Investigative Journal comments 3

12/14'09
"Separating one's head from one's body" – one of the finest examples for "final authority" based on an unlucky book belief, isn't it. And wasn't it always that way within living memory … (without instant global communication).
The "thing is too big" now?
Why big?
I don't think so at all.
I mean, "the thing" doesn't play in such a category, therefore it can't be "big" or "small" or something like that. Those thoughts seem to me being pathetic traps, features of mind control by propaganda pathos of church/state/family upbringing into culture. In my opinion, an intellectual challenge should be seen as the most normal thing there is.
Then "have your cake and eat it, too".
Was it too harsh? Probably too harsh to say to a shining example.
The (quasi-)military mafia mentality radiates from the monolithic and monotheistic, bureaucratic, Catholic pyramid of church/state, educational, financial, and organizational power into the whole society (of Jesus) and puts its stamp on our entire culture. I mean, how many IRS agents do the research and how many just go on with their corporate military-bureaucratic Mafia job ... A corporate mainstream for careless consumers and a conspiracy mainstream for caring citizens – by splitting the mainstream, "9/11" made it possible.
I believe, Ancient Egypt with its allmighty priestly Shepherd's Fold is their raw model for the coming global feudalist/communist administrative system disguised as a World God State or "Universal City of God".

12/11'09
Oh no Greg, it's not that complicated anymore.
The Basic Picture is absolutely certain and it explains all of the main aspects of "9/11", for example, very well. In other words, the fundament, I think, is done. And: there is a definite (if not ultimate) weapon against all agents of the world's "knightly" General Secretary hidden in the dark and their centuries-old memetic engineering.

12/10'09
09/18'09 Christopher Strunk on The Investigative Journal @30min)
Let me give an overview so people understand where I'm going with this.
During the crusades, King Richard and King John had serious problems in financing their part in the crusade and what they did was to put England in (), and that's during the period of Robin Hood ("The name was still used to describe sedition and treachery in 1605, when Guy Fawkes and his associates were branded 'Robin Hoods' by Robert Cecil.") [...] King John struck a deal with the Pope to pay off the debt. Basically, he gave up the sovereignty and used all of his future holdings as a security against the debt that had been occurred. The point is the Americans were part of that, so the Vatican had a like a banker's interest in controlling everything that the King's colonies happened from that point on, so that where England went then, the Vatican went with it. And certainly Henry VIII rebelled against that.
Let me sort of finish my overview here. So the point is that the Vatican operated from the get-go through the Masonic order and everything else at the colonies. And that it always had an ulterior money modus. And that it was in partnership to that contractional arrangement, the treaty of () 13. And that the Founding Fathers were aware of the king's debt that was owed to the revolution. And they were forced to write the Constitution as a debt repayment plan, a business plan. And so I don't give the credence that you give to the Constitution, even to the Articles of Confederation, other than there are people getting enriched "of the vehicles" in order to hoodwink a lot of general people "in the street". And that's going on now. But with that in mind, so that's sort of an outlook that I take into consideration.
And if you look at the Social Security system – that is a corporate fiction which you're enslaved by. That you were given a number and that number is controlled through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and the United Nations Treaties oversee that. And the monarchy in England and the Vatican threw that original structure – they are both involved in the corporate structure in the U.S. [and Canada]. You can't escape from that.
What I'm looking at, specifically, is the legal structure which is set up from that arrangement. You know, if you're gonna fight a war, you're gonna use the same sword that your enemy is using, because it's got two edges. And you cut your enemy with the same sword that they would cut you with.

12/10'09
I don't believe the special power of the Computerweb lies in missionizing, Greg. No, definitely not, and that for a lot of reasons. Let it to Alex, their "9/11" Joker and false flag cheap-Jack of the N.W.O., that false flag Lewis Prothero, never mentioning the "Universal City of God" or the "Civilization of Love". Let it to him to preach like an end-of-the-world priest. Let it to him to preach like a fanatic. You never did that, of course, don't get me wrong, I'm just talking about the principle here: If you want to be or think of yourself of being "more" than just a student resp. teacher, I'd presume you have generally already lost (a bit of) your standing within the online research community. For example, how many public correspondences have you done over the last years? I'm asking because the most astonishing thing about the cyberspace for me is that (almost?) no one uses it to conduct a conversation in public, you know. Why is that? Maybe you can imagine what kind of answer would probably follow from a piety-theoretical, piety-scientific viewpoint.

