crumbs or crucifixion (the genuine article)

I want to explore the idea that we are in the midst of Ragnarok:

In Norse mythology, Ragnarök is a series of future events, including a great battle foretold to ultimately result in the death of

rag na rock

… a number of major figures (including the gods Odin, Thor, Týr, Freyr, Heimdallr, and Loki) …  Afterward, the world will resurface anew and fertile, the surviving and returning gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors

Funny how the story …


… never changes.

Funny how a god is ‘no thing’ without …


… “his children“.

So we’ll play with the idea that every civilisation has been based upon the parental model & that humanity has been detained at the level of ‘domesticated children’ for eons.

I suggest that continuing down this road will prove lethal to humanity.

I further suggest that this time of Ragnarok is brought about precisely because humanity has reached this deadly overload point & can no longer sustain the “parent model“.

Today’s theory proposes that all history (as far back as it seems traceable) has seen human adults held in a state of perpetual infancy via the parent model, through:

  • all religions
  • all leadership / political practices
  • all ‘work ethos
  • all science / expert knowledge
  • all family structures
  • all ‘entertainment’
  • all love / romantic ideals / modern sexual ‘freedom’

etc, etc, etc …

Has there ever been a time when humans have not lived in a position of …

looking up

 looking up
(to beings who were ‘bigger’ than them)?

We have looked up to:

religious figures
“great” writers, artists, thinkers
mythological heroes or heroines
romantic heroes or heroines
etc …

Why have we done so much …


looking up?

You might be tempted to say that these beings/people provided ‘inspiration’ to humanity, to become like them – yet how many ‘ordinary’ folk have been able to use these super-beings as the springboard for their own phenomenal growth?

Bugger all.

Most people stay where we are dazzled by the glare of these ‘great ones’ & simply watch in awe (or horror) as their future is designed for them.

This is exactly what life is like for a child under the ages-old ‘parent programme regime’.

If you are raised in such a tradition, is it really likely that you would ever be able to throw off such ‘training’ when you ‘become an adult’?

Of course not.

We are the species of …


… ‘human look-upers‘.

We are suffering from terminal IPS – Impacted Parent Syndrome.

During childhood when we should have been creating clear maps of ourselves, we overlaid large portions of our parents & their unhealed trauma onto ‘our landscape’.

We have been prevented from separating from our parents & this has left us travelling down wrong roads & going round in circles.

Separation is the foundation of a effective life.

Relationship to anything or anyone is only possible, if you have achieved …



If your dinner was fused to your plate how could you experience eating it?

The foundation for a relationship of any kind is separation … If separation is required to establish relationships, then how is it ever possible to have a relationship with yourself? This is a superb question in an age in which you are encouraged to become one with yourself, integrate yourself & …

one yes

… attain transcendental wholeness … It can seem like heresy to talk of separation with these people who are working diligently to end any form of separation …

seeing clearly

…  Yet it is necessary to master the principle of separation if we are to create the lives we want to create.

You are separate from the raw material of your life, which includes your circumstances, your experiences, your feelings, your opinions, your desires, your past, and your present … but it will be hard to move with the same ease … that painters have as they move toward & away from their canvases … if you can only stand close to yourself. Most people stand so close to themselves

too close

that they often confuse who they are with what they have done, are doing, or might do in the future.~ Robert Fritz

One way to separate from something is by saying NO to it i.e: 

No, you are not me & I am not you“.

Let’s clarify the use of the phrase (perpetual) infancy as used earlier in this post:

infant (n.) late 14c., “child during earliest period of life” … use of adjective meaning “not able to speak“.

Language is at the heart of our human experience. It’s a magnificently intricate subject, yet I think if we took it back to it’s most primal purpose, we might end up with the …

yes and no

verbal binary code
‘YES’ & ‘NO’

What if every course we are on, every decision we make & rolls runs along the…

yes track

… tracks of a YES. 

YES = no impediment
YES = ‘go ahead’
YES ‘allows’
YES becomes our reality

In the beginning, ‘the word’ must have been …



Our lives roll along this YES track & even though we may not like something, as long as we do not establish ,or construct, a NO, then by default, we say YES.

Objection and opposition …

not no

… never
= NO

We change direction when we give birth to a NO.


NO allows us to interrupt our default course
and ‘re-route’.

