Decoding the Mandela Effect
A Gnostic Investigation by John Lash
Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?
Magic mirror on the wall, who's the one with true recall?
I discovered the so-called Mandela Effect on June 2016, after having noticed links to it come up with my YT subs for a couple of months. In a matter of days, it became clear to me that this phenomenon was worthy of serious investigation. My conclusion today, eight months later, is yes, it is certainly so. Uniquely so. Indeed, it may be the phenomenon that keys and catalyzes a long-awaited "awakening" on this planet. In a way nothing else can do.
I am of course aware that some voices of the day would insist that a mass collective awakening is well underway, and if that's so, all the better. But I invite you to consider that the Mandela Effect introduces and induces the operation of a unique directional signal within the general event of awakening, adding momentum to it and steering it in a specific direction. To launch this investigation, I must stress the interactive properties of the Effect: the kind of attention you give to it determines what it can produce in your mind and impact in your life. Handled correctly, it can give back in great measure on the interest you devote to it.
Let it be noted, I initially had reservations about giving it my attention at all. As would anyone who retains a couple of grains of sanity, I wondered if the M.E. might be another tiresome psyop propagated through cyberspace. But if so, by whom, and to what end? A friend suggested to me that it might be "archontic gaslighting." By reference to the term archon -- which I introduced on the Internet in 2002 -- he was suggesting a paranormal factor at play in the Effect, and possibly at its source. Are those alien mind-parasites described in gnostic teachings commandeering the internet and manipulating source code to sow confusion, chaos, and division?
As my investigation will show, there is indeed a paranormal factor at work in the Mandela Effect. It is an archontic ruse calculated to drive us mad? The project of demons who play mind games to achieve some sinister agenda? The work of the Devil himself?
I do admit a paranormal factor in the mix here, although against that term I prefer to say the Supernatural. But what is the Supernatural? And why does it merit capitalization like God, Buddha, Allah, and the Virgin Mary? Does it equate in some way with Satan? In the minds of many Christians who take interest in the M.E., Satan is causing the Effect in order to test the faith of true believers and perpetrate the Great Deception. Satanic interference in this manner would certainly be a serious problem for humanity, if Satan actually exists -- but even more so if he doesn't!
In the "Ten-Pack" on mythophrenia, I dedicate considerable text and talk to clearing erroneous and paranoid notions of Satan, Lucifer, the Devil, and various and sundry demonic powers said to prey on human creatures. I emphasize that almost all that has been taught about the Supernatural, believe it or not, is wrong. That being so, it is imperative to clear the human mind of "corrupt files" on Satan and Lucifer, and free up disc space to receive an interpretation that has so far been entirely absent from the debate over the Mandela Effect. I rule out theories of paranormal and Satanic interference on grounds to be considered as this investigation proceeds. The includes also allegations that Lucifer or Luciferian entities may be causing this phenomenon.
Essential to this investigation, I reframe the identity of Lucifer to explain who the "light-bearer" really is. I do so, you might say, prompted by the Effect itself: "Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!" Well, there is some 'splaining to do about Lucy. The Lucy-Lucifer theme is one of the more delightful and, dare I say, liberating messages encoded in the Effect. Hold on, for there are many.
Additional to daunting issues concerning the paranormal and supernatural dimensions of the Mandela Effect, I also questioned if changes in corporate logos, lines of movie dialogue, titles of films, brand names, celebrity names, Biblical passages, lyrics of well-known songs, could be done by technological trickery within the media platforms, principally Google. Are such manipulations of source code physically possible? I suspect that most everyone who takes interest in the M.E. has considered this angle. Picture tens of thousands of hired trolls huddled in the hive-like cubicles of massive Google enclaves around the world, working in close collaboration with three-letter agencies (the usual suspects), pounding the keyboard 24/7 in order to produce bizarre alterations in spelling, such as Berenstein versus Berenstain, and titles, such as Sex in the City versus Sex and the City. You have to wonder who would undertake such a titanic and meticulous project, at what cost, to what end?