12/10'09
What Jim Walker found out:
Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book "Life of Washington". The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.
Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.
To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."
After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."

03/31'09

When a newsman on CNN exposes the N.W.O., you can be sure there is a planned revolution coming up in the US. Alex Jones is a big part of it. I got tired of O.G. shouting it because to me it's obvious, but it seems it's not that obvious to everybody. I mean, come on, how could Alex Jones enter the secretive Bohemian Grove if he had not been invited before. Those images were meant to inflame American Christians and to put before their eyes a Satanic flavored conspiracy. Watch closely the movie "A Scanner Darkly". Alex Jones appears in it exactly as he is: a false prophet. Also you can find in the same movie Templar and Masonic symbolism in the house. I don't listen to Jones but I bet he even bitches about Hollywood, then turns his back and goes collaborating with the industry.

O.G.'s response on January 1, 2008)
You are absolutely correct. He wants to give the impression they are Satanists and not Christians that are observing Christianity's pagan heritage. Simple as that.
Like this pic Alex excludes in his documentary and archives of the grove. If you check out the history of Sonoma County you will see it was established by Mission San Francisco Solano and the Franciscan missionaries. Which would explain this pic Alex also conveniently excludes. That is either a Franciscan friar or someone dressed as one, notice pious robes and the bare feet. They were every bit as extreme as the Jesuits even though I spend more time talking about the Jesuits, the Franciscans have their own sordid history as well.
I have reason to believe Nancy Pelosi is a Franciscan sister. I found historical evidence that showed there was a Franciscan by the name of Father Pelosi during the early foundations of this country that settled in Pennsylvania, and he noted the devoted work of the newly incorporated Franciscan sisters and their hard efforts. I think her husband Paul Pelosi comes from that lineage, but Paul was educated at Jesuit Georgetown University, so there is that too. She made a comment that she was Franciscan to the core, which I founded remarkably similar to the comment the Pope had made just shortly before, that he was Bavarian to the core, which may have been an indication that he was Bavarian Illuminati, which would be to say he was Jesuit.
Which could be the reason the current Black Pope can go ahead and step down from his lifelong appointed position later this month. Plus one of the duties of a Franciscan Sister is that they remain a stay at home mom until the very last fledgling is out of the nest, which is what happened with Nancy (#6). Which would mean, our choices for Speaker of the House was between the Franciscan Nancy Pelosi and the Jesuit John Boehner, just like we had two Skull and Bones members to choose from. And Skull and Bones is really just a recruiting ground for the Jesuits.

And the reason I spend so much time talking about Alex Jones is that he is a huge detriment to any form of ultimate truth. People accredit him for waking them up, but that's not necessarily true, because they were the ones already out looking for truth and he was the one poised to give them all the answers they were looking for. And if it's anti-government information you are looking for, Alex pulls few punches. But when it comes to exposing the real perpetrators that have the actual means to pull off all the manipulation required and the devotion for the primary members to keep it all secret ... that's when he resorts to his talk about anonymous, shadowy, Luciferian Controllers.
Now this guy could keep a secret.

