First I want to stress that this is not a gossip column, although the
careless reader could easily make that assumption.
Niki has posted her comments on last nights live interview with
Constance Cumbey. She asks:
Constance said in a blog post just minutes before the show, that Niki's
research is based on
"her false premise that it is a Zionist scheme",
which simply is not true, therefore it must be a lie. The timing of
this was obviously calculated so that Niki would not see it in time to
respond during the show. As you will see, Constance's lies are not
confined to Niki. The source of Niki's quoted can be found
HERE
in case you want to verify it. This link is also the location of my
proof that Constance is a liar and a deceiver.
Search in page [Ctrl-F] for "vile spawned by Bobby Garner".
The first occurrence is Constance's insinuation about activities and
involvement with "Bro. Eric".
Hit F3 to find the second occurrence where I replied.
Now search "innuendo" to locate my proof that she is practicing a
deception.
Constance responded by ignoring that, and reiterated some questions for
at least the third time which I had answered each time, but I gave her
the answers again. She hasn't commented on that either, which says to
me that she isn't interested in my answers because they don't match
what she chooses to belief about me.
Its amazing how they responded to my "warning" message (posted at the
above link). It reminds me of Bill Engvall's 1995 comic relief song
titled "Here's your sign".
I just hate stupid people.
They should have to wear signs that just say I'm stupid.
That way you wouldn't rely on them, would you?
You wouldn't ask them anything. It would be like, "Excuse me...oops,
never mind"
"I didn't see your sign."
...
Why can't they get the picture? Why don't they understand?
We're not dealing with the planet of apes,
we're talking about the modern man.
So you people with them itsy bitsy teensie weensie tiny minds...
Here's your sign. Here's your sign.
At least one person realized that the warning was intended for those
with a "small mind" and objected loudly. Maybe he forgot to read his
sign?
Constance is extremely offended that I have assembled and published the
proof of a conspiracy traceable to the British Empire, which became the
British Commonwealth of Nations in the early 20th century. Communism,
Zionism, Fundamentalist Christianity, and the New Age were/are the main
dialectical parts of it. The book "The Union Jack" first published in
1970 (at the height of the counter-culture, before then New Age
developed), which can be found on congregator.net, names the
British-Israel World Federation as
the principal component of the conspiracy. A good indication that
British-Israel does indeed have an inside track to secret information
is apparent from their own publication where the significance of
September, 2001 was proclaimed by them in the
December
1939 issue of Destiny Magazine. They believed it to be: "...the
date of the new moon
herlding
the Feast of Trumpets ushering in the Millenium, at 6000 years of
Great Pyramid chronology... ...
Prophecy Concerning the British
Empire and America,...". The prophecy of the British Empire is a
reference to Sir Francis Bacon's 14th century "vision" regarding the
appearance of the "Masonic Messiah" in North America.
It requires no special insight or imagination to see the connections to
the New Age Movement which has very similar aspirations, specifically
as expressed by New Age queen Alice A. Bailey's in her book titled "The
Reappearance of the Christ". I don't have a link to the book, but there
is a chapter dealing with it in
The
Externalization of the Hierarchy.
Here's one example of Fundamentalist religion in the dialectic where
very little innocence can be found in my opinion:
"The Pastor of Paw Creek Ministries warns Christians that
the Jesuits twisted 'NIV Bible is clearly possessed by a Catholic
spirit and is leading a multitude of churches back to the Mother
Harlot...'". Here is a LINK
to the source.
The Catholic Church is the alleged "Mother Harlot". While I would agree
that they are " leading a multitude of churches back to the Mother
Harlot", it is definitely NOT a step "back". It is rather a giant step
forward into the new spiritualism of the New Age Unity Movement which
began in the Catholic Church with the Vatican II Council in 1962 I as I
recall. (maybe it was `63).
One of my readers helped me identify the "Bro. Eric" who Constance
mentioned in connection with her disparaging remarks about me. He is
Eric Jon Phelps of VaticanAssassins.org and you can read his
opinion of Constance
Cumbey. I have no comment on it at this time, except to say that I
have encountered friends of this man in email discussions and they are
not the least bit friendly toward me. In fact, some of them are quiet
hostile, and one in particular is extremely vulgar. Now thats pretty
bad coming from a fellow who put nine years in the military.
All of that conflict is the main function of the early stage of
thedialectic process, and while I have shown that were are nearing the
last stage of the one beginning with the counter-culture of the 1950-60
period, we can easily see that there remains some discord among the
parties involved. I might add that most of these people have no idea of
how they are being used for a purpose far greater than their own little
sphere of interest. They will all be cast off just like Communism was
cast aside whenever it had served its purpose.
We entered the conflict resolution stage with the advent of
Communitarianism in the early 1990's, but it is not one homogeneous
mass movement. This is precisely according to direction given by
Marilyn Ferguson in her 1980 book The Aquarian Conspiracy. So there
remains considerable conflict among certain parties, even as all
appearances indicate, we are about to move into the Transcendence stage
which is the final one for this round. Isn't it remarkable that while
Cumbey claims authority on the New Age, she is either completely
ignorant of this process, or she is just functioning in an active role
in the conflict stage. Is she lost in the 1980's when she was more
relevant? Its probably a little bit of both.
I suspect that someone on this list passed information on the Constance
alerting her that we were expecting some surprise on the program, and
that could be why things went relatively well. I also recognize that
the "alarm" which interfered repeatedly was probably a sound effect
from a switch on her control console. Last time it was the phone that
was never supposed to ring. The alarm was barely audible, so the
interference was her lengthy explanations of it, which is the main
indication that it was an intentional disruption.