he has good too, it is synchronistically webbed, me reading your blog and him talking with me today in the form of a nearly 7 foot tall black man, most would dismiss and find me crazy even for my utterance of this event and I understand, does not change the fact it just happened over a 2 day period and we spoke of this, however, "All is Self !" We are He. We are all in the tree of life, perhaps we can embrace "Judge not, lest we be Judged".

Why do I type this ? O.o

I eat meat ! Is this fair and balanced soapbox? Plotinus had a Hellenistic thought on meat consumption, to paraphrase he said that those whom eat their brothers and sisters (the animals looking up to us) will not ascend to heaven. Animals fear and run as we go to eat them, correct? I eat green chili double bacon cheese burgers, therefore I am what I consume under this dense archetype in my logic. Was this taught to man by Archons? If so and deemed a sin, what of the plant, plants have fear we sense not when we cut them, so now what do we eat? Where is the line?

If we lived of the land and stayed in the plant kingdom, what do we do when weather destroys bounty and now you look to the animal kingdom to sustain? Can you tell me why I question all this ? Where is the separation ?

Cain and Able (A Bull) or Cain-ible? As a fallen angle or angel - Draconian aeons olde, would one get bored and eat a human or equal entity? i would not, but i am not in those shoes. I am being pure here, trying to understand. The thought disgusts me, however people do this vile act today and I get threats on this damn island from folks? BBQ - Raw - pour sauce on me, light a friggen match, I will not live in fear, the body is a phi shell and belongs to the matrix. I just want in empathy to understand and admit my addictions, we in the cycle of ourorborus can even consume ourselves.

[Jonathan Barlow Gee]

life may be a spiral. but it cannot be said to be a "downward" spiral, because it exists in a vacuum, irrelevant of anything else, and thus has no relative bearing to anything else to be measured against as being "up," "down," or any other way comparatively in regards to. It has been said, and it is true in some places, that "in space there are no up or down." This indicates that, relative to empty void, the "cardinal" compass directions become irrelevant. But this is not the case in reality; they do not become entirely "irrelevant," they only adapt to usefulness in a different context. For example, if the 4 "cardinal" compass directions were taken as 4 quadrants of a graph in 3-space, and this model applied to a spiral, then relative to one another, the spiral WOULD have an "up" or "down" and the 4 "cardinal" quadrants of the compass WOULD have usefulness in measurement in the, otherwise empty, void of space. Consider the orbit of the earth around the sun. Over time it forms a spiral around the central, more-or-less linear arc of the sun's orbit around galactic core. The orbit of the earth's spiral around the sun over long durations (more than 1 year) may then be measured according to the 4 "cardinal" compass points by applying to each annual orbit of the earth the 4 seasons it undergoes while in its various positions around its solar orbit. Then, these seasons would apply to the same quadrants of the spiral over the length of duration or time, and so one "leg" of the spiral would have 4 seasons, one for each quadrant of a circle, and each next "leg" of the spiral before and after it would also have 4 seasons, and each season in one "leg" would be aligned with the same season in every other "leg" as the spiral, when seen from above or below its central origin-point, appears as a series of overlapping circles. Just as is the spiral of earth's orbits around the sun, circling around once per year, the spiral of life would be measured by the same format of "moral" compass as the 4 quadrants measuring earth's seasons, based on the 4 "cardinal" directions on a flat surface or plane-space. Just as, in earth's spiral, the heat and cold increase and decline relative to one another across the seasons over time, in the moral spectrum of life's spiral, good and evil would increase and decline relative to one another over the aeons for the same reason. The comparison between the sun and "god" is one worth more consideration than can be posited in this short space, but suffice to say the concepts have been thoroughly hashed out and found to be virtually identical, the sun being the equivalent of "god" in the physical realm, and "god" being alike the equivalent of the sun in the "moral" domain. Just so, the "seasons" of morality are explained by the closeness and proximity or distance and longing for "god," just the same as the seasons of earth are explained by earth's closeness and proximity or distance and longing for the warmth and light of the sun.

