Dr. John Alexander, Warrior Monk — Reality Denied |373|

A lot of researchers say the "metal space ships" didn't manifest as UFO's until after people came up with the idea. It didn't really exist before the late 1800's when such things began being written about in SciFi novels.

Demons could be pretending to be what people want them to be. If they showed with pitchforks and puking everywhere like in The Exorcist, people would avoid them.
I think that those things were wildly less reported back then due to a lack of spread of information. Ancient Alien theorists seem to come up with a lot of ancient references of what look like those type of craft (supposedly), but I don't know enough to comment further on any of that or much of this. As far people avoiding them, the abduction cases really seem pretty clear, they are going to happen irregardless of any desire on the part of the human. The term abduction itself implies a taking of against the will. And even if appearing a certain way does draw people towards them, whats with all the medical experimentation, collecting sperm and eggs, and taking them on a craft, what sense does that make? And why do some report intense love? That's not demonic at all. In fact, that is extraordinarily anti-demonic. But it could be a spiritually advanced being, as love seems to be an underlying truth of spiritual existence.

Have you listened to many of the best attested and credible seeming abduction cases? I don't know how you could listen to those and think that its a demonic phenomenon. In studying demonology I got a pretty good sense of the way they behave, the tricks they play, their motives etc. Of course Im not stupid to the point that I think I even come close to fully understanding them. But its such a strange leap to superimpose what we know about the UFO phenomenon with what we know about demonic phenomenon. With those sources that you've mentioned etc, what sort of motive do they purport the demons have in doing this?
 
I wonder how he rationalizes this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

List of ethnic groups in the United States by household income
...
By ancestry

Indian American : $101,390[2]
Jewish American : $97,500[3]
Taiwanese American : $85,566[4]
Filipino American : $82,389[4]
Australian American : $81,452[2]
Israeli American : $79,736[2]
European American : $77,440[2]​

I.Q. correlates very strongly with economic success.

Jews and East Asians have a higher I.Q. than White Americans. Plus, they tend to be more highly motivated to achieve financial success than the average White Person in America.

The down-side is that siphoning off motivated, high I.Q. entrepreneurs from places like India and the Philippines harms those countries.
 
I can see this discussion heading into territory no one will be happy about. Wars are started by complex factors that mostly involve the less than noble human motivations - and are exploited by folk who see opportunity for profit. Its a predatory mentality that has a psychopathic edge to it. Wars can be fought only so long as people are prepared to fight and to believe what their leaders tell them. Courageous innocents are a gift to puppet masters. Modern wars are fought to 'protect national interests' and that includes a nation's corporations having interests in sovereign countries, and these interests being considered vital to economic wellbeing. The extent to which this a case of public funds and lives being used in service of private interests is a complicated matter because our economies are so interlinked that the future of jobs of citizens who think they are remote from the moral complexities of international trade and politics can still be determined by events that may even be repugnant to them.

The willingness to go to war seems to be the province of a certain kind of masculinity. Most of us would avoid armed conflict. But these 'types' seem to crave it. Those who climb to the top of the various arms of the military do not do so with the aim of preventing conflict, but ensuring that conflict is conducted well. It is always the first, not the last, option (despite PR spin BS to the contrary). These people are not warrior monks, but more like warrior evangelists.

I am not being critical or disrespectful here, but the USA is armed to the teeth and spends more on its military than the next 5 top spending countries combined (an oft recited assertion). That's a dedication to 'defence' that is beyond what seems to be any reasonable perception of necessity. Could the actual risk or threat really justify that? Or is it that the USA has not stepped down from the war footing of WW2, and now has an economy so dependent upon warfare that efforts to curtail military spending are blocked because the economic consequences can be devastating. With the loss of so much industry it could be that military spending keeps internal peace because it sustains so many communities. And the trouble is with so much firepower using it is necessary to maintain the rationale for keeping it. It is claimed that the USA has over 800 military bases in 70 odd countries. That's a hell of a lot of national interest that is being protected.Its all so a hell of a lot of business that would die if the bases were closed.

