Sadly, as there's always a good excuse for division, I all too often see 'enlightened' people, ‘freedom advocates’, ‘truth seekers’ and the like behaving exactly the same way as those they're pointing at. Polarity, mirror effect, call it what it is, it's both wearisome and unacceptable. Thus, those who have opted for a diet of a non-animal origin known as ‘vegan’ are often being wrongly equated with the woke movement and its many abuses. 'Fragile' men are even called 'soy men'! A fallacy that speaks volumes about its propagators and supporters. How ironic that it furthers the interests of the puppeteers behind the scenes.
The vegan burger recipe below is no meat substitute. It neither looks nor tastes like meat. However, unlike the famous synthetic meat they're trying to force down our throats, it contains only natural ingredients, rich in nutrient-packed plant proteins.
Peel and finely dice the onion and fry until brown.
Add to the drained beans and other ingredients, then process long enough to a thick smooth dough.
Arrange 6 burger-shaped buns on a baking tray lined with baking paper (or a silicone mat) and bake for 25 minutes at 200°C.
Flip burgers and bake for a further 10 minutes.
NOTE: You may replace onion with shallot; chickpea flakes with oatmeal or buckwheat flakes; flaxseed with chia seeds; lemon juice with apple cider vinegar; paprika with turmeric; and cumin oil with dried cumin. I haven't tried yet, but you may also substitute kidney beans for black beans.
The burgers may be reheated in a pan, a couple of minutes before serving and safely frozen as they'll retain their full texture and flavour.
Everyone has heard of the proverbial glass of water, which is either half full
or half empty.
It's often said that seeing the glass as half empty is being negative... while
seeing it as half full is being positive. But in reality... this glass simply
contains a certain amount of water.
Our perception of this reality is influenced by our internal filters. Thus,
the fear of lacking will make us see the glass as half empty and hope will
make us see it as half full.
Yet these two seemingly opposing visions have one thing in common: they are
both focused outwards. The fear of lacking wonders whether they will lose or
be deprived of something whereas hope wonders whether they will receive what
they need.
In both cases, we position ourselves in a dynamic of expectancy: expecting to
receive or fearing to be deprived of something from the outside
world.
And this is exactly what keeps man in a state of polarisation and
astralisation.
Perception: An Astral Trap
Perception is the prism through which we see the world. It is shaped by our
experiences, our beliefs and most of all by the polarity this matrix is based
on. We are conditioned to see life in terms of lack or abundance, fear or
hope, loss or gain.
But here's the catch: we believe that what we see is absolute reality... when
it's just a limited and polarised interpretation of reality.
We don't see what is, we see what we fear or hope for.
Taking a Step Back: Gaining Perspective
But there is another way.
The key is not to choose between a glass that is half full or half empty. It's
about rising above the issue and simply seeing a glass that contains a certain
amount of water.
The shift from perception to perspective is what enables us to move away from
polarity and become neutral observers.
A conscious person doesn't get carried away by emotional polarisation. They
don't see the world through a negative or positive prism... They see what
is.
Most importantly, they no longer let their inner state rely on external
expectations. They are no longer afraid of being dispossessed. They no longer
hope to receive. They just are.
A Storm in a Teacup
And that's where another metaphor comes in: the storm in a teacup.
Do you know this phrase? It means that we're getting things out of proportion
and overstating their true importance. That's exactly what the astral does
with our perceptions!
We see something, we attach an emotional charge to it... and then this charge
attracts other similar thoughts and emotions. A simple observation quickly
turns into an overwhelming emotional wave. And before we know it... we're in
the midst of a storm.
Why? Because we allowed our inner state to rely on external factors. We
allowed a glass of water to dictate our perception of reality.
Observing Without Getting Carried Away
So how do we avoid getting carried away? The answer is simple: observe without
judging.
Do not label things as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but see them for what they are. Do not
get sucked in by emotional charges, but remain present and focused. Stop
waiting for the outside world to give or take, but reclaim our
sovereignty.
Because a lucid person does not worry about what is taken from them, and does
not hope for anything that might be given to them. They see. They know. They
are.
An Invitation to Experience
So, the next time you see a glass half full... or half empty... remember that
the glass is simply there, with a certain amount of water.
And ask yourself: am I seeing what is... or am I creating an inner storm?
Because the outside world simply reflects our inner world.
The question is not how we perceive this glass... but how we choose to observe
our own reality.
The ticking of the clocks sounds like mice nibbling away at time.
Alphonse Allais
It's just after the final stroke of midnight, when the carriage reverts to a pumpkin and the horses become mice again, seizing the momentum to dig holes in the Swiss cheese before switching tales and taking their custom elsewhere. Nothing much to make a meal of. Or even a magic shroom omelette (since all the eggs have been taken down for Easter). Unlike the four-leaf clover, the 4 of Clubs, this month, is not about good fortune. Rather a warning sign that we should watch out for the unexpected and any form of excess that might be detrimental to our personal development. Incidentally, in the famous Lenormand oracle, the eroding (both literal and figurative) Mice card is also of ill omen, heralding trouble, loss, or theft.
