I'll preface this request by stating that I feel the Desdemona Code and much of Kealey's work has no real foundation. I'm also Winston Smith on the Outlaw Forum where after an initial period loving Kealey's work from a creative point of view I see his work (whether it's Kealey's intention or not) as another body of "research" from a long line of profiteers, con men, disinformation artists, fear mongers that I regard as the vanguard of the speciously termed "truth movement." Such as Alex Jones, David Icke, Jordan Maxwell, Michael Tsarion, Alan Watt, Eric Jon Phelps, etc. They all tell varying degrees of truth, but they selling half truths and lies and often enough engendering cult devotion.
I include this preamble so as any potential posters who reply know where I'm coming from.
The following questions come from a post I made on the Outlaw Forum on this subject. The post URL is here:
Kealey Desdemona Code questions
I was a tad aggressive in that post as a result of my feelings on con artists, so I've removed the more spiky comments in this post. But the sentiment remains.
Basically, you say, Kealey has cracked the absolutely essential Desdemona Code which is integral to deciphering the artificial, constructed reality made by the "Jubal Troglodyte Freemasons" that imprisons us all. The code is a type of divination method that can predict future events (in a sense) because these Troglodytes have encoded their plans into the "code."
Therefore in your conspiratorial worldview it is an absolute imperative to understand as quickly as possible what is going on because your continued survival, and the survival of the human race, depends upon it.
In that case, what events has Kealey successfully predicted? With links to them please.
And if this "code" is so important, in the ultimate life or death sense, why does he not get as many of you guys (his true believers) up to his farm to get you up to speed as much as possible on it? If it's that important?
But I forget, it took Kealey twenty years to get to grips with it, and he doesn't have the time to teach others. Hmmm....
But why doesn't he give you all the relevant bibliographies to research it? I've read people saying that he doesn't. Strange since it's so important...
I have deja vu, this all sounds very familiar. Who else has said recently they have all the old books but was quite reticent to give out the names of the most important? And chased people down who published his "official" book lists to boot? Whilst we are all in a life or death scenario?
Also, any logical form or process such as the laying out of a deciphered code can be taught once it's cracked. And if he won't lay out the deciphered code for all of you why doesn't he just put the stuff he decodes into plain, simple English for everyone to understand? Or "overstand"?
There was one instance of poster on Outlaw who gave me this partial positive response on Keleay's supposed successful prediction of an event, the flooding of New Orleans. I disagreed. My response to that was this:
Lots of Hurricanes come through the Florida Hurricane Alley. Hence the name. The big ones had really been building since 2004. Doesn't take Nostradamus to follow a severely obvious trend.
And Nostradamus' crytic prophecies were easier to decipher than the majority of Kelaey's too. But they are similar in that they are both bullshit.
The Katrina Hurricane hit in August 2005, but as I said the increased hurricane activity was well studied and published. And then saying that the flooding of New Orleans would occur was not so much prediction as an extreme likelihood. The city was an accident waiting to happen.
Since there are many "Kealeyites" here I wanted to try and enter into a dialogue about this code, though I remain highly sceptical. When Kealey's work was first presented on Outlaw it was obvious how much Alan Watt had ripped from this guy, and his work held a strong fascination. But after going into it in a reasonable depth various problems presented themselves which I have mostly listed above.
However, in the interest in trying to keep an open mind, inspired by the following quote I read for the first time the other day from Friedrich Nietzsche, I would like to try and gain some understanding of the way those who invest trust in the concept of the Desdemona Code see it:
"The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it."
The best I can apply Kealey's code is too see it as a system grasped instinctually and is not logical. It works through association, inference, mirroring, etc. But then this seems at odds with a code that he says he could logically instruct people in but does not have the time.