#8 - MED - Breakdown of the Mandela effect
Hello again, this is JLL with Gnostic Intel on the Internet. I'm recording on the 1st of March 2017. This recording will be more or less a straightforward reading with a few impromptu comments now and then. A reading of textual material on Metahistory.org in the category of Mythophrenia.
So you will see in the description of this talk a link to the tracking page that brings you directly to the printed material connected with this talk, and that's more or less the way it works all through this investigation. Text and Talk TNT, which also is a synonym for explosives. In most cases there will be some text in parallel to the talk. In some cases there will be only talks.
So the paragraphs in the box at the beginning set forth my intention and the way in which I'm going to proceed. And so, let's proceed. The Mandela Effect derives its name from a historical figure whose death some remember as having occurred in the late 80s or early 90s of the 20th centuries, while others remember it as having occurred in the twenty-first century on December 5th 2013, confirmed in the current record.
However, residue exists that may be taken as evidence for the memory of Mandela dying in prison 22 years earlier. The book English Alive, written by Kathleen Hugh and Anita Kennett, and published in South Africa in 1991, states, quote, the chaos that erupted in the ranks of the ANC when Nelson Mandela died on the 23rd of July, 1991, brought the January 29th, 1991, Inkatha ANC peace accord to nothing, end quote.
The current record of an event remembered, and the residue of the same event remembered in another way, are key elements in any discussion of the Mandela effect. Well, consistent with the effect, the memory in the current record tends to exclude or occlude the other or alternative memory. In the case cited here, those who stand by the current record will claim that the authors have made a factual error and misrepresented the events of the time. This instance of residue proving that Mandela died in the late 1980s or early 1990s has been widely cited as an explicit and irrefutable example of residue that confirms the occluded memory and contradicts the current record which puts his death in December 2013. Advocates of the effect rely strongly on such evidence.
However, there is a problem here which no one, to my knowledge, has so far pointed out. Note that the sentence is not merely quoted, but the actual text of the book is reproduced. To the Mandela affected, as they are sometimes called, this is even more convincing evidence of the truth of their occluded memories. Problem is, the authors say that Mandela's death in July 1991 brought to nothing the peace accords negotiated in January 1991. Hold on. How could his death in August invalidate negotiations conducted in January eight months earlier?
Is there a factual error here which would throw this residue into doubt as to its veracity? Well perhaps, and it is certainly a troubling detail, which could invalidate the residue. The interpretation of the passage depends on whether the January negotiations were merely talks leading to the accord or talks sealed by an agreement. But the record shows, and this is the New York Times, Dateline Johannesburg, September 15, 1991, that the accord was signed on September 14, 1991. And the article mentions Mandela is still living. Negotiations leading to the signed agreement were ongoing from May of 1990. But I find there is no specific evidence of talks in January of ninety-one, and certainly not of any accord reached at that time, apart from the mention in the citation.
While this is problematic, the citation clearly refers to an accord in January, not merely to talks. Establishing residue is basic to the study of the effect, to determine if it is real on its own terms or merely due to misremembering and ignorance of the facts. This example, standing at the origin of the phenomenon and involving the name given to it, shows brilliantly that establishing residue is a meticulous and sometimes tricky exercise. Nevertheless, clear and irrefutable examples of residue do occur. They present what I call the premium instances of the effect.
Subheading: Mnemonic formula. As explained in the introduction, occlusion refers to something being overwritten and consequently concealed by something else. In each incidence of the effect, incidence, you see an occluding factor and an occluded factor. The occluding factor is supported by the memory evidenced in the current record, what you will find in the printed and electronic media if you research the topic today. The occluded factor is the alternative memory that may be, but is not always, preserved in residue.
Here's a simple formula I propose that might be useful as a mnemonic device expressing the relation of the two memories. M to the power of 1 is not equal to M to the power of 2. Looking at this formula from time to time can steady concentration on the baffling operations of the Mandela effect, which tend at moments to get blurred and distorted. So the formula states, the memory preserved in the current record, M on the left, which some people hold as the only one that ever was, power of one, does not match, in equal sign, the memory that may be preserved in residue, M on the right, which some people hold in a state of double-mindedness, power of two, allowing that two different versions of the memory of a single event coexist.