Say 'Cheese'!
What about the many pervasive and persistent myths and legends about this cute little rodent?
Some claim that Satan created mice at the time of Noah's Ark, whereas others believe they descended from the heavens during a storm to plague the earth. In the Torah, the mouse is listed among the unclean animals (Leviticus 11:29) and in the Old Testament, it is regarded as evil, a sign of destruction and misfortune.
Ironically, in Europe, even during the Middle Ages, it was also believed to provide contact with the divine, escorting deceased souls to the afterlife, thus acting as a conduit between heaven and earth.
In India, legend holds that Ganesha, the elephant-headed god, would ride a mouse, a symbol of knowledge and cunning to overcome obstacles in order to gain access to any environment.
Elsewhere, the mouse is also said to represent a certain control over the ego.
Even though it is best known as the Tooth Fairy in the rest of the world, the 'Little Mouse' is probably as popular as Santa amongst children in French-speaking countries. The myth, which involves a mouse collecting milk teeth placed under the pillow in return for coins, would originate from an 18th-century French tale written by Baroness d'Aulnoy, in which a fairy changes into a mouse to assist a queen in defending herself against an evil king, hiding under his pillow and knocking out all his teeth (a source of power). But the story is also inspired by an older belief that a tooth eaten by an animal would take on the animal's characteristics. So parents would sometimes give their children's baby teeth to a mouse so that the new ones would grow as hard and sharp as the little rodent's.
What about the popular misconception that cheese is mice's favourite food? Mice eat whatever they can get their teeth onto, so the odds are that this myth may originate from a time when, unlike other foods that were either hung up or carefully wrapped in airtight bags, cheese was more accessible as it was left out in the open to mature.
Once eaten, what becomes of the holes in the Swiss cheese?
Jean-Loup Chiflet
Have you ever heard of the Swiss Cheese Paradox? It is based on the following syllogism:2 “Swiss cheese has lots of holes. The MORE holes you have, the LESS cheese you have. The MORE cheese you have, the MORE holes you have. Thus, the MORE cheese you have, the LESS cheese you have.” It's an insidious form of polysemy in which two opposing concepts are combined in the same phrase, resulting in nonsense.
“A country capable of giving the world 400 cheeses cannot die” once said Churchill about France. Then, how comes French has so few cheese idioms, when English has so many?
Literally, a piece of cake is as easy as cheese, but it's tough cheese when there's nothing you can do about it; anything cheesy is nerdy3, but when that's cheese, it's great4. You cut the cheese when you let one rip5, and you need to say 'Cheese' to smile at the photographer. Everything that costs candy in France costs cheddar6 in the UK, where the big cheese is a big hat7, the cheesehead a jellybrain8, and excuses full of cheese are actually full of holes. It's best to avoid cheese-eaters who betray their friends, and it's also a bad idea to cheese someone off as they might make a fuss (a cheese in French) out of it9. Besides, you dont cheese it, you scuttle off (in France, we use magic powder)10.
The Brits and the French clearly are like chalk and cheese. However, knowing that the etymology of 'fromage' (cheese in French) comes from Latin fromaticus [caseus] which means 'moulded [cheese]', it's easy to understand why cheeseballs stand for morons.
The Matrix Mousetrap
But little Mouse, you are not alone, In proving foresight may be vain: The best laid schemes of mice and men Go often askew, And leave us nothing but grief and pain, For promised joy!
"To a Mouse", Robert Burns (1785)
Just like mice, men are guinea pigs for archontic manipulations, constantly struggling for scraps, whether they be food, comfort, security, knowledge, love or social recognition. Similarly, they are being constantly hunted down by all sorts of predators both visible (mostly human) and invisible (astral entities), striving to spin the wheel of their intangible cage to exhaustion, with the feeling of moving forward, but never realising they are going in circles.
In the matrix, men are akin to lab mice trained to respond to stimuli. Conditioned by reward (money, social status, approval) and punishment (unemployment, exclusion, oppression) depending on whether they obey or try to break free from the system, they remain caught up in an endless cycle, chasing an illusory carrot (success, love, material abundance).
Both have the illusion of free will. They can move freely but their choices are, for one, either limited to an imposed environment or, for the other, preset by the rules of the matrix. The wheel is a perfect metaphor for samsara, the forced reincarnation that keeps humans entrapped in this reality in which they build up experiences, but can never leave because they are cut off from their Spirit, which would otherwise enable them to transcend this cycle.
As for cheese, it could stand for the formatted intellect, shaped by the archons, for whom the human brain is akin to a soft, malleable mass, which English-speakers liken to cheese (your brain is like cheese) or cheesy thinking (for unsharp or impressionable minds). Cheese is fermented, transformed and squeezed into a mould. The same happens to the human mind with education, the media and dogmas.