Let’s play with the idea that almost every road we have travelled has been a default road because we have lived on a diet of …


highly-processed ‘YES’s.

From the word go we have been directed into becoming
“YES men & women”.

Annuit cœptis …


… is one of two mottos on the reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States … it is literally translated, “He approves of the undertakings” or “He has approved of the undertakings

does that
NEED to be there?

Start paying attention (it won’t be hard to find) – to everywhere your ‘agreement’ is sought, your signature (your YES) is required, your vote is necessary, your presence is called for – look for all the ways your YES is constantly pulled out of you.

Ask yourself, “Why is that?”

I think it may have to do with keeping you away from developing the power of your NO.

It’s important to understand that a conscious NO is actually a form of YES – but a supremely conscious YES:

Saying No means, first of all, saying Yes! to yourself and protecting what is important to you … “I did it because I thought If you don’t speak up now, you’ll have no self-respect!” … The key to a Positive NO is respect. What distinguishes a positive No from accommodation is that you give respect to yourself and what is important for you”  – The Power of a Positive No ~ William Ury

Let’s suggest that without the NO we are unable to create the necessary separation & space & between ourselves & our default course – i.e. the repeat pattern of our parents/ancestors programme.

F M Alexander, the creator of the Alexander Technique, understood the use of the NO in changing direction, he called it “inhibition

all those who wish to change something in themselves must learn… to inhibit their immediate reaction to any stimulus to gain a desired end’ and in order to …


… stop falling back ‘upon the familiar sensory experiences of their old habitual use  … they must continue this inhibition whilst they employ the new direction of their use‘.

Like a good fellow, stop the things that are wrong first‘.

Animals use this NO/’inhibition’ to superb advantage:

inhibition is the action an animal hunter might do to strategically choose ...

powerful inhibition

… the exact moment to spring for prey. It involved stopping the urge to instantly and instinctually satisfy its natural hunger by ..


… prematurely jumping too soon ineffectively

It is creating a small fraction of time that gives you the opportunity not to be in constant ‘excitation-mode’ all the time

We could see perpetual YESsing as being in this 


constant excitation-mode’.

And we could see our Western Culture as the biggest YES Civilistion to have ever existed.

Everything is engineered or provided –

aye aisle

… all we need to do is

In particular I would like to suggest that we are saying YES to remaining infants.

“YES PLEASE can someone else:


… make decisions for us,

protect and serve

… protect us,

aye aisle

… feed us …

dress us

… dress us
(or tell us what to wear),


… entertain us,

how to live

… tell us how to live,

pre corpsulator

… make us well,

dying time

tell us how to die,

next life

… look after us in the next life.

This all leads me to wonder if Jehovah’s secret name/energy might be ‘YES‘.

Let us play.

Jehovah, being a male-only creator did not have access to the feminine secret name/energy of the NO & so he tricked Eve into using it. This collision of male-female word power sparked the birth of this place that we have been trapped in ever since.

If my play-theory was true, that would make Eve’s NO energy

no tree

… the “fruit” of the Tree of Good and Evil.

If we stood far enough back from today’s …

rag na rock

… Ragnarok theme, I think we would notice a circular path.

Surely we must be at the …

you are here

…Ouroboros mouth-to-tail connection stage.

It is time for the cycle to be restarted again. The snake must be made to clamp on to his tail once more – to ensure another ‘x thousand years’ of humanity trapped in a crushing regime.

This suggests that the YES & NO /-  King/Queen – mother/father – are very powerful now. And that they are being powerfully stage-managed.

Did you do your homework, did you notice how often parents are mentioned? Did you notice how the parental message is used?  

A vast amount of tv programmes & movies are drowning in parental themes or sub-stories – I never used to notice, now I’m left speechless. It’s like a massive advertising campaign for the sanctity of parents.


I suggest that the new royal baby & the constant attention focused on his parents is part of this process – we are being steered into calling for a continuation of rule/’minding’ by parents

We are being asked to agree to stay as their symbolic children. Anyone with even a little common sense can see that all Kings & Queens are simply symbolic parents.

Odin, the ALL-FATHER, may die, but he will simply
be replaced.

keeplooking up


I’ll leave you with another example of the hidden YES within our civilisation.

There may be another reason why sex has been pushed so hard
down the throats of recent generations,
you see
sex …


a …

yes reversed

secret name too.

I think we are at a great cross roads. & we have the chance of becoming ‘wild’.

