Encircling the Mind

I made a fairly mind-numbing discovery while writing my article about children and mind-control. Referencing wikipedia, the word pedia struck me. Greek is one of the languages I speak, thus I began thinking what the heck does “wiki” mean and what does it have to do with children (παιδεία)? {*1} Researching the origins of wiki proved trivial, but the word obviously stems from/is a play on encyclopedia.

Online, the first result Google sent me to said that “ped,” “pedi” and even “pedia” children] are related to the foot. “No. That’s a lie,” I thought, knowing full-well that “pod” or “podi” (ποδι) would be the Greek prefix/stem for “foot” [as in podiatrist or cephalopod] and that the former relates primarily to children [as in “pediatric” or “pedarist”]. Tracing the etymology further, yielded the following:

• Wikipedia: The word ‘encyclopedia’ comes from the Classical Greek “ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία” (pronounced “enkyklios paideia”), literally, a “[well-]rounded education”, meaning “general knowledge.”
• Merriam-Webster: Medieval Latin encyclopaedia course of general education, from Greek enkyklios + paideia education, child rearing, from paid-, pais child.
• history.com: (derived from Gr. enkyklios paideia, “in a circle of instruction”), term originally signifying instruction in all branches of knowledge, or a comprehensive education in a specific subject. {*2}

Nonsense! The Online Etymological Dictionary was slightly more truthful:

1531 “course of construction,” thought to be a false reading by L. authors of Gk. enkyklios paideia taken as “general education,” but lit. “training in a circle,” the essentials of a liberal education, from enkyklios “circular,” also “general” (from en- “in” + kyklos “circle”) + paideia “education, child-rearing,” from pais (gen. paidos) “child” (see pedo-).

I even came across one source going so far as to claim that enkyklios refers to a circle, hence a “circle of children,” implying that in Ancient Greece, children were taught whilst sitting in a circle. “More goddamn lies!” Enkyklios (ἐγκύκλιος) implies something entirely different. It means to encircle, otherwise the word would be cyclopedia, which it is not. {*3} So there you have it. Hidden right under our nose for well over a century: to encircle children. To encircle [the minds] of children.

Technically: περικυκλώνω is the transitive verb which means to encircle. However, after the “encirclement” has taken place, περικυκλώς refers to the circle and area outside it, while ἐγκύκλιος refers to the area “inside the circle.” Alternately, enkyklios could also be defined as “circular,” which taking the circuitous path ultimately connotes “not being forthright or direct in language.”

What is an encyclopedia’s purpose: to fill our heads with lies and build a mental prison to confine/limit us. Thus, it should be of little surprise to find the origins of the printed encyclopedias go back to the Scottish side of the United Kingdom, refuge of the Knights Templar; birthplace of the Scottish Rite and British Zionism. A friend upon hearing my discovery recalled how he did a book report as a child and said, “Mom, did you know that Dinosaurs died and created the oil we use today?” His mother, of a different generation, so still holding on to some common sense replied, “Yea, that book may say so, but it just doesn’t sound right to me.” {*4}

Oh, how far back the limitations placed on mankind must go. I recall a segment in Len Horowitz’s presentation “DNA Pirates of the Sacred Spiral” where he suggested that Webster’s reference dictionary, just like the Bible, contains several “codes.” One example provided was tracing the word “human.” Per Merriam-Webster:

human Middle English humain, from Anglo-French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being — more at homage

1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans 2: consisting of humans 3 a: having human form or attributes b: susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature

Frailties? OK! Tracing further back to homage, we get:

homage Middle English, from Anglo-French homage, omage, from home man, vassal, from Latin homin-, homo human being; akin to Old English guma human being, Latin humus earth — more at humble

1 a: a feudal ceremony by which a man acknowledges himself the vassal of a lord b: the relationship between a feudal lord and his vassal c: an act done or payment made in meeting the obligations of vassalage 2 a: expression of high regard: respect — often used with pay b: something that shows respect or attests to the worth or influence of another: tribute

Feudal? Influence of “another?” Isn’t that exactly what the sycophant church (of the false god) tells us, “to be humble.” So, following the bouncing ball:

humble 1: not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive 2: reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission 3 a: ranking low in a hierarchy or scale: insignificant, unpretentious b: not costly or luxurious

Submission? Insignificant? So, is this what we humans allow ourselves to be defined by? Looking up “another“, you get “different or distinct from the one first considered.” Isn’t that what the ruling elites of this planet consider themselves? Which takes us back to Charles Fort. Which takes us back to They Live.

Well, I got news for you “lords” and “masters.” I will bow to no “lord” [biblical or titled], nor acknowledge anyone outside of my true creator as superior to myself. Because, I am an infinite being of creativity; a skill that you can neither buy or possess. My capacity for love is beyond your comprehension and I will no longer be ruled by fear. I am a creator and destroyer of worlds. I can now see past your lies and am starting to get but a glimpse of my infinite potential. {*5}

You lords are all now free to go fuck yourselves. Good night!

*1: My friend Anesti surmised wikipedia as “truth by consensus” [aka truth by majority]. Well, we all know how false such truths can tend to be. An example I like to give those who are still hard pressed to understand why the consensus is not necessarily truth:

“Suppose a girl and a guy in your school go on a date, and the “date” does not go so well. The next day, he comes back and tells everyone who’ll listen that they had sex. She comes back and tells a few of her close friends that the date was awful and nothing happened. The “truth” [by consensus] therefore, is that she had sex with him.”

Interestingly, while researching wiki, I found this quote:

It has been claimed by some that the ideas that led to the Wiki concept have their origins (see: WikiWikiOrigin) in the ZOG database system effort, first materialized at Carnegie-Mellon University in 1972.

Would that be ZOG as in “Zionist Occupational Government?” What??? [LB]

*2: History.com is owned by the Hearst Corporation, the owners of the laughable History Channel, and also, Propagada Mechanics. If you excpect anything more than a mere iota of truth from these purveyors of “yellow journalism,” well … how can I put it kindly … “you are an idiot.” [LB]

*3: Aside: Cyclos [alternately, Κyklos, i.e., κύκλος] is also the true origin of another phrase that I had once been unable to make sense of: Ku Klux Klan. Proper Greek pronunciation yields Kyklos Klan. The Circle Klan. So, yes, all those “crazy black people” that were once telling each other to boycott the Circle K convenience stores, were actually in the right. [LB]

*4: His mother was completely correct. The Encyclopedia Brittanica was completely wrong. Yet, how many people running around today believe all that scientifically discreditable nonsense [e.g., Dinosaur’s remains creating oil and “fossil fuels”, solid earth and magma, “pangea,” Darwin’s untenable theorems]? Truth by consensus? Woes me. Woes us! [LB]

*5: Uncanny timing? This is my 77th blog entry and I presently have 23 drafts in my queue. Anyone well-versed in numerology or the tarot please feel free to comment on the significance. Oh, and “creator and destroyer” is not mere mental fancy, Nikolai Tesla’s physics arrived at the same conclusion. [LB]