I know that many will argue that the Mandela Effect is merely a psyop and dismiss it as such. But if this is so, and the purpose of the psyop is to gaslight the masses, i.e., confuse people and cause them to doubt their judgement -- well, I have to wonder if such a nefarious endeavor would not be overkill. Aren't people confused anough already? And as for doubting their own judgement, aren't the basic faculties of discernment and discrimination so damaged in many, many people already, that further assault could barely achieve further harm?
Theories attributing the Mandela Effect to Satan or to Google trolls share the same assumption that the Effect is devious, harmful, deceptive. In this investigation I have found the contrary to be true: it is a benevolent and uplifting phenomenon, a boon to humanity in crisis, even an aid to sanity, rather than a killing blow. I am currently developing a body of material that shows how the Mandela Effect marks the inception of a superlearning event. The Effect may be regarded as the trial run to set up that event and engage participants. Thus I propose an "entrance exam"as would be required for undertaking a course in higher education.
Discovering the opportunity presented by the M.E., and learning how to take advantage of it, is a fabulous and unique challenge of this moment.
Bear in mind, I do not entirely dismiss the factor of human meddling in the M.E., but I have good grounds to assert that the primary agency producing this phenomenon is non-human and superhuman, an agency of the Supernatural. And I can prove it. At least I intend to try.
Residue and Current Record
My aim in the T & T material (talks and texts) to be released via mythophrenia is to take you through the steps I made to determine how the Effect operates and what causes it. Doing so, I set up my investigation in a completely transparent manner, proceeding in four steps: Breakdown, Analysis, Decoding, Conclusions. You will see that I place great emphasis on how to determine a genuine, verifiable case of the M.E., distinguished from a false, contrived, mistaken, or ambiguous cases. Verification of the phenomenon as a true-life revelation and not a delusion, depends on verification of the genuine cases that can reveal how it works.. ..
My studies show that a small sampling, about 10-15%, of all presumed cases of the Mandela Effect are genuine to the extent that they can be proven to show how the Effect works and even what causes it. Please consider that qualification closely. I do not mean to imply that the vast majority of cases, 85-90%, are not genuine and should be disregarded. Not at all. As I will explain, the premium cases (5-10%) carry a message of universal scope, directing the human mind toward a transcendent perspective of life in this world, while the others in the vast majority have the function of capturing human attention, but not directing it in any specific manner. I call these two kinds of cases, premium and propitious (giving or indicating a good chance of success; favourable). If you notice the propitious cases, you have a good chance of learning to detect the premium ones. More on this crucial distinction as the investigation proceeds.
My selection of valid cases is rigorous, based on criteria which I explain in detail, including strong reliance on residue which stands in contrast to the current record.
Residue is the term for evidence of a case of the Effect as remembered before it was produced: for example, evidence of the name Sally Fields, contrasted to Sally Field. In the current record preserved in various media including print, photography, footage, and virtual resources, you find the name Sally Field. But on a YT clip of a late night interview where she appears as a guest, you clearly hear the host introduce her as Sally Fields. That is residue -- yes, but what kind of residue is it? It is what I will call palimpsestic: referring to a palimpsest, a manuscript or piece of writing material on which later writing has been superimposed on effaced earlier writing.
Consider this: An American actress who appeared on a late night talk show in 1979 was announced as Sally Fields -- residue of her name before the Effect. But today you find this residue in the form of a digital file accessed on YT. That digital file is derived from the original footage in the conversion requiring any number of steps. What you get at the end is evidence of the name before the Effect, residue -- but residue in a palimpsestic artifact consisting of several layers of overwriting or electronic manipulation.
If the Mandela Effect is a psyop conducted by the manipulation of source code in various eletronic media, then it would indeed be possible to modify all records of the name of that actress to be consistent with the shift, making her name to be Sally Field. For insance, the Wikipedia entry on the film Forrest Gump -- which itself presents a hugely discussed Mandela Effect -- lists Sally Field among the credits. That is evidence in the current record, certainly, but it could be planted evidence, inserted by complex manipulations in the source code.
I admit that I do not have the background or training to assess to what extent such manipulations could be accomplished, but I have no doubt it would be extensive, given the state of IT today. Recently, it has come to light that an interview with Julian Assange, alleged to have been made after his disappearance early in October 2016, featured an avataric similacrum of Assange, a celluloid construct in virtual media. Assange was not there at all in the interview. Likewise, a film featuring Heath Ledger, who died before shooting was completed, uses some virtual substitution of CGI in his scenes. The same happened with Oliver Reed in Gladiator, and who can guess how many other examples less widely known.
With such computer-generated technology at hand, it would certainly be possible to produce a wide range of Mandela Effects, and, consequently, it would be justified to dismiss these effects as mere trickery. I would all that explanation the easy way out of facing what is really happening with the M.E. It leaves some legitimate questions unanswered. For instance, why leave residue that can be found on the Internet, in virtual or electronic media?
Fine or Nice
Now, clearly, I am setting myself up for quite a challenge here: to explain how a supernatural agency can signal to humanity through electronic media. Doing so, I look closely at the reports or discovery of cases of the Effect, which occur in two classes. M.E. phenomena are primarily announced on the internet, virtually, but they do occur in real life independent of the virtual zone, materially. For instance, someone had to actually notice that Home Depot shifted to The Home Depot. They detected the change in the real world, upon driving into a shopping mall or on some other occasion when they were physically present to the change produced by the Effect.
The change of the name of an establishment or business, or a change in the logo associated with it, is material. As soon as that change is reported on the Internet, it becomes virtual. This distinction is crucial to this investigation.
It is crucial to observe the material change, contrasted to virtual reports of the material change, or the virtual report of a virtual change. Sorting out these distinctions case by case can be quite a demanding task, presenting a test of sobriety or even of sanity. Taking on that task, I am fully aware of its inherent difficulties. The nuances and complications of a sober and rigorous study of the Mandela Effect are truly daunting. At times, deconstruction and analysis of the phenomenon risks the plunge into a clusterfuck.
I admit that at moments in my studies, sensing my head go a little fuzzy, I have been tempted to turn to the mysterious "Source" of the Effect and protest: "Well, that's another fine mess you've gotten me into." Or is it another "nice mess?"
What's the difference? I would say that decoding the Mandela Effect is a fine mess (original dialogue from Laurel and Hardy, as some remember it), rather than a nice mess (dialogue changed by the M.E., now evidenced in the current record). Why? Because a fine mess requires finesse. It may even demand poetic flair. A fine-mess demands fine-ness of discernment, careful scrutiny, and mental poise. But a "nice mess" is beyond remedy, a matter of ignorance and obtusity. The word nice derives from the Latin nescius, "ignorant, unaware." It is a contraction of the compound ne- "not" or "un-" + and scire "to know" -- literally "not-knowing." To be nice is to be nescient, defined as "lacking in knowledge or awareness." (Oddly, one hardly ever hears the word nescient in conversation, or sees it in print.)
In the case of the Laurel and Hardy line, the palimpsest of virtual evidence found in video clips on the Internet does not show the overwritten version, a fine mess. At least, not as far as I know. However, diligent investigation turns up printed residue in the form of a US Patent request filed in 1993 to register "ANOTHER FINE MESS" for release on T-shirts.
As far as I know, the versions of L & H skits you can find replicated in video format on line all present the altered line, a nice mess. But this evidence in the current record is totally virtual, preserved in the IT medium. The YT replication of the original episode titled "Another Fine Mess" has Ollie say (at 5:49) "another nice mess" even though the opening credits do not present that phrase, but the other one. The audio of the clip contradicts what is written in its title. But surely, couldn't Google trolls with the technology to change the audio, putting different words in Ollie's mouth, also photoshop the text of the opening credits?
NOTE: I do not imply that the M.E. is largely due to digital manipulation or some inconceivably baroque form of IT trickery. Not at all. But I advise caution on those instances where it may be falsified in this manner.
Both the opening credits in virtual replication of the original celluloid, and the typed content of the US patent request present solid residue to show that a Mandela Effect has occured. But this evidence is also virtual, palimpsestic. Raw material evidence of the highest premium value would have to be found in the celluloid footage of the day, the 1930s. For instance, if a reel turned up in a trunk in someone's attic. Play that reel and hear Ollie say, "another fine mess" and you would have evidence of the original dialogue. And a pretty good case for claiming manipulation of the virtual media, contrasted to the celluloid original which was no altered.
Making sense, folks? I trust so. But hold on and consider this. Play that reel and hear Ollie say, "another nice mess", and you would have something else altogether. Wow. You would have material proof of change produced by the Mandela Effect in the original medium. Such proofs have been found, in the case of the Ford Logo, for instance. To name one of dozens.
All the Clues in the World
The case of a fine mess turning into a nice mess -- perhaps depending on the kind of attention given to it, as suggested above -- is pretty clear-cut. But as often happens with the Mandela Effect, proof in one case raises doubt in another and the ambiguities multiply. Consider the many instances of brand names -- JIFFY turned into JIF, KIT-KAT without the hyphen, Depend rather than Depends -- demonstrated by endless examples in the current record. These cases are restricted to virtual evidence until material evidence can be offered: an actual jar of JIFFY, for example. Or a candy bar wrapping with the hyphen (as I remember it).
If there is irrefutable proof that a supernatural agency capable of effecting material change does operate in the Mandela Effect, how can you verify it? Depends. You need to assess the evidence, both material and virtual, with gnostic finesse, bearing in mind an adage:
Cueing and Clueing
I don't intend to drag out this introduction to undue length by covering the various operative definitions and categories I have worked out in this investigation. All that you can find in the exposition itself, stage by stage, starting with the Breakdown (coming next).
However, I think a proper introduction requires an orientation to the subject matter based on a clear definition of purpose. That way, we can be on the same page going in. Do you really want to know what causes the Mandela Effect, and how it works? If so, I will assume that you really mean to learn its purpose. To that end, an initial working definition of purpose can serve as a hermeneutic device:
Here in shorthand I indicate some vectors of orientation to be developed throughout this investigation. Take note that the Mandela Effect propagates simultaneously across different zones of human interest: the universal, the social, the personal. Additionally, the Effect can be shown to contain the cues and clues that lead to decoding it. It is like a encrypted message that contains some select lines of code telling you how to crack the encryption. In some cues and clues, the M.E. points to itself. This astonishing feature of the Effect is vividly evident in the Forrest Gump signal: "Life is > WAS like a box of chocolates."
The Source of the Effect depends on being detected. To that end, it inserts decode prompts in the signals it is transmitting into the human mind field. This phenomenon is highly interactive. It needs investigators who can, first of all, recognize that it is the Source, and then, decode the signals in a way that people in the world at large can comprehend and enjoy, given the scope of their faculties.
The challenge of decoding the Mandela Effect does demand a certain IQ level. Or better said, a PSYQ level, as explained in the Entrance Exam. What is your PSYQ? You need to test for it before proceeding with this investigation as a investigator, a sleuth of the Supernatural. But anyone who takes genuine interest in the phenomenon can enjoy the process of investigation, regardless of how they do in the Exam. (Which is not scored, anyway, as I explain.)
Enjoyment is a huge factor in learning about the Mandela Effect. You might have noted that the two examples I cited in this introduction derive from the genre of comedy: I Love Lucy and Laurel and Hardy. In Wicked Wit I describe the component of comic relief in the Mandela Effect.
Finally, to give passing notice to a couple of essential topics I have not broached in this introduction: CERN and changes in Biblical scripture. Be assured I will cover them in considerable depth as the investigation unfolds.
So let the decoding begin! Out of several hundred alleged cases, I select a data sampling which I then subject to analysis to determine if and how each incidence may be encoded with a message of some kind. By following my method, you can draw your own conclusions about the veracity of the proof-process I have developed out in the open, right before your eyes. I do not seek to impose my view of this phenomenon on anyone, nor do I even wish to persuade anyone of the validity of my approach and its results. The veracity of this investigation has to stand on its own terms.
May your attention be rewarded by the truth.
J:L:L February 2016
Material by John Lash and Lydia Dzumardjin: Copyright 2002 - 2017 by John Lash.