I live in a compliant client state to the USA. You whistle and our government pricks its ears up and gets ready to do what master bids. Who do you want us to invade next boss? Our military went into Iraq despite massive popular objection. So much for democracy here. The government said it assessed our collective interests in a superior way, and declined to explain. Our interests as moral citizens were not represented. We were lied to and manipulated. The government turned opposition to the war into a failure to support the troops as people. The Vietnam guilt trip was used. Traumatised vets came home to no parades. But the government did that, because of the anti war protests. Suddenly that moral stand became abuse of soldiers.

When government proclaim a war to be just and moral and others disagree that is a real problem for warfighters who obey directives to engage in conflict. Are they judged because of the military requirements to obey orders or does the Nuremberg principle apply to us as well as Nazis - following orders is not a defence. But not in the USA, the UK or Australia is a member of the serving military permitted a personal assessment of the morality of a conflict. And neither is a national government held accountable when a conflict it approved engaging in is later demonstrated to have been immoral and unjust. The doctrine of just war is not popular now because probably no war post WW2 involving the USA, the UK or Australia could be defended using just war principles.

The ideal of the warrior monks has been distorted to make them holy warriors. The necessity of war shifts, then, from defence of the innocent in the face of unreasonable intransigence to obedience to authority which declares a war necessary. The warrior monk is the absolute determinator of the necessity to engage in conflict. The holy warrior obeys sultan or pope or president.

John Alexander operated, in the first instance, inside a military culture. A warrior who became a monk is not the same thing as a warrior monk. That is to the extent to which Alexander might be thought a monk - which is, really, not at all. Ergo he is not a warrior monk.

In this day and age military service is very different to any time in the past. Warfighters are expected to be more complex individuals in many respects. But they are expected to buy the logic of the now corporatised state as the supreme moral ground for conflict. That requires a sophisticated propaganda that is vulnerable to failure as never before. I watched a recent ad for the Australian military. A very attractive lifestyle, but it avoided having your leg blown off and the prospect of invading people (who have done you no harm) because they have resources your economy needs. In the past a colonial mentality made short work of any such moral complexities. Heathens and savages do not have a moral right superior to God's chosen.

Our world is now different and we can chose, individually and collectively to abandon armed conflict as a means of addressing problems - while being willing to engage in conflict with those who would refuse to be amenable to peaceful solutions. How likely is that? If the psychopaths are removed from both sides and people of good will and gentle dispositions replaced them conflict would be rare.

If we understand that there are people who are inherently disposed to violent conflict we could keep them out the military, bars and sporting events. For the vast majority of us, violent conflict is not okay, and its absence should be the norm. The warrior monk is the antidote to the violently disposed - an extreme expression of sacred violence countering outbursts of unreasonable violence. But you can't have a warrior monk in a warrior culture.He has to be an exception.

As an outsider and from a distance it does seem to me that the USA seeks to normalise unreasonable violence. This from The Guardian newspaper, which is UK based but has a US publication (and Australian) "Data from the Gun Violence Archive reveals there is a mass shooting, defined as four or more people shot in one incident, not including the shooter, nine out of every 10 days on average." That's 1,624 victims of a mass shooting in the past 1,870 days.

That's violence being normalised. I infer a connection between USA spending on the military, the 800 bases worldwide and the astonishing rate of 'mass shootings'. I could well be wrong. But I don't think a valid notion of the warrior monk can be construed in such a culture.

Please don't take this as me kicking USA culture. I am not doing that. You have a problem with guns and I just don't think you can compartmentalise it into particular aspects divorced from the whole. You are armed to the teeth as a national military and you are armed to the teeth as citizens. Your idea of a warrior monk and mine is necessarily very different, because we are exposed to very different levels of violence in a cultural context. For example I much prefer UK crime dramas because almost nobody runs around with sidearms drawn. In the US there is a shootout. In the UK its a debate.In the US the jeopardy is life threatening. In the UK the jeopardy is loss of intellectual credibility as a crime solver.