But that requires us to give up our parents & go forward into a future that has no history – we have lived so long as perpetual infants that there is no guidance for this.

Do we need a God Father (F+EARth) or a God Mother?  

Only children need parents / guardians.

I don’t know what created the Parental Control Programme, yet it seems to be a structure that fatally weakens the spine or “No” principle.

At each important turn in the growth of a child, or civilisation great efforts are made to get the victim, subject, individual to “acquiesce


acquiesce (v.)  1610s, from Middle French acquiescer (16c.), from Latin acquiescere “to become quiet

I am left in a very strange place as I finish this post & I can not, & will not, give you any answers.

You see if the NO/feminine energy is necessary to reconfigure the ouroboros – then here am I, a female (an Eve), tempting you. This takes us back to discernment & why I wrote my last article.

You don’t need anyone to give you your answers or ‘lead’ you.

All I can suggest is that you practice using your own mind on a daily basis – practice saying NO so you can create a future of conscious YESs.


November 19, 2013. Uncategorized.


  1. Ben replied:

    Awesome post!!! This is the core problem.Giving up your parents isn’t acceptable, but unless you do you will never be independent.Tough choice, so we go along.Always resentful, never knowing why.


    • alex robinson replied:

      Exactly, and you can’t see what you can’t, or won’t, see – this is in front of our noses on a daily (hourly) basis yet we glaze over any time our vision starts to show the real picture. So it’s going to take sacredly foolish souls to risk this … & that will make it easier for others to follow their example


  2. suliwebster replied:

    Bloody Brilliant Alex!
    I have been playing with many of these themes myself of late, including the serpent eating the tail! You have drawn them together perfectly. I am also fighting in my personal life with the separation of myself and my daughter, fighting against the parenting industry version that forces us to stay unhealthily together.
    I have only today written something on The Pope and Mary, another Ma and Pa scenario. The Pope is Pop, Papal Papa. The Pope’s business is the Virgin Mary, Mother Mary, Mom, Ma, Mama. The couple is really a copule, the real meaning behind the word “couple” that is not mentioned. The couple copulates and thereby populates. And then the couple copule becomes Ma and Pa. The Pope papal is of the people, which is the popule, or the pople, p(e)ople.
    I also notice with your brilliant SEX YES thing, that we get X and Y interchanged! The female and male chromosome distinction. So SEX is female and YES is male, and they make a couple, a copule by saying YES to SEX. We also get SEX Y SEXY.
    The purpose of the popuation, popule is to provide slaves.
    I am increasingly of the view that we once had females only reproducing by self fertilisation, Virgin Mary style. I also think we are heading for a return to the Monarchy. All the presidents and prime ministers have babies these days don’t they? It seems to be part of the job. And of course our next King must have one too in order to qualify.


    • alex robinson replied:

      You make lots of sense – & I really like the xy spotting.

      We are bound so tight to the parent programme – that is what shocked me when I started to see within movies & tv programmes – the ridiculous way parents were brought into the smallest subplot – it’s like it’s some kind of trigger & we keep getting jabbed with it. I cannot understate how ott it is. I didn’t go looking for it, it just hit me square between the eyes one day.

      I have wondered too if this was once a female only world & the male was ‘introduced’ – not out of any feminist thinking just the result of play over a number of topics.


      • suliwebster replied:

        Oh that’s interesting you have come to similar possible conclusion about females being the original human by an independent path. I have written a few recent posts on it, but you may prefer to pursue your own thought paths without reading mine. I think Jesus the Jewess is prob the main one, but there is also Wombless Women and Through The Womb Hole. And I have a few others in the pipeline.


      • alex robinson replied:

        My feeling (on that potential storyline) was that (healthy) women never seek to dominate – they share – they would have willing shared this world but something via the male principle got out of harmony & went into takeover mode – perhaps the parenting control system was a direct result of that – or perhaps it was the other way round. I would see the male as a wonderful addition to this world to allow the principle of ‘separation creation’ to exist – it’s all play :)


      • roobeedoo2 replied:

        Aren’t the XY needed only to determine the sex of a child and have little to do with the creation itself? What I mean is, theoretically, two woman could produce a child from their genetic material in a laboratory, it’s just that men have a monopoly on the most cost effective, fun and successful genetic material delivery system.

