ADVISORY: This is a very long post with no startling revelations. Skip it if you're looking to be entertained. (Although I find it quite entertaining, which is why I write it up.)
So what's the purpose? Really, I have something to get off my chest. It's about conspiracy theorists who are interested in the occult and like to listen to the occult doings of Jack Parsons and others like Crowley. More specifically, it's about the researchers and podcasters and posters who tell us about these things over and over. Even the mainstream covers Parsons.
If you're told about something over and over and over, can it possibly be considered "occult"? Seems crazy, like you're not really paying attention, just looking to be enthralled. Shouldn't we be looking deeper, and be suspect of the things we're told repeatedly? I think so. Instead of looking at the curtain of Jack Parsons, let's take peek behind it for once.
The thrust of this is that Parsons was what I term a Simulant. We live in a big simulation, but it's not a fancy computer program run by AIs or aliens. The bare fact that those notions are promoted should be enough to tell you they're not true.
Rather, this simulation is--among other properties--sprinkled about with open-air actors, especially up on the stage where we're all looking. But it's not as simple as being an actor, where everything about them is a lie. The Simulants are a mix of truth and falsity. I stress this because the idea seems quite hard for people to absorb.
One of the most common characteristics of these Simulants is that they have an altered name. I have yet to fully understand why. Most often it's not even a secret, it's just that for some reason we didn't have a "President Barry Soetoro" or "Mayor of NY Warren Wilhelm Jr." or "Candidate Nimarata Randhawa". It's bizarre, but it's a red flag for a Simulant. Jack Parsons has this red flag.
The wiki for Jack Parsons of course admits right up front that he was born Marvel Whiteside Parsons, with his father's first name and his mother's surname as his middle name.
Their son was his father's namesake, but was known in the household as Jack.
Okay, the family had to distinguish between the two, so the kid got a nickname of sorts. Plus, they don't want him getting his ass kicked every day in school, right? So "Jack" is out of nowhere, like calling someone "Chief" or "Ace" or something?
In this case "Jack" seems to be the common diminutive for "John", but the bizarre part is: where does the name John come from? This never gets mentioned.
The name John is actually the first word in his wiki, but I bet your eyes skipped right over it like mine did. Also, it's not his name as an infant when daddy was living at home. We're given this non-explanation:
Although she retained her ex-husband's surname, Ruth started calling her son John, but many friends throughout his life knew him as Jack.
That's odd, right? I might be willing to spackle right over this except for one thing: there is another John Parsons. And he was alive at the same time, and he attended Stanford like Jack did, and he ran NASA Ames (next door to Googleplex today), and he was also known as "Jack", and, well, he kinda looked like our Jack:
SP-4302 Adventures in Research: A History of Ames Research Center 1940-1965
Scroll down to his pic and compare to Jack's pic on his wiki. He's got the same double-chin and the same John Waters-esque mustache. No, not the same person or twin or clone. Is he a brother or cousin about which They do not care to disclose the connection? Odd.
Again, I'd be willing to write this off, except for the matter of Jack's first wife. We're told over and over about his relationship with Marjorie Cameron, but no one mentions Helen Northrup. I wonder why?
Is it because her name was actually Helen Northrop, and she was closely related to Jack Northrop, founder of Northrop Aviation? You would know that organization better as Northrop Grumman:
Northrop Grumman Corporation is an American multinational aerospace and defense technology company. With 95,000 employees and an annual revenue in excess of $30 billion, it is one of the world's largest weapons manufacturers and military technology providers. The firm ranks No. 101 on the 2022 Fortune 500 list of America's largest corporations.
Helen Northup was from Pasadena, which was where JPL was founded. Jack Northrop was from Santa Barbara and his company was founded in El Segundo, just across LA from Pasadena. And, as if I had to mention it, Northop-Grumman is now headquartered in West Falls Church, VA, a stone's throw from the Pentagram. All very cozy, right?
My point in all this, again, is that while the real Elites arrange the Military-Industrial Complex just under the surface, lots of people are fascinated with the study of these "occultists" but never scratch that surface. It also leads me to think 99.9% of all "occultism" is shiny made-up nonsense. See why it all strikes me as frustrating?
Well, I guess I got it off my chest!
Consenting to logic (suggested) tempts one to ignore astro (perceivable). The former tempts one to understand (stand under another); while latter positions one at the center of known ledge aka as perception within perceivable.
Consider LEDGE, noun - "a prominent part; a regular part rising or projecting beyond the rest"...know thyself.
Suggestions tempt others to consent; to believe; to have faith; to creed/credit...very easy to gather that which is willingly given.
a) Invocation aka in-voca-tion implies being voice within action...choosing to react to the suggested voices by others permits them to utilize invocations like spell-craft (suggested words over perceivable sound).
b) Suggested young (before) and old (after) tempts one to ignore perceivable being (now)...a seed exists now as above (tree) so below (roots). Young buds from old stems.
a) Suggested pluralism (we) tempts ignorance of self (one), hence ignoring perceivable differences for suggested sameness.
b) If one counts other ones, then an account (a registry of a debt or credit) is opened up.
c) Each ones perception implies "differential" within same perceivable source....interpretation through another (suggestion) implies ones lack of self discernment.
Nature doesn't require interpretation...it "was" perceivable before anyone within can suggest what it "is".
a) Secret operation of natural cause (magic) implies divided (Latin seco; secret) effect (ones perception) within natural cause (all perceivable). Self discernment reveals that...
b) Programma (to write) implies ones life sentence from start (inception) to finish (death)....suggested writing tempts one with spell-craft (words over sound); abc (abecadary; abracadabra) and grammar (grimoire) to put an end to ones life sentence, hence "pointing out" suggested, as the inversion of being within perceivable sentence.
Suggested definitions aka definite (affixed) tion (action) tempts one to ignore that action (perceivable) differentiates reactions (perception) through motion.
Consenting to suggested words makes one a deaf phonetician (definition) aka one deaf to phonics (perceivable sound).
a) Only during dissolve (inception towards death) can there be resolve (life) aka compound (loss) transmuting components (growth) within itself...mixing components (substance) tempts ignorance of compound (essence).
b) The art of writing in ciphers (steganography) tempts one to ignore everything perceivable for suggested nothing (cipher; denoting nothing) aka 1 (natural being) for 0 (artificial nihilo).
Cipher aka nothing aka nihilo implies both suggested nihilism by others and ones consent to de-nial perceivable for it.
Ignoring demon aka dai (divider) mon (provider) aka being divided (perception) while provided (perceivable) tempts one to bind self to the suggestions by others.
One cannot read without focusing sight in-between a suggested cover. Nature offers ones sight the position of center (perception) within surrounding (perceivable), hence eyes to see; ears to hear etc.
Sleights of hand: