911 and 77 (21)
Have you ever seen one of those little items of graffiti that represent a person's love for another person?
Do you know the kind of thing I mean? It consists of a pair of initials - by convention those of the graffitiist, followed by a neatly centred 'L' beneath those initials and that is followed by another pair of initials, those of the person who is loved by the graffitiist.
Surely you have seen a few of those?
Only, chances are that the L is not an L but a 4.
The change took place, I think in the late 60s or early 70s. Prior to the change the L was used not just for decades but for at least two centuries.
This is a universal human expression. There is no centuries old human organisation (of sinister character usually) behind it. Okay, do I make myself clear yet?
The L used to mean Love and now, ever since the L got struck out with a single slash, it is 4, meaning the graffitiist is 'for' the person rather than loving the person. Of course "I am for you" has some ambiguity when previously there was none. Loving someone doesn't have any sinister overtones but "I am for you" has shades of stalking and unproveable harassment to it or can do. But however you see the change, that's the one thing, the main thing here, that there was a definite change (here in the UK).
This item of expression is also an item of symbolism. The letters are symbols, obviously, but the initials are symbols too with the greater meaning than the letters alone. Of course this symbolism is only in part hidden while mostly it is entirely conscious. The change of L to 4 is the hidden part, the change, nothing else. No group was behind that change. No group even started or maintained the idea itself. What it really is, if you need me to explain it, is the expression of something the the person expressing feels that they cannot express more directly.
This item of graffiti goes back centuries - just as does a lot of other symbolism.
IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOME SINISTER GROUP IS BEHIND IT, okay??
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. If it is and you know it then explain why that is the case instead of doing what you do which is to imply and insinuate but never to explain in detail why you should be taken seriously.
This does not mean there are not sinister groups - there are, definitely - but painting a false picture based on limited and inadequate information only serves to confuse and the aim of good intelligent people who actually understand some of this stuff should be to educate rather than to stimulate suspicion, fear and even greater ignorance.
In another article recently I wrote about the US president whose name sounds very much like ray gun and I explained that, although it is secret, the 'star wars' space program that he began is really all about a ray gun for want of another name. I said more, that I believe this was why the very term 'ray gun' proliferated in boys comics in the late 50s (and then petered out to be replaced by lasers and phasors).
Does anyone really want to examine that and say that the illuminati or the free masons or the bilderbergers or the tri lateral commission or the CFR or the FBI or the BBC was behind it, I mean behind the whole symbolism of it?
The eye in the pyramid.
If you watch videos about the all seeing eye in the pyramid stuff then sure, examine it, but bear in mind that just because the supposition being put to you is sensible it doesn't mean there is any truth to it - there maybe but on the other hand it may be rubbish and simply be a case, just I have described above, of the hidden ways that our own conjoint consciousness expresses itelf. In other words there is no group behind it but it is simply a human phenomenon or rather a human consciousness phenomenon.
Mostly when you read, hear and look at this stuff which is posited as proving that some bad group or other is behind it, you can see that the explanation lacks something. It is strong on showing you symbols and apparent links, apparent links, but that is all - the linking is tenuous in fact.
What is really happening, usually, is the same thing that happened with the L when it got changed into a 4.
No group was behind it despite - based on our limited (very very very limited) knowledge of reality - the facts, as presented, giving that impression.
When L changed to 4 and when the ray gun was a word on every UK comic reading boys lips, at one time, then, I absolutely guarantee you that no group was behind that change.
So the question must arise, what does cause such changes in the symbolism we see?
Actually, this phenomenon is strong evidence for the nature of consciousness itself. Modern western wisdom sees consciousness as an individual human's mind. It isn't at all. Put another way. If they are right then please let them explain, properly, the symbolism phenomenon I have been alluding to here.
Oh, you want me to explain it?
Another time perhaps.
Well, actually, now you know why I have a symbolism category.
By Paul E. Coughlin
SaneThinking.com
26 July 2008
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