Power of 1, “It has always been that way and only that way as it is now, so the current version stands alone exclusively”. You can call that one-track memory. Power of 2, “It used to be another way, held by an alternative memory, not as it is seen now in the current record, but now both versions stand side by side, simultaneously.” Some people acknowledge the existence of the two distinct memories, two-track memory. Case of Mandela's death defines the effect which comes to be named after him, as everyone knows by now. In many instances, the occluded memory is not supported by evidence in the form of residue. In this unique case, it clearly is, but there's a problem with the residue, as we saw.
Of course, it could easily be objected that the authors of English Alive just made a factual error. End of story. There is no Mandela effect, just misremembering and mistaking facts, while such a response typifies the mindset of those who hold the occluding memory, M to the power of one, who generally will not allow the occurrence of alternative memories who disregard them as being genuine. They presume an exclusional view, hence power of one. By contrast, those who hold the occluded memory, M to the power of two, do allow for others to hold a different memory. No conflict or argument required. Generally speaking, the Mandela effect is not divisive in the manner of, say, flat-earth theory. At least it does not have to be. Unfortunately, those who hold the occluding memory supported by the current record do tend to reject and ridicule those with alternative memories.
Without residue, those who hold the occluded memory, M to the power of two, that's how I remember it having been, not as it is remembered today, have nothing but their subjective conviction to stand against those who hold the occluding memory. M to the power of 1. That's how it's remembered today, and it has always exclusively been like that. Those who hold the occluded memory are said to be impacted by the effect, while those who hold memories consistent with the current record are not. Could be argued, however, that both groups are impacted by the effect, but in different ways. The difference being, the group who hold the occluding memory consistent with the current record deny there is any such phenomenon in the first place.
What does not exist cannot affect them, they assume. But denial of the effect does not prove that the occluded memories are invalid and unreal. Those who hold the occluding memories attribute instances of the Mandela effect to misremembering, mistaking of facts, a false memory syndrome enigmatically shared by a large number of people in exactly the same way. They pass off what is baffling to those who admit being impacted by the effect as a mere mistake or confabulation. In short, those who hold the occluded memory admit and allow that both versions can be valid while those who hold the occluding memory do not. The latter are massively in the majority around the world, but the former, the Mandela effected, may by now be running into hundreds of thousands, and their number appears to be escalating.
Subheading: Memory Lines. If the matter ended there, it would be easy to dismiss the Mandela effect as some kind of bizarre aberration of human memory. Consensus resides with the group who see no change. Those who do see it are perhaps deluded. But it does not end there. Far from it. No matter how much evidence in the current record supports the occluding memory, while Jif has always been the brand name of that peanut butter, never Jiffy. If there is any residue in evidence of the occluded memory, well, Houston, we have a problem. Or is it, we had a problem? Those who deny that the ME is a genuine phenomenon of a baffling kind, possibly paranormal in origin, had have a problem, because residue is something real and tangible that cannot be dismissed by anyone who values evidence and the proof process. In the current debate on the Mandela effect, you frequently hear the expression, in this reality. For instance, quote, in this reality the place is called the Home Depot, not just Home Depot. Many people remember that name of that business as Home Depot, but in this reality it is not shown that way.
In this reality refers to the objective evidence of the current record, as well as the subjective evidence of those who hold the occluding memories. But, if residue of Home Depot, contrasted to the Home Depot, can be found in some artifactual form such as a photo, film clip, artistic reproduction, electronic file, etc., then such residue also exists in this reality, doesn't it? I would advise that in this reality is not a rigorous term for investigation of the Mandela effect. Likewise for the commonly heard expression, on a different timeline. The group holding the occluding memories and the group holding the occluded memories appear to be operating on different memory lines, not different timelines. If a couple, say Jane and Dave, sat together in the theater for the premiere of Interview with A, the Vampire, they would experience seeing the title at the same moment.
At that moment, the title would read either way, A or The, and they might both see it in the same way. Without discussing it at the moment, they wouldn't know, would they? Later it would be remembered differently by each of them, if the Mandela effect came into play. And to this day, Jane and Dave still live in the present moment, as we all do, existing in the same timeline, but able to experience divergent memory lines. I might add a short impromptu comment here. It might sound like I'm quibbling about terminology and being tendentious. However, let me give you another example. Suppose that you and I go on a picnic and we leave at 8 in the morning and we get back at 8 at night. That's exactly 12 hours from the time we leave the door of the house until we return. And each of us keeps a journal of the day. So we drive to the beach, we walk on the beach, we swim, we don't swim, whatever. And we come back, we return to the house at eight o'clock, and we compare our journals.
Well, it's quite possible that some of the entries in my journal will be different than yours. So, the timeline of the day, if you want to use that expression, that is to say, the written account of events in those twelve hours, hour by hour, would be different. But really it's not a difference of time because we both lived through those 12 hours in the same way. We both live through them at the same time. So the difference is in the memory recorded for the time elapsed. The difference is not in time itself. I would argue that there are not two timelines at play in the Mandela effect. Not two timelines in play. There are two memory lines operating in the same linear time frame. The linear continuity of time is not split by different memories of what happens in the course of time. Time is unity. Remember, that's a line from the film Lucy. There is no rational basis for presuming such a split in time. The split occurs in recollection of events over time, in the recall process operating through time, not in time itself.
Terms in Use: Here is a list of some useful terms for analysis of the Mandela Effect, including some innovations of mine, which are indicated by the asterisk. Please note, these terms are merely suggested, they are not imposed or enforced in any way. Current record, residue. Occlusion, occluding memory, occluded memory. At the current moment, not in this reality. Obviously the ME brings two realities into play at once. Memory lines, not time lines. Remember, time is unity. Time is not a unity, it is unity. Directional signal, defining the ME itself as a signal of decisive importance within the presumed planet-wide awakening of human consciousness at this historical moment. Archontic, the ET or alien parasite factor described at length in Gnostic teachings surviving from antiquity. Supernatural with a capital S as possible cause of the Mandela effect, in other words, there is a supernatural force or entity behind it, might be defined and might be divined as as well, as a divine source working through paranormal effects.
Corrupt files, conventional ideas of the supernatural that need to be cleaned and cleared from your mental disk if you are to fully appreciate the operations of the Mandela Effect. Lucy-Lucifer theme, evident in several cases of the Mandela Effect and it's an example of an encoded set. Cyber-meddling, possible contamination of the ME. PsyQ, spelled either PSIQ or PSYQ, your capacity for detecting how you are conned, duped, psyoped, mind controlled. Entrance exam, test designed to show you the above. Also, pun on entrance, to be entranced, entrained, under a spell. Premium cases of the ME that carry or encode a transcendent message for the human species and can be verified by residue. Propitious, cases of the ME that capture human attention in a way that tends to prepare the mind for receiving the message of the ME. Does the Mandela effect carry a message? Most definitely it does. Obviously, the end result, or the desirable outcome of decoding the effect is to get the message.
Text talk anomaly, evident in those cases where spoken residue preserves the occluded memory and text does not or vice versa. In the introduction, I'm adding this comment, in the introduction we had a chance to look at a text talk anomaly in the Laurel and Hardy comedy scenes where the dialogue is remembered by some people as it's another fine mess you've gotten me into, but today when you watch those clips Ollie says it's another nice mess. However when you go to certain textual evidence which is a contract connected to that property to the Laurel and Hardy comedy skits you find textual evidence preserves the occluded memory, it's another fine mess you've gotten me into. That's the text talk anomaly.
Same thing happens with Interview with a The Vampire. You can hear the people presenting the Academy Award saying Interview with a Vampire, but the text shown on the screen at the very same moment that they're saying that says, Interview with THE Vampire. That's the text, Talk Anomaly. Encoded Set. Well, this is a cluster of messages in the ME that encode a coherent message and exhibit thematic unity. Notation, you see that I proposed a form of notation making it easy to follow the shifts in the Mandela effect. So I propose that you always list the occluded memory first in bold and the occluding memory in capital letters. So you would have another fine, in bold, forward arrow, nice, in caps, mess. You would have interview with a, in bold, vampire. You would have interview with the, in caps, vampire. And you use the forward arrow to indicate that the memory has shifted from the former to the latter. I hope this notation is helpful. I find it simple and useful and elegant.
Gnostic adage, well this is a saying that kind of guides the entire investigation. You know, all the clues in the world and you can fill in the rest. Hermeneutics, the art of guiding or shaping an interpretation toward a clear and successful end. Vector, the guiding effect of the Mandela effect signal, which directs human attention in five distinct ways, as explained in the introduction. Decode prompts, this is an instant of the guiding effect. It's a decode prompt. These are cases of the ME which cue the investigator in how to proceed in decoding it. When you encounter a decode prompt in the phenomena of the Mandela effect, the effect is actually showing you how user-friendly it is. It is prompting you with something that shows you how it works, that shows you how it is approaching you.
The Laurel and Hardy example could be considered as a decode prompt. What the effect is telling you is that you have the choice. You can be thrown into a nice mess by the Mandela effect, or you can be thrown into a fine mess. Now I explain the difference between nice and fine. And there's even a poetic nuance, there's a rhyme, there's a play on words. You can say nice mess, fine mess, fine mess, finess. The word nice, however, refers to ignorance. It refers, it relates to the word, to the Greek, no, the Latin root I believe, nasere, which means to be ignorant or to ignore or miss something. So, if you're in a nice mess with the Mandela effect, you're not getting how it works, you're not getting and receiving what it's there to give you. But if you're in a fine mess, and you have finesse, because you follow the Gnostic method of interpretation, then you have a wonderful result. It really is kind of a thrill and kind of a delight when these decode prompts come up. I'll give you an example of another one that I haven't mentioned till now. Tuck! Obviously I'm improvising here on what you see in the written material.
Now, one of the pre-evident, maybe the top five or ten Mandala effects is from Forrest Gump. It's a line of dialogue when he is sitting there on the bench with a box of chocolates that he offers to a woman sitting to his right. And he says, my mama always said that life is like a box of chocolates. Right? And, well, this effect comes out of the mouth of what, someone that you would call what? What is Forrest Gump? Forrest Gump is a kind of classical fool and he may be regarded as someone who is mentally handicapped. Okay? I don't know what the politically correct terms are. But he's a bit retarded.
And yet, the effect is using this dialogue to say to you, even the most retarded person, even a retarded person, even a slow-witted person, okay, that's a better term. Forrest Gump is a very sweet and sincere and loving creature, he's a slow-witted guy. So in this instance, the Mandela Effect is telling you about itself and it's saying, look, even a slow-witted person can get me. Even a slow-witted person can get what's coming through here, if you catch the nuance. And what is the nuance in that particular example? Well, don't ever forget the second line. There are two lines. One has been shifted in tense by the Mandela effect. Life was like a box of chocolates. Or life is like a box of chocolates. But the second line remains the same, doesn't it?
You never know what you're going to get. But hold on a minute. If life is like a box of chocolates, then you never know what you're going to get. But if it was like a box of chocolates, then it is no longer like a box of chocolates. And that means now the difference is you know what you're going to get. And that nuance is in a way a summation of the entire intention of this phenomenon. Tak. This phenomenon has an intention, and the intention is that you would learn what you're going to get. And the first place that you learn it is by learning what you're getting through the Mandela effect. When you learn that, you will have a new faculty operating in your mind, which is essential to the super-learning event, but also essential to sanity and survival. That new faculty is the ability to read the signals in the world around you and know what you're going to get.
It's a faculty of divination. And I will be talking quite a bit about divination in this investigation. I call divination by the novel term mantique. We'll get back to that subject of mantique before too long. So finally, the last term proposed here is comedic flair. And this term refers to that aspect of the Mandela effect which exhibits and invites comedy, demonstrating wit and humor on the part of the paranormal or supernatural agency causing the effect.
All right, now to conclude, quickly, in about five minutes, I have a list here of fifteen categories of the Mandela effect. This is the breakdown, derived from hundreds of reported cases. Now to my knowledge, the list covers all the various types of instances of the phenomena so far under consideration. If it proves to be incomplete, I will revise it in the course of this investigation. Now I'm calling the first instance of the effect, which is named after Nelson Mandela, as Category X because it stands in a class by itself. It exhibits the marks of an encoded set. What do I mean by that? Well there is a message already encoded in the name Mandela that is essential to the nature and purpose of this phenomenon.
And I just began to elaborate that in talk seven entitled the Mandela effect versus traumatic mind control. So, this case, Category X, is a stand-alone case and it presents an example of other instances of the effect which I will show to be encoded. So, what are the rest of the categories? Just let me run them down and I'll conclude this recording. Category 1, movie and TV dialogue, for instance, Forrest Gump. My mom always said, life is, was, like a box of chocolates. It's a beautiful day in the, this, neighborhood. Category 2, movie book titles, Interview with a, the vampire. 3, song lyrics. Got down on my knees and I began pretend to pray. That's Mamas and the Papas, California Dreamin'. 4, actions, gestures or details changed in films or TV series. For instance, Judge Judy does not bang her gavel, but many people remember her banging her gavel. Very popular reality TV show or something like that, Judge Judy.
Category 5, celebrity name changes. Sally Fields Field, Susan Summer Summers. Category 6, biblical variations. The lion, wolf, shall lie down with the lamb. Thy kingdom come on earth, in the earth, as it is in heaven. Product name changes. Jiffy becomes jiff, including punctuation. Kit-Kat becomes KitKat. It loses the hyphen. Category 8 Name changes of corporations, businesses, and other public bodies. JCPenny, spelled P-E-N-N-Y, becomes JCPENNEY. Smithsonian Institute, in bold, that's the occluded memory, the way I remember it by the way, becomes Smithsonian Institution. Category 9. Logo Icon Emblem Changes. The Volkswagen icon, with the horizontal gap separating the upper V from the lower W, or double V, used to be with no gap, one seamless insignia. The pigtail twist in the bar crossing the F in the Ford emblem wasn't there before in the occluded memory. But in the current record, in the current evidence of the Ford emblem, there is a pigtail twist in the writing.
Category 10, Geographical Changes. Australia shifted north, close to Borneo, when it was previously remembered as more south and separated by a vast sea. No, it is questionable if these changes occur in the actual terrain or merely on the maps of the terrain. That's a big question we'll look at later in the analysis. Category 11 anatomical changes in the human body. Heart squarely in the center of the chest, previously remembered as partially on the left. Liver larger and higher in the torso, and so on. Many more baffling, bizarre anatomical changes are reported. Category 12 weird animals, reptiles, fish and insects, new species not seen before or remembered to have existed or species as they have been remembered are altered, notably for instance the shark. Category 13, astronomical celestial changes. These are changes in the shape and appearance of the moon, positions of stars in the constellations, layout of the Milky Way, and position of the solar system in the galaxy.
Category 14, Anecdotal and personal incidences. For example, previously unknown relative who shows up at a family reunion and some people act as if this relative has always been there in the family and other people don't recognize who this person is. Or, and I really like this one, the husband who never could stand ketchup suddenly, in the current reality as people say, likes it and says he has always liked it and his wife is totally perplexed because she remembers that he always hated it. So there it is. That's the breakdown into 14 categories.
I invite and welcome your responses in the comments section, and if there's anything that I've left out, if there's another category to be added, please inform me in the comments section or else write me at the address provided in the description. So there we go, you have the breakdown of the Mandela Effect. I do appreciate your diligence and patience and determination in joining me on this little adventure, and may your attention be rewarded by the truth.