        That might not always be the case, especially if you look at how technology has changed to become cheaper and more accessible in what is actually little more than the blink of an eye (look at computers, for instance). And I feel that the recent global push toward gay marriage has more to do with this than any equality arguments being made.


      • roobeedoo2 replied:

        Alex, I have just clicked on the link, below, posted by ‘Morris Dancer’ at today at 10.48h.

        “How to ruin an interesting story with a silly headline and picture

        I swear I did not read this BBC article before making my earlier comment here.


      • suliwebster replied:

        That’s interesting link roobedoo2. There definitely seem to be changes afoot in the standard male female system we have been used to. I have even read school newsletter referring to the “Mother Father system”. As if there are others. I sometimes wonder if we are reverting back to original type, like grafted or GM’d trees and plants do in time. I see the male as a very small edited upgrade of the earlier human version, the female. You are right, the X and Y represents a very small difference compared to the whole.


  3. Michael Skaggs replied:

    WOW Alex!!

    A perpetual state of Yes…never thought of it from that Angle before. I did recently say NO to being treated like an idiot at where I was ‘wage slaving’ errr…employed, and its almost been a month of saying “NO” I don’t want that shit job or NO I don’t want to wage slave for less…boy howdy is this system ONLY setup for the PTBs. They want you saying YES to everything they say!

    Thank you for the insight today!



    • alex robinson replied:

      Exactly say YES to what they want – not to what you want. The NO is really your personal YES – right now it’s the other way round – no wonder so many people are going crazy.

      I honour your NO my friend


  4. serpentchannelzero replied:

    Got no further than “perpetual infancy” and simply had to share this supporting evidence by evian (i.e. naive) water: … Ok, now to read the article


  5. serpentchannelzero replied:

    Now, having read the article. I’ll confess I’m a little uncomfortable with your references to the ouroboros – not because I see myself as a representative of this energy, but because in my recent studies I’ve lost a lot of my identity with the whole concept of being a “Channel of the Serpent”; reading this article just reaffirmed my discomfort. I suppose next time I comment, it will be under a different name (possibly even my birth name, which for some reason never feels quite appropriate… oh for a name that fits like an old pair of shoes! but I’ve digressed..). I think you touched on something in the reference to humanity’s looking toward “larger” versions of themselves as parental figures. I recognize truth in the profane, so just hear me out as I go down this road.. Two themes in pornography are penis size and anal sex. I maintain that sodomy is a key to the undermining of the human psychology; but I also wonder about the stories of the Nephilim, who were apparently both giant and driven to sexual frenzy by human beauty. I wonder if the restart we are being pushed toward is a state of willingness to (once again?) become the sexual servants of some larger humanoid (of unknown origin) – to not just psychologically be plied to acquiesce, but to physically be trained to accept their advances.These have been thoughts of mine recently in my own studies. Also there is a sync to a recent experience I had with a friend. I have been exploring my relationship with Angels, and a friend of mine who is of similar mind showed me a picture she had taken – the image of the Angel was clear, even to my skeptical mind (I was completely prepared to write it off, but was instead dumbfounded). What truly took me aback about the photo, however, was how small the entity actually was (seemed to be only about 12-15 inches with a much larger “aura” around it) – further advancing the concept that we need not look “up” to our Divine helpers, I find my thoughts toward Angels more along the lines of friendship and I am still surprised that they find no offense in this view. In fact, I believe they encourage it.

    The topic of separation is a delicate one. I agree that we must distinguish our individual paths, but we can’t forget that we’re all in the same boat here.

    So much to chew on here; I will be digesting for some time! Thank You.


    • alex robinson replied:

      It interests me very much what you say about your ‘real’ name:

      “my birth name, which for some reason never feels quite appropriate” –

      I’m not sure if you feel that way for your writing or your name in general.
      As I have gone along I have changed my name – once I wrote as ‘wise woman’ & then I felt the need to change to my ‘real’ name. But years before that I changed my ‘real’ name – I was always really uncomfortable with my given birth name – it’s possible that feeling came from the way my family ‘sounded out’ my name – but it became toxic for me – so I changed it!
      The whole name thing is another massive parental programme & it’s quite possible that many, many people would benefit form re-naming themselves according to who they are, or wish to be, now.

      Separation is not something we’re familiar with – perhaps a whole article is needed on that alone to explore that & help undo the fear aspect it undoubtedly has

      Thanks for your other thoughts which were most interesting & also give food for thought.