The legend is especially indebted for its growth to the Jesuit historiographer Boleslaus Balbinus, the "Bohemian Pliny", whose Vita beati Joannis Nepomuceni martyris was published in Prague, 1670. Although the Prague metropolitan chapter did not accept the biography dedicated to it, "as being frequently destitute of historical foundation and erroneous, a bungling work of mythological rhetoric," Balbinus stuck to it. In 1683 the Charles Bridge was adorned with a statue of the saint, which has had numerous successors. In 1708 the first church was dedicated to him at Hradec Králové, a more famous Pilgrimage Church of Saint John of Nepomuk was founded in 1719. Meanwhile, in spite of the objection of the Jesuits, the process was inaugurated which ended with his canonization. On May 31, 1721, he was beatified, and on March 19, 1729, he was canonized under Pope Benedict XIII. The acts of the process, comprising 500 pages, distinguish two Johns of Nepomuk and sanction the cult of the one who was drowned in 1383 as a martyr of the sacrament of penance.
According to some Protestant sources the figure of St. John Nepomuk is a legend due to Jesuits and its historical kernel is really Jan Hus, who was metamorphosed from a Bohemian Reformer into a Roman Catholic saint: the Nepomuk story would be based on Wenceslaus Hajek's blending of the Jan who was drowned in 1393 and the Jan who was burned in 1415. The resemblances are certainly striking, extending to the manner of celebrating their commemorations. But when the Jesuits came to Prague, the Nepomuk veneration had long been widespread, and the idea of canonization originated in opposition not to the Hussites, but to Protestantism, as a weapon of the Counter-Reformation. In the image of the saint which gradually arose, the religious history of Bohemia is reflected.

It's also why Alex declares Prince Bernhard the mastermind behind Bilderberg when it was really Jesuit hopeful and Knight of Malta Joseph Retinger, not to be confused with the Nazi/Illuminati/Jesuit Pope Joesph Ratzinger. Retinger would have been a Jesuit and would have rose to become Black Pope, instead of his just Grey Pope nickname, but could not remain a celibate lifestyle. Daniel Estulin, the "Bilderberg expert" has said as much, in his words he called Bernhard a facade and posterboy, that Retinger was the man with all the power. But Alex acted like with me he couldn't find the time to include this. Yet he came out with a 1.5 version of Endgame and the information is still not included. But why even accredit the creation to anyone at all if you are just going to say, it was a complete and total phony?
I like how Alex had Estulin on after I called into his show, and all they talked about was this cooked up story Estulin was claiming, that he has information from anonymous intelligence sources saying Ron Paul is a target of assassination. Alex didn't have to talk about anything I brought up with him about Retinger.
Another fallacy about Alex Jones is that he predicted "9/11". Wrong. William Cooper did one month before Alex. Alex can say he never heard it and say it as many times as he wants to. William Cooper is still documented as having done so one month before he did and this was at a time when Cooper's show was number 1.
Cooper also called him a bold faced coward liar, so I tend to believe he is lying he never heard William Coopers "9/11" prediction. This was just 30 days before Coopers death.
Alex is a turd that needs to be flushed because he is performing as the biggest Gatekeeper of them all. [...]
Me saying Alex Jones is a shill is not paranoia, it is an observation supported by many facts. I can say just as easily that what you call paranoia on my part is negligence on your own part. Negligence for not looking into the bullshit Alex is spoon feeding you.

You may not agree with everything these men say but you need to stop seeing enemies where non exist and these people are your friends. I may add, our only friends ...
That is your opinion that Alex is not an enemy. He has you chasing your own tail and you are too stubborn to look at the evidence and admit it. Just because he occasionally tells you what you want to hear does not make him our greatest ally. You can count Alex as being among your friends if you want to but I know better. If worse comes to worse and you are stuck in a foxhole with ol Alex, all I can say is don't turn your back on him for a second. [...]
I didnt say he is fake, I said the subject matter they were talking about was fabricated bullshit. BIG difference. He may have had this information planted to him and he fell for it. I never said he cooked up the story himself. I just found it very convenient for Alex that he has him on the show and Bilderberg is not discussed at all. Which means Alex did not have to discuss Joseph Retinger, because Estulin could have been asked and he either would have had to support what I confronted Alex about on his show, or he would have to say he was mistaken because he is on the record as having stated Prince Bernhard is a facade and Retinger was the real deal.

Geoff Matthews) Who was the most prominent individual involved with the founding of the Bilderbergers?
Daniel Estulin) Without a doubt, Joseph Retinger, a 33rd degree mason.
GM) Oh really!? I thought that it was Prince Bernhard of Holland who actually founded the secret Club.
DE) Bernhard was a poster boy. A pretty face and a facade.