The idea or ideal of a warrior monk must arise from the cultural influences. Our ideas seem to be very different.
 
..whats with all the medical experimentation, collecting sperm and eggs, and taking them on a craft, what sense does that make? And why do some report intense love?

I was a Red Ice Radio financial supporter for 10 years back when it was a spooky paranormal show.

I have listened to all 156 of these two-hour episodes regarding Aliens, and deeply researched scores of Abductees over the years.

https://redice.tv/search/red-ice-radio?s=alien&o=16

In my years of research I found that roughly 70% of Abductees are fraudsters and opportunists of varying degrees. Many are blatant scam artists like Stan Romanek. Most are people who had some spooky experience, and then spun it up in to a nice little small business like Freeman Fly (whom I like) or Stephen Greer (whom I don't).

Another 20% of Abductees are genuinely mentally ill people who enjoy the compassion, acceptance, and attention the UFOlogy community provides them.

That last 10% could be Angels, Inter-Dimensional Entities, Demons, or Space Creatures. That's where I focus my research now. Anomalies are always more interesting than the Norm.

> ...why do some report intense love? That's not demonic at all. In fact, that is extraordinarily anti-demonic.

I disagree. Remember that in the Garden of Eden the Nachash was such a beautiful Light-Being that he convinced Eve to have sex with him, and got her pregnant.

If you were a malevolent entity intent on deceiving humans, would you present yourself to them as the Being on the left in the image below, or the Being on the right?

LeblzHJ.jpg
 
I.Q. correlates very strongly with economic success.

Jews and East Asians have a higher I.Q. than White Americans. Plus, they tend to be more highly motivated to achieve financial success than the average White Person in America.

The down-side is that siphoning off motivated, high I.Q. entrepreneurs from places like India and the Philippines harms those countries.

Wow! Here's an Australian immigrant perspective. People from 'difficult' backgrounds tend to have a higher sense of personal discipline. Hard work and sacrifice as as element of family culture will drive children to achieve at school. Add to this the imagination that a Western country offers opportunity to succeed on merit and you will find that some immigrants (Indian and Vietnamese especially here) out perform the 'white' population academically on a routine basis. It is not an IQ factor so much as a family discipline one. The fact that Indian and Vietnamese students disproportionately occupy the highest rankings has less to do with natural born IQ and more to do with nurture, and especially family and community expectations and imposed disciplines. That success rate backs off with succeeding generations as the normal culture's 'slackness' infects the new generations who now want to be 'normal'.
 
The extent to which this a case of public funds and lives being used in service of private interests is a complicated matter because our economies are so interlinked

It's really not. All wars are nothing more than factions of elite Bankers fighting each other for control of acreage.

The fact that they use the media corporations they own (Hollywood / ABCNNBCBS) and government-run schools to deceive the common man with propaganda into dying for their financial plays is despicable.

A critical part of that deception is the absurd idea we've seen in this thread that "Some Wars Are Good & Necessary".

That is Vile, Evil BULL-S**T

Don't fall for it. Educate yourself out of it.
 
immigrants (Indian and Vietnamese especially here) out perform the 'white' population academically on a routine basis. It is not an IQ factor so much as a family discipline one.

It's a combination of both Intelligence and Motivation.

Houston, Texas where I live has the largest Vietnamese population in the world outside Vietnam.

I went to school with Vietnamese kids. Their self-discipline and motivation to get rich is incredible.

I sat at their dinner tables and listened to stories by their parents about watching people being machine-gunned into pits by Communists before escaping Vietnam and Cambodia. Such a family culture is HIGHLY motivating. They despise being dependent on any government because of this.

White people in America lost that. Our great-grandparents had those stories of persecution and struggle in foreign lands. Our young generation does not. They are lazy, self-indulgent, and apathetic because of it.

Vietnamese have their own Ethno-State inside Houston, Little Saigon...