Following from this metaphorical comparison, what then ARE the 4 "cardinal" directions of the "moral compass" or the 4 "seasons" of moral theology? They would obviously contain "most good" and "most evil" as opposite poles, just as on the regular compass "north" and "south" are opposite polarities, 180° apart from one another. But between them would also occur two other phases of combined "good" and "evil" BOTH that would differ from one another as alike the polar opposites of "east" and "west" on a regular compass only IF there is the additional spectrum of time added to induce the rotation of the model of the "moral compass" to resemble the model of a "sun-dial" as well. The "moral compass" would ALWAYS point to "true north," but only a "moral gnomon" or sun-dial would effectively measure change between the poles over time in a regularized manner. If there is change in a single perpetual direction of motion, such as "clock-wise" or "counter-clockwise" rotation, then the model becomes a spiral over time, and resembles most the metaphor of the earth's own orbit. If there were NO change between "most good" and "most evil" over time, there could not be said to be 4 "cardinal" directions on the "moral compass," nor 4 "seasons" of morality alike the phases of earth's weather in its annual orbit. However, in reality, we do not find only an unchanging condition of "most good" NOR "most evil" exists, but all events and actions occur relative to one another, and only when each is weighed against every other can any one of them be said to be "more good" or "more evil" relative to any other event or action. There is, thus, a hierarchy from "most good" to relatively balanced "good AND evil" to "most evil" that resembles a diamond, or a square at 45°, connecting "most good" at one corner to "most evil" at the opposite corner by a segment equal to twice the distance dividing them, operative at a 90°, right-angle relative to these twin poles. If the segment dividing "most good" and "most evil" is this diamond's "horizontal" or the "diagonal" of such a tilted square, and the segment connecting "most good" and "most evil" is this diamond's "vertical" or the opposite diagonal of the same tilted square, are both equal, then "most good" and "most evil" are extremes of abstract ideals that have the same, absolute, value opposite one another as the poles defining "relative good AND evil" that occur on the opposite axis of the model, in between these extremes.

If time motivates the "moral compass" to assume 4 quadrants, and these occur, alike earth's seasons, in a fixed order per "leg" or (annual) "orbital" rotation of the circle into a spiral over time, then what is "most good" does not sustain eternally, but begins to wane and phase out into a lesser form of "good" and a greater degree of relative "evil." Following this, the next "season" of morality would be the "most evil," and following that a 4th season in which morality begins to wax back toward "more good" and "less evil," until, finally, the circuit would be completed around to the start again, and "most good" would prevail above the other options. So, if the names on a regular compass for these 4 quadrants are "north, south, east, west," and if the names of these 4 seasons on earth are "spring, summer, autumn, winter," then what are the NAMES that apply to the "most good" and "most evil" poles on the moral compass, and to the relative "more good OR more evil" poles between these? Let us label, as we are taught, "God" as the most "good," and thus the "devil" or "Satan" as "most evil" on the opposite pole from "God." Between them, what we find is one side ascending from "evil" or the "devil" toward "God" and "good," and the opposite side descending from "God" or "good" and toward the "devil" or "evil." Again, as we are taught from the New Testament of the Bible, if "Christ" is the "ascending" spirit of man, then "Lucifer" is the name of the falling half of this equation. This is why, if "Christ" is called the "Son of God," occasionally Lucifer, although falsely, is called the "Son of Satan." The relationship between God and Christ is similar to the relationship between Satan and Lucifer, in this model of metaphorical comparison. This does not mean their similarities extend further to the basis of characteristic attributes of each opposite archetype.

The idea that, "over time," Christ ascends toward God and Lucifer descends toward Satan, seems acceptable as the basis for the concept of the 4 "cardinal" directions on a "moral compass" model. This fact, however obvious, remains undiscovered even in modern times, because human theologians are humans first, and theologians second, and as such, flawed to overlook what is "hiding" right before their eyes "in plain sight." Peace.

[12 STAR G3N3RaL]

Brother Jonathan

My Gratitude to you; I will have to read this many times. My heart filled with love for the time you took and the wor(L)ds you typed. This does resonate and i know we are blessed. Your knowledge was an early stepping stone for me on this path. Everything you do counts, all in measures and beyond measures. There is no beginning and surely never an ending.

"The first shall be last and the last shall be first. The thousandth shall rise,
then fall".

Honour through Labour, much works to be done.

Nobody - no one.