Just because your paranoid does not mean they are ALL out to get you. Just because you think you are right does not make you right by default. Until you have more to offer on the subject than just your opinions, then perhaps you should just stick with what you are good at and just looking pretty and giving an occasional opinion on subjects that dont amount to much.
Thank you for the compliment ...
So even though you may think I am unjustly paranoid, at least I bring some actual research and documented facts to the table and not just opinions based on ignorance.
To me ignorance is jumping to conclusions without any evidence to back up outlandish claims. So far, you have failed to provide any in regards to Alex Jones.
To me ignorance is simply lack of knowledge or understanding about a particular subject. I am saying you are ignorant of the issues I bring up about Alex and fail to understand their signification and relation. Dont you think not mentioning the Patron Saint of the Grove in 2 documentaries and 7 years worth of archiving is a pretty big thing to miss about the Grove?

Why are you sticking up for the Bohemian Grove so much anyway?
Not sticking up for the Grove. I am painting a more complete picture. The picture Alex paints is wrong and leads truth seekers down a false Satanic impression. They are not worshiping that owl as Moloch and to jump to that conclusion is premature and irresponsible. On top of everything I have in my Minerva vs Moloch video ... the 3rd degree of the Illuminati is Minerval or Brother of Minerva. That owl represents Minerva/Athena/Inanna/Isthar or whatever the hell you want to call her and she adorns Alex's capitol building and he calls her Diana, even though she carries a sword and Diana carries a bow and has no dealings with mans public affairs whatsoever, he still insists that is Diana the Goddess of the Hunt. [...]
[...] The fact that Catholicism got its roots from paganism is strange in and of itself. [...] We are not talking about mainstream Christianity. There is nothing mainstream about the power elites that attend the Bohemian Grove. And the Templars were burned, so their money could be confiscated and split between a King and the Vatican. [...] The pagan aspects about Christianity are as far removed from mainstream as you can possibly get and for good reason. No mainstream Catholic or Christian would understand these designed rituals, ceremonies and theatrical plays. [...]
If Alex is sincere, then he is still nitpicking on what he chooses to discuss and if the perpa-traitors are Jesuits and Knights of Malta and their ilk, then Alex is inadvertently covering for them. Even though I tend to think it is a deliberate act on his part. Whatever it is he is involved in, I think he believes he is on the right team. Which is what most godly men do believe.

"Typical Alex Jones! All he can talk about is the nameless, faceless 'elite'. To his credit he names the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds but he wouldn't DARE name who they work for! Neither would Lindsey Williams. Both are either Vatican shills, or devout cowards, or both!" EricIndiana

"Probably because Alex Jones is a CIA agent, who was chosen by the CIA to become the new misleader of the truth movement. So William Cooper had to be assassinated and forgotten, so Alex Jones could become the glorious champion of truth and justice that people think he is. In reality he mixes truth with lies and covers up important details. His job is to prepare us for what's to come."

Jesse Woodrow)
"I found a blatant lie in 9/11 The Road To Tyranny when I wasn't even really looking for it. Alex says, don't believe me, read it for yourself. So I read the document and it says nothing what he says. Why does Alex say don't believe me, do your own research? He is mocking/imitating Bill Coopers statement. If you really look into it, Alex Jones was set up as a mimic of Bill Cooper but with the twist of fear mongering the people and getting them to rise up against the government.
I emailed one of the bobsy uk twins and told him about the descrepency. I sent an email to the Alex Jones email address on his website. Silence. I heard nothing back. I told one of the bobsy twins I wanted to advertise on the website, I heard back the same day. So, that only confirms what you are saying. I tried to find out why he said what he did when the document didn't say that. They blew me off. Now they must be held liable. Have you ever seen what happens to people who act on Alex Jones information? Watch half way through that mockumentary when Alex Jones is so proud of his listener being attacked by a police dog. Why did Alex sound so happy about it happening?"

Kenny Benwau)
There is much to chew on here. I'm going to isolate and save this particular thread and use your keywords to help myself get a clearer picture, although you have laid out the groundwork quite nicely as to make my task much easier. However, you are right, without a doubt, about Ed and Elaine Brown. Alex support for Ed Brown ended at the point where Ed starting spouting off about the Jesuits. Coincidence? I doubt it. You nailed that one for sure. While in prison, Ed would often talk about the Jesuits during his phone privileges. Even the people who were trying to secure his release were somewhat taken back by Ed's Jesuit comments. He talked so much about the Jesuits by phone to anybody who would listen that he finally lost his phone privileges for a year. Of course the authorities concocted some lame excuse saying that Ed had heard a tape recording via phone of Elaine's voice which was a violation of prison rules, but we now know what that real reason was. Ed would talk about the layout of his cell, and other rooms, and the entire compound as triangular in shape each with sets of cameras as in the "all seeing eye". He said the Jesuits "control everything". He said he "underestimated the cruelty of these people" and stated the "Jesuits will overthrow the country". I guess that was enough for someone to put a lid on him. Haven't heard anything since. He has since been shifted around from place to place and I have no clue where he is now. One of the last things he said before losing his phone privileges was that if anything should happen to him or Elaine, it will be because of the "Jesuits". He emphasized that several times. I think Elaine is still somewhere at a Greenwich CT facility and doing OK but am not even sure of that.
As for the other extra goodies you provided, I'm sure there will be a plethora of revelations to come from all this. I feel like a kid in a candy store. I sure hope you are who you say you are ... lol. Thanks OG for all your insight.

John McGuire)
You could be on to something here. Other people in the same line of work (alternative media) have suffered untimely deaths or illnesses. Most are continually dealing with their servers being crashed and/or corrupted, and are continually being harrassed, attacked or issued death threats.
Yet, Alex Jones seems off-limits to all of the usual stuff that his comtemporaries continually endure. With his megaphone and cameras and mikes, screaming at all of the very powerful N.W.O. figures – in some instances, directly confronting them – one wonders how he could go on so long completely unscathed. Sure, there is the occasional arrest at a big public rally (which often seems to paint the protesting group, as a whole, to look like angry nutjobs), as AJ defiantly marches off with Police – not being beaten half to death, as commonly occurs at other such rallies he fails to attend ... And, of course, after it's all over, he is released – again, not beaten up – and that's the end of the matter. Only a fool would observe this continual pattern and not question it ... Things are way too polished and smooth in AJ's world, for the type of work he does.
Greg Szymanski has directly identified Alex Jones as a CIA asset. I will not deny that there is a lot of good intel that comes through Alex Jones's sites and this blog, but there is A PILE of stuff THAT IS OMITTED, also. Also, it is a well-known fact that the "9-11 Truth Movement" has been infiltrated by a host of government "agent provocateurs", in order to sabotage any real constructive work the group might acomplish (as well as keep tabs on them). There are many people who think AJ is just such: http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=4893 ...
Also, what often stands out to me here is WHAT ISN'T PRESENTED. There is a lot of relevant information and current news which does not even get mentioned here, or on either of his sites ... with the intel connections he obviously has, one has to wonder, 'why no mention?' ... Rather than blindly following someone we don't even know personally – whose prime motivation, at least on the surface, seems to be generating revenue – perhaps we should all do some research, and apply some reasoning.
Is his purpose to inform, or is it to trainwreck any attempts to challenge the status quo? Are we being diverted away from what is happening on another front – while we focus on "global warming" bull, or listen to another scholar's "9/11 opinions" that never change anything? Do we get enough inside intel here to lend credibility – even on a subconscious level – WHILE WE DO NOTHING, since someone is apparently speaking up on our behalf?
... Is the purpose of this blog to inform us, or keep tabs on us?
I am not intimidated by any of these scenarios, and continue to contribute here – despite what appears obvious to me. The only real hope any of us have at this point seems to be the "life beyond" – if you know the agenda of the Illuminati/NWO, we will all be exterminated or slaves within a few years, anyway ... We are clearly living in the very "end times", as described by The Bible, in Revelation (and elsewhere).
I suggest to anyone reading this that you DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH ... KEEP AN OPEN MIND ... AND USE SOME INTELLIGENCE. Also, I would even more strongly urge you to get your life right before God Almighty, as WE WILL ALL STAND BEFORE HIM ONE DAY, to give an account of how we used our time and resources while stewards, here on his creation. [...]
Irregardless of the true purpose of this blog, and whomever AJ may or may not be working for, it is a good place to exchange ideas and information – and there are a number of really solid contributors, whose perspectives and information I enjoy reading and benefit from. I, personally, try to fill in some of the holes regarding serious news which isn't presented here ... I know there are others who do the same.