      • serpentchannelzero replied:

        I have changed my name quite a few times among my social circle and as a performer. My given name is Dennis, a name which is rooted in Dionysus – the Greek god of wine and ecstatic revelry, who is also a part of the later Jesus mosaic. A great deal of discomfort came from my early childhood, being called “Denise” by other children and in a few cases by teachers as well; I’ve finally overcome that hurdle of “sissy”-shaming though. Now I just feel strange that I have moved past my days of drunken revelry yet my name is still encoded with that information…

        As for separation, I do feel that there is a root Unity that connects all things – that we are literally the matter of the Creator, and as such, inseparable. We need to be careful of the thought “I am not you”, because we are each human no matter how despicable some of our actions may be. Hurt people hurt people. We have been wounded as a species, and while that wound may manifest in different ways it is still the same wound. The separation I feel we must attain is separation from the “ego” – the fear-based perception, the illusion that we are separate. So we must separate from the illusion of being separate in order to remember the truth of our unity. And in so doing, we are freed to say No with the knowledge that the only potential damage we may do is damage to another person’s ego/illusion/fear.



      • alex robinson replied:

        Your name is like your skin, it can be abused or neglected, it carries scars.

        Separation is a massive topic I am still skirting the edges on – I think it needs a lot more exploration & play


    • suliwebster replied:

      I am pretty sure the goal with paedophilia is to normalise it so that it becomes part of normal good parenting. We are not that far off in some ways, with children trained how to have sex at school (sex education programme) from age 9 (when I last checked) and getting younger, all endorsed by teachers and parents. That fits with your idea of being prepared for a giant race to use us. I agree it is both a psychological programming and a physical training that is going on.


      • serpentchannelzero replied:

        I have a theory of perpetuated trauma: Beginning with the idea that sodomy (anal penetration) between the ages of 2-4 is a key to fracturing a personality for programming and opening a psyche to “possession” by negative spiritual entities, I believe that there has been instigated a mass programming agenda some generations in the past; beginning with sodomizing ordinary, “average” citizens and “programming” them with only one command – that they sodomize their own children between the crucial years and program them with the same single command, and then that they erase their actions from their memory. I believe this agenda was enacted at some point in history with just a handful of people across a broad geographical spectrum, and that at this point many are subjected to this act by otherwise-innocent parents.

        I agree that there is an agenda geared toward the normalizing of sexualization of youth. In these times, many things that have been done in secret are being brought out into the open to be practiced with full conscious consent.

        I place my trust in the Highest Good to be brought about. As much evidence as there is of the negative influences in the world, there is an equal indication (to me) that there is a growing and abiding Good rising through the muck.


      • suliwebster replied:

        Yes I agree, the signs of good things growing is at least equal to the increasing chaos and horrors in front of us.


  6. libyansibyl44 replied:

    Great post. Lately I’ve been finding it hard to know when to say yes and when to say no. Sometimes it’s hard to tell when you’re being tricked by this reality or when you need to push yourself past your own fear to move forward.

    Your twin and cyclical imagery also syncs heavily with the parental separation theme in the movie “The Shining”. I’ve always thought the poster behind the twins in the game room scene was an ouraboros.


    • alex robinson replied:

      From what I have found, the NO takes great attention & practice – I just keep practicing & it comes more easily – as I hear my body/sensory/felt NO on the small things, I find myself saying NO so much more easily to the important things – NO is an active choice deeply rooted in your connection to “where you want to go” – it’s part of a much bigger, wider, long-term picture.

      If Alice Miller is right about the ‘creatives’ simply telling their childhood trauma story over & over again (& I think she is), then it would make sense to see ourobros symbolism secreted in many movies – writers, directors, actors all telling the same story in their own way


  7. alex robinson replied:

    Hi roobeedoo – I was impressed by your realistic thoughts without getting side-tracked the male/female divide – it may well be possible to bring life into being that way, but I’d suggest it would lack some kind of spark – perhaps we’d end up with a different kind of human species.


    • roobeedoo2 replied:

      I agree, Alex – it formed the plotline in a detective story I read about 20 years ago, and it’s one of those ideas that has stayed with me. Anyway, I’m sure that the lack of spark might be seen as desirable, if not necessary, in the manufacture of a golem. It’s not lost on me that ‘fiction’ original means “to knead, form out of clay”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback URI