6a00d8341ef22f53ef015433380aa7970c.jpg
 
Last edited:
I was a Red Ice Radio financial supporter for 10 years back when it was a spooky paranormal show.

I have listened to all 156 of these two-hour episodes regarding Aliens, and deeply researched scores of Abductees over the years.


In my years of research I found that roughly 70% of Abductees are fraudsters and opportunists of varying degrees. Many are blatant scam artists like Stan Romanek. Most are people who had some spooky experience, and then spun it up in to a nice little small business like Freeman Fly (whom I like) or Stephen Greer (whom I don't).

Another 20% of Abductees are genuinely mentally ill people who enjoy the compassion, acceptance, and attention the UFOlogy community provides them.

That last 10% could be Angels, Inter-Dimensional Entities, Demons, or Space Creatures. That's where I focus my research now. Anomalies are always more interesting than the Norm.

> ...why do some report intense love? That's not demonic at all. In fact, that is extraordinarily anti-demonic.

I disagree. Remember that in the Garden of Eden the Nachash was such a beautiful Light-Being that he convinced Eve to have sex with him, and got her pregnant.

If you were a malevolent entity intent on deceiving humans, would you present yourself to them as the Being on the left in the image below, or the Being on the right?

LeblzHJ.jpg

I’ll have to wildly disagree with your statistics. The best attested cases from what I can tell seem to be of people of very sound mind and credibility. Benny hill, the Randelshem case, that lumberjack guy etc. Appreciate the conversation though.


https://m.youtube.com/results?q=rendelson forest incident&sm=1




I don’t know about all the fraudsters but as far as I can tell all the best attested and seemingly credible cases seem to support real ET. I’m not particularly moved by the garden story since during typical demonic infestation accounts, Love doesn’t ever come up.

I think you want to downplay the nuts and bolts aspect because you probably realize that it doesn’t fit your theory well. But the amount of credible seeming cases supporting this view are very large. I haven’t looked up as many cases as you, but when I do find one, and it seems credible, there’s a strong nuts and bolts implication.

Kind of strange play and charade for demons to put on. Doesn’t really make sense. But again, I’m trying to remain open, even though I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
I've never heard of the sex-with-the-serpent thing before. It's not in Genesis.

It's in Genesis 3. Go here and you can see which Translations try to hide it, and which do not...

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3

It's the reason the Old Testament is so nutty about listing lineages to prove that Noah and Jesus were not contaminated.

It's the reason Yahweh commanded Israelites to brutally exterminate every nation of Nephilim giants they could find. Even their livestock had to be killed and burned due to possible proliferation of genetic tampering.

The Gnostic Gospels go into a lot more detail about it.
 
It's in Genesis 3. Go here and you can see which Translations try to hide it, and which do not...

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3

No, dude. I'm not going to play your standard game of "provide a vague reference when challenged on an unusual claim and expect the challenger to dig around for the claim's support". You made the claim, you back it up with a relevant, direct quote from any translation(s) that you think support it. Otherwise, quit making claims that you can't support.

The Gnostic Gospels go into a lot more detail about it.

Same deal, dude. Provide a referenced quote. I'm not going to do your work for you.
 
Yea what happened to Red Ice, I use to be to visit the site often 10 years or more ago and recently went back and realized it changed in to a right wing site?
 
It's really not. All wars are nothing more than factions of elite Bankers fighting each other for control of acreage.

The fact that they use the media corporations they own (Hollywood / ABCNNBCBS) and government-run schools to deceive the common man with propaganda into dying for their financial plays is despicable.

A critical part of that deception is the absurd idea we've seen in this thread that "Some Wars Are Good & Necessary".

That is Vile, Evil BULL-S**T

Don't fall for it. Educate yourself out of it.

I hesitate to distract from the fascinating rabbit hole that has opened up since Charlie's post but I can't let his comment pass.

I grew up with a meme that said "What if they held a war and nobody came?" Bankers can't get fat on conflict if nobody shows up to fight. In WW1 good, decent and brave men left jobs and lives to engage in a conflict because they believed they were acting in the service of their nation, and that they had to place their lives in peril so that their families and communities would be safe. But even on the battlefield those who risked so much by being there were often unable to shoot to kill.

Wars are possible, pending the arrival of robots, only because men of honour are persuaded that armed conflict is necessary, and they do that because they trust and believe those who govern them. Some men and women of honour freely elect to be warriors, and they are mostly motivated by noble ideals - defending their nation and defending 'freedom'.

Wars are possible only because men and women agree to engage in armed conflict freely. The fact that their honour and courage and willingness to sacrifice life and limb (literally) is abused and manipulated by venal politicians and vile profiteers is another matter entirely. If our supposedly 'free; nations gave our warfighters the option of choosing what conflict to engage in things might be different. If our military recruiting strategies actually told the truth, maybe things would be different. But the military functions on 'unthinking obedience' - not just in the conflict arena, where it is essential, but also in the culture that makes the desire to make a moral assessment an offence. Our nations think they have the right to conscript people into the military and then engage in armed conflict without any capacity for the conscripts to assess the moral virtue of the conflict.

Being a conscientious objector is considered the equal of cowardice. That ain't liberty. I have been paying more attention to the passions of the alt right. I see a fierce determination to retain personal liberty and a desire to be free of government manipulation. I admire that. I am just as passionate about the same thing. I just don't feel a burning need to have a gun to back that up. Mind you, if the situation became actually so dangerous I felt the need to be armed I would not hesitate. I am no stranger to guns. I have actually held off three attackers who I persuaded I shoot if they moved toward me. I would have, with neither hesitation nor regret. I think they understood that, because they left, passions unfulfilled.

My passion to protect liberty is via authentic goodwill. That has been very successful so far. I acknowledge that the need to engage in armed conflict can arise, but it must be the last resort. That, as I understand it, is the warrior monk's way. We have a collective inadequate reluctance to engage in armed conflict, and that means we are always vulnerable to predation upon our virtues and values. That is what has to change, because that is what makes needless wars possible.

In the late 1970s I worked for a time in the Department of Veterans Affairs. I was involved in providing care and support for veterans from WW1 to Vietnam. I got to know the service and medical files of many in great detail. I came to have immense respect for 'ordinary' men who went to war with no conception of what was to come, who came back traumatised and transformed - often from loving husbands and fathers into crazy abusers and freaked out guys who still tried to hold down jobs and be good men in their families and communities. The human cost paid for political and economic games is unacceptable. Such suffering must be incurred as a sacrifice only for authentic reasons.

Now back to the other stuff.
 
what happened to Red Ice
A couple of years ago Henrik and Lana changed it from a spooky paranormal podcast to an AltRight podcast.

I like AltRight podcasts, but I quit listening to Red Ice because they now mainly focus on European Identitarians.

I just don't have time to keep up with the entire world. The USA has enough news to contend with.

Their archives still contain an amazing amount of great content on spirituality, aliens, weird science, cryptids, A.I., theology, and conspiracies.

https://redice.tv/red-ice-radio
 
Last edited:
I've never heard of the sex-with-the-serpent thing before. It's not in Genesis. From where are you getting it?

Love it! Like Laird I have not heard of this before. There are so many fanciful variations on Eden it is a pity none of them are literally true. The sex with serpent line is the most entertaining yet.

The dull reality is that the early chapters of Genesis seem to be a kind of Reader's Digest summation of a variety of origin myths, probably mostly Babylonian, with a hint of Sumerian and Egyptian. Like the flood story, the earliest Tree of Knowledge story seems to be Sumerian. There is a tree that has a serpent guardian (the spelling of whose name I can't immediately recall so I won't embarrass myself by having a go).

We have the option of taking Genesis and going back to the earlier sources to discover the depth of meaning that was originally intended, or entertaining later embellishments. I prefer going back to the source, because the later (and more entertaining) embellishments tend to serve a predetermined moral or dogmatic purpose.
 
Back
Top