Never mind that it may or may not be their favourite food, mice are attracted by the cheese placed on the trap, and as soon as they reach for it, it closes on them. For men, illusions serve as bait (pleasures, false awakenings, religion, power). In the matrix, anything that looks like an exit door is generally a deception. The archons prey on human yearning for elevation to entrap us in other belief systems.
I was hoping we'd make real progress, But it seems we have lost the power. Any tiny step of advancement Is like a raindrop falling into the ocean. We're running on the spot Always have, always will.
In 1968, American ethnologist John Calhoun conducted a famous experiment known as ‘Mouse Utopia’, which is an excellent metaphor for our world today. Mice were placed in a perfect environment (unlimited food, no predators). At first they thrived, but after several generations they became aggressive, apathetic and eventually extinct. The cause? Behavioural degeneration due to a lack of evolutionary challenge.
A similar phenomenon is observed in the matrix, with an increasingly aseptic, controlled society, affected by the stagnation of consciousness, with individuals dumbed down by entertainment and over-consumption, all resulting in a loss of vitality and survival instinct (birth rate falling, mental illnesses on the rise).
From Swiss Cheese to Mouse Holes
All the holes at once Are comin' alive, set free Out of sight and out of mind The lonely and their prey
In the Old Testament of the Demiurge, mice are regarded as unclean and associated with plague and pestilence, since they stand for whatever gnaws and erodes the foundations of his world. They're beyond his control and live in the shadows, outside the official structures, like heretics and rebels who question the system. For awakening to the Spirit is perceived as an act of rebellion against the matrix programme.
It also implies stepping aside from the ‘cheese baits’ and false awakenings or ‘sandboxes’ (astral spirituality, religions, materialism) strategically placed on our path to divert us, so that we can eventually break the cycle of emotional enslavement and forced reincarnations. The ultimate goal is to free ourselves from the astral and merge with our original consciousness.
Notice to all you green mice pacing up and down the labs: if those gentlemen upstairs grab you by the tail, they'll sure turn you into hot snails.11
^ Syllogism, in logic, is a valid deductive argument having two premises and a conclusion. The traditional type is the categorical syllogism in which both premises and the conclusion are simple declarative statements that are constructed using only three simple terms between them, each term appearing twice (as a subject and as a predicate): “All men are mortal; no gods are mortal; therefore no men are gods.” The argument in such syllogisms is valid by virtue of the fact that it would not be possible to assert the premises and to deny the conclusion without contradicting oneself. (Source)
A profound and legitimate question anyone in search of intellectual coherence should ask themselves before subscribing to any idea, in order to avoid falling into a new belief system.
So it all depends on what we call belief. Is it a working assumption we can test through experience? Or a dogma we adhere to without any checks?
A Christian, for instance, may ‘believe’ in God without actually seeing him; a scientist may ‘believe’ in quarks because some theory predicts them, even though they can't see them; a person experiencing some form of energy manipulation may feel a change, but can they prove what has happened?
So it's not a question of belief, but rather of testing and verifying. The real question should be: what makes a belief different from experimental knowledge?
So what's left if you don't believe in anything?
Who says you have to believe in order to exist? Do we need beliefs to be conscious?
Newborn babies don't believe in anything, yet they do exist. Animals follow no dogma, yet they can act and perceive reality. We are perfectly capable of existing without any beliefs.
Ask yourself what would be left of you if you were to remove all your beliefs and influences.
This will certainly lead you to question the meaning of existence without beliefs. Why should there be an imposed external meaning? What if the issue was the question itself?
Looking for external meaning amounts to accepting an imposed mental framework.
Does life actually need to make sense or is it our mind that wants to make some? What if this search for meaning were some kind of programming in itself?
Now the million dollar question: if you didn't have any external pressure, would you still have the same beliefs you have today?
But the real question lies elsewhere: why is it that we need to believe? Why do the majority of human conflicts arise from the confrontation of belief systems rather than direct experience?
Our clashes with those around us are often the result of conflicting beliefs on both sides. Many prefer to keep silent so as not to rock the boat. There's a good reason for calling anything 'mainstream', dominant in French : dominant thinking, dominant media, dominant religion and so on.
But when you agree with others for the sake of peace, does it really work? Or does it always come back to hit you like a boomerang?
The truth is we may avoid conflict, but we can never escape our own truth.
It goes much further: are our choices actually our own or mere responses to external pressure (usually from family and friends)?
You may be perfectly rational and wise, but no less manipulable through vulnerabilities you may not even be aware of. Intelligence is absolutely no guarantee of freedom. A brilliant hacker, for instance, may still be hijacked because of an emotional flaw; a brilliant chess player may lose if they get distracted.
So, if you were a hacker, what would be your security flaw?
Let's take this a step further: if tomorrow you were to lose everyone you know now, what would be left of your choices? More specifically, if you spent a year on your own, what would you do differently?
When belief wears off, consciousness emerges. Reality requires neither faith nor adherence. Just your presence.
FR
