Mitch Horowitz, Who Inspires You Satan or Jesus? |508|

My question which I'm posing here (I guess on behalf of Christianity) is Did the "Christ Consciousness"-Unconditional-Positive-Regard spiritual component exist within Men on Earth before Jesus lived?

Great question... then again, maybe I'm interpreting it differently than you are.

to me, it's obvious that the love and divinity you're talkin about is fundamental to consciousness. my bet is that it is just what everyone has always said... timeless... eternal... limitless... omnipresent.
 
Great question... then again, maybe I'm interpreting it differently than you are.

to me, it's obvious that the love and divinity you're talkin about is fundamental to consciousness. my bet is that it is just what everyone has always said... timeless... eternal... limitless... omnipresent.
You're interpreting it perfectly.
To clarify my angle, let's use Whitley Strieber as an example. He's said that his wife remains with him and works with him ever since she died. That said, we have no reason to assume that connection/source existed before Whitley ever met his wife..
The Christ Consciousness example would be a Humanity-Wide version of the same effect.
So to circle back to the question, Are modern people just assigning the label Christ Consciousness to something has always been with humanity? or was it truly something that originated from the Christ figure (regardless of the story lines tacked on after the "fact")?
 
This excellent retort can be used to bring us to what might be better question about the veracity of Christianity than the best one currently being asked most often.

The best/simplest explanation of Christ Consciousness I can give would be: THE spirit of Unconditional Positive Regard existing on Earth.

Currently, people ask Was Christ a real person or not, God or not, Resurrected or not?, which seem to remain a dead end until we invent a time machine.
Perhaps a better question is "Did Christ Consciousness exist on earth before the time of Jesus?" According to Christianity, Jesus' spirit (Christ Consciousness) came to Earth when he was baptized and remained here after he died.
I think this gets to the issue a lot better.

One of Alex's main points especially in the Josephus debates is:
William Ramsey, Lawyering Christianity |497|
"The part of that history that I don’t understand that Christians don’t get is that we’re all living, rich, complicated, spiritual lives. And they show up all over the place for Damien Echols from West Memphis three. We don’t know what his deal is but we know he has a rich spiritual life and he’s trying to connect with Alistair Crowley and demons and this and that, but he probably is also waking up at two o’clock in the morning going, Oh my God you know, what does this do to my soul?"

My question which I'm posing here (I guess on behalf of Christianity) is Did the "Christ Consciousness"-Unconditional-Positive-Regard spiritual component exist within Men on Earth before Jesus lived?

These are all excellent points. I am happy to be on this dig with you. Let's address this, first:

"The best/simplest explanation of Christ Consciousness I can give would be: THE spirit of Unconditional Positive Regard existing on Earth."

Was Jesus truly a guy that had "unconditional positive regard," or was he tapping into "The Spirit" of unconditional, positive regard? The first point makes him unlike any of us, the second point means that any of us can become like him.

Segue into your other point: "Currently, people ask Was Christ a real person or not, God or not, Resurrected or not?, which seem to remain a dead end until we invent a time machine. Perhaps a better question is 'Did Christ Consciousness exist on earth before the time of Jesus? According to Christianity, Jesus' spirit (Christ Consciousness) came to Earth when he was baptized and remained here after he died. I think this gets to the issue a lot better."

I don't understand this, because we are made to believe that Jesus' "Christ Consciousness" came about when he was baptized, yet he was supposedly the son of a virgin, impregnated by God, at the same time? First of all, isn't this a kind of idolatry by God? This sounds more and more like the actions of government, and less and less like the actions of an all powerful, loving creator. In effect, it is a God that says, "Yeah, that is your wife, but I created everything, so I will take a piece of that action when I want it."