Cojo)
What EricIndiana calls "forms of ultimate truth" seems to me a matter of depth. I mean, most of the very manipulating corporate mainstream (the german variant educated of course by Concordia) gives the impression of being horrifyingly (or/and hauntingly) sketchy and helplessly tattered in comparison with the articulately deeper going but also very twisting and spinning "'9/11' Truth" Conspiracy Mainstream where the modern vicious and sophisticated Jesuit Shepherd's Fold of scientific capitalist/communist dialectics is pretty successfully looking for its newest hideout. The ultimate depth, so to say, lies beneath those two leading opinion streams as the peak of the pyramid of power ("pyro a mid" = a fire in the middle – Ignatius, the fiery – Mithraic Mysteries) is enthroned in the similar but inverted way on top of all flexecutive levels down to the political Ground Zero.
The revolutionary Cyberweb not only makes all networks of hidden power and the whole architecture of secret circles within non-secret organizations transparent, it shows furthermore precisely how opinion streams are actually working (and how they rule the public in general) as well as the corporate nature of our western Christian societies with their Papal template of artificial incorporated personalities like in a mirror.
Our absolute decisive issue of the more or less only decision making, ultimative and absolutist backbone of the almost allmighty Roman British imperialistic "machine" – consisting of all types of secret, half-secret and non-hidden organizations – in the form of the "pride" Jesuit professes/priest soldiers is that much meta and off the hook, so that only hihgly interested parties can understand its importance to some extent, because like the biblical "chief corner stone", Jesus Christ, symbolizes a mysterious god-person in heaven, so the brotherhood of the "Jesuses quasi praesens" in the order with the strictest loyalty requires the deepest and most difficult "'9/11' Truth"-research level. The army under its Luciferian majesty, the black secretary general, does constitute the last line of defence and a nearly perfect insurance for all other priests, knights, masons, mormons, mafiosi, mercenaries, bankers, corporate, military and police officers, bureaucrats, politicians, journalists, laywers and so on. The information about the dominance of Jesuit worldwide influence is certainly the most profound of all cultural scouting attempts, and without connecting all ranks of real political power to a coherent unit, a verifiable copy, a meticulous model from the veiled temporal apparatus of the Papacy with its most relevant sections, we probably may not have a real chance against the maelstrom of two mainstreams initiated on September 11, 2001.

The Knights of Malta are "the militia of the Pope, and are sworn to total obedience by a blood oath which is taken extremely seriously and to the death.. The Pope as the head of the Vatican is also the head of a foreign national power. [...] Those who are presently members of the Knights of Malta must on penalty of death support those policies advocated by the Vatican. It is not hard for them to do this. They believe in these policies and principles. The polices which are espoused and proclaimed by Pope John Paul II. are as follows:
1. End of sovereignty for the United States and other countries.
2. End of absolute property rights.
3. End of all gun rights.
4. The new international economic order (world government).
5. The redistribution of wealth and jobs.
6. Calls for nations to trust the United Nations.
7. Total disarmament.
8. Promote the United Nations as the hope for peace.
9. Promote UNESCO, the deadly educational and cultural arm of the United Nations.
10. Promote interdependence.
11. Support sanctions honoring Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the New Age humanist priest.
12. Support the belief that the economic principle of traditional Christian or Catholic social doctrine is the economic principle of communism.
13. Promote the Pope as the acting go-between for the United States and the Soviet Union.
The secret society members in the high levels of political and economic power – if they are not the actual decision-makers – are OWNED by others. They are compromised by the freedom of their will. They chose to believe what they believe."

EricIndiana calls the Skull and Bones Society a "recruiting ground for the Jesuits". I'm not sure whether his conception is in accordance to mine which considers Yale's bonesmen club rather as some sort of training facility in a way where a "David Webb" became Jason Bourne, for example. The core of the fellowship or its main purpose is made up to get fresh aspirants on a short leash, I believe, like in the movie "Fightclub" or along the critical question to Webb/Bourne: "Will you commit to this program?"