Also, shouldn't this mean "no baptism necessary"?!? Why would there be no "Christ Consciousness" before him? Does God need to create a world populated by complete assholes for a huge period of time, then suddenly introduce the non-asshole at the last hour? - Only to have the non-asshole killed off, for a few more thousand years of total assholes ruling the world? Also, you have to call yourself a sinning asshole and belief that people killed this perfect guy to save your eternal soul? Add whatever you want: churches bent on collecting money, priests fucking boys, dickheads like Antone LeVay profiting off of this fear mongering, kids being told to ruin their weekend with church on Sunday after 5 other days a week in a government institution, etc. Man, I don't have to know anything about Josephus to see this as a total psyop.

I don't think that Alex is right about everybody living rich, complicated, spiritual lives. Certainly, he does, and many of the people on this forum do! I think that having that perspective is a positive one that makes other human beings tolerable, no matter how deplorable they are, but it is not true. I think that the great majority of people lead selfish, petty, mask wearing lives. When these type of people come into leadership positions, usually inherited, they create this lie that all was achieved by things like "ruthless aggression"(Trump, Vince McMahon, etc.). In reality, they are psychopaths, and they love getting other psychopaths to play "king of the hill" as they stand back and watch. The funniest thing about this charade is that these rich idiots are spoiled, rotten kids that love to surround themselves with psychopaths that destroy the world. I think it is inner ineptitude that they feel, but it has been sublimated to the point of compulsive tyranny.

Did "Christ Consciousness" exist before Jesus lived? I think so, and I don't think you have to be a Christian to see this. I believe that any of us, at any point of time, has the capacity to be a kind, loving person, no matter what our religion is. Otherwise, we have to believe that a God, who created the rich myriad of existence, is solely focused on us forcing all our consciousness into one section of the world to understand Him. I think this is just as bad as believing all of us to be biological robots in a meaningless universe.
 
yeah, but this appears to be our best estimation/explanation of reality/non-reality:



Dr. Doug Matzke, Is AI Evil? |520| - Skeptiko

Riz Virk, Computer Science Eats Science |524| - Skeptiko

we are not conscious we are in consciousness -- bernardo kastrup

Hey brother, I listen to all your shows as soon as they are released, and I have heard both the above. First off, love all your work! I agree with most of it, but that isn't the important point. It is your fearless method of inquiry that inspires me: inquiry to perpetuate doubt. I love it when you fearlessly question guests on your show! I want to put my spin on that Skeptiko oath, and it is the same as you with a little fun twist: inquiry to facilitate certainty. I don't think that life will ever allow us to be absolutely certain, but the process of striving to achieve certainty is what forges greatness.

My problem with this idea of "Christ Consciousness" is that I think it capitulates to Christianity. Basically, we are saying, "Hey, I don't believe your entire story, but I will give into this bullshit a little bit if it makes you happy."

Honestly, I don't want to knock Christianity that hard, because I grew up as a Christian, but secretly hated all of it. I wanted to believe in it, but I couldn't because I actually think about things. I know that there are a lot of good people that believe in Christianity, but I can't. I know I am not an evil person. Certainly, I have many flaws, but I am relatively intelligent, and also, significantly retarded. My moto has always been: The only true idiot is a person that cannot admit their idiocy.
 
Was Jesus truly a guy that had "unconditional positive regard," or was he tapping into "The Spirit" of unconditional, positive regard? The first point makes him unlike any of us, the second point means that any of us can become like him.
The bible says the spirit descended upon him like a dove. So, we'll assume (for discussion) this effect wasn't commonplace prior. However, baptisms were commonplace prior, and I'm currently sold on the concept that baptism purpose was to induce NDE's. So, (for discussion) prior to Jesus Baptism, let's say people were baptized to get the NDE experience (connect with the astral, gain new astral view, part with old ways, etc.) - If something more-than-typical happened for Jesus when he was baptized I would assume it was akin to bringing the "ball of light" back with him (see google NDERF "Ball of light"). Whereas others would only retain/report the experience of having encountered it while dead.
In short, if I'm sticking with the biblical tale, it would seem that Yes, unconditional love always existed, but it was applied to Jesus's personality just after he was baptized.
..we are made to believe that Jesus' "Christ Consciousness" came about when he was baptized, yet he was supposedly the son of a virgin, impregnated by God, at the same time? First of all, isn't this a kind of idolatry by God? This sounds more and more like the actions of government, and less and less like the actions of an all powerful, loving creator. In effect, it is a God that says, "Yeah, that is your wife, but I created everything, so I will take a piece of that action when I want it."
Years back I forced myself to meditate/accept a finite chance of lights-out-after-we-die Atheism. In conjunction I also espoused the probability that Jesus is just an archetype. I haven't yet encountered any idea along those lines that would render it less significant. Meaning, even if Jesus is just an archetype tied to a hormone that activates when humans contemplate the idea of self-sacrifice, it would still have great meaning as long as not taken too literally. Conversely, as long as I keep myself tethered accepting this as a finite probability, I allow myself permission to lean in on the possibility of miracle.
To answer directly: If "God" in this story is actually just an extra terrestrial overlord tweaking the path of humans on Earth, then Yes, I could see the impregnation happening by means of "piece of action". But if "God" is The Creator and author of infinite love, I'd assume it was the equivalent of a wet dream only acting to communicate to human Mary what had occurred. Like the opposite vibe to an alien abduction.
Also, shouldn't this mean "no baptism necessary"?!? Why would there be no "Christ Consciousness" before him? Does God need to create a world populated by complete assholes for a huge period of time, then suddenly introduce the non-asshole at the last hour? - Only to have the non-asshole killed off, for a few more thousand years of total assholes ruling the world? Also, you have to call yourself a sinning asshole and belief that people killed this perfect guy to save your eternal soul? Add whatever you want: churches bent on collecting money, priests fucking boys, dickheads like Antone LeVay profiting off of this fear mongering, kids being told to ruin their weekend with church on Sunday after 5 other days a week in a government institution, etc. Man, I don't have to know anything about Josephus to see this as a total psyop.
Let's say one day Shane is allowed the opportunity to create a Metaverse populated with artificial intelligences who reproduce and expire, fully disconnected from the realm in which Shane exists, and with zero connection or proof (not even a bread crumb) of Shanes existence. Now let's also say Shane wants to see if the AI's can be taught the Love which Shane has, but without exposing them to any breadcrumbs or evidence of Shanes realm. I'd say it's not a stretch to think Shane might eventually wonder if the only way to teach that love without leaving behind any bread crumbs is to jump inside for a go?
Did "Christ Consciousness" exist before Jesus lived? I think so, and I don't think you have to be a Christian to see this. I believe that any of us, at any point of time, has the capacity to be a kind, loving person, no matter what our religion is. Otherwise, we have to believe that a God, who created the rich myriad of existence, is solely focused on us forcing all our consciousness into one section of the world to understand Him. I think this is just as bad as believing all of us to be biological robots in a meaningless universe.
I really appreciate the opportunity to pick this apart with you and with Alex. I don't have the simple answer to this, but to recap I have a feeling that it's monumentally important to the debate, and if I'm right in my hunch, could prove to give more rudimentary access to answers than the Josephus origins.
 
Last edited:
Great to hear from you, brother! Fantastic response! Let's dig into all of it! I took a little time to figure out how to quote properly on this forum, so hopefully this post makes a little more sense than my last!

The bible says the spirit descended upon him like a dove. So, we'll assume (for discussion) this effect wasn't commonplace prior. However, baptisms were commonplace prior, and I'm currently sold on the concept that baptism purpose was to induce NDE's. So, (for discussion) prior to Jesus Baptism, let's say people were baptized to get the NDE experience (connect with the astral, gain new astral view, part with old ways, etc.) - If something more-than-typical happened for Jesus when he was baptized I would assume it was akin to bringing the "ball of light" back with him (see google NDERF "Ball of light"). Whereas others would only retain/report the experience of having encountered it while dead.
In short, if I'm sticking with the biblical tale, it would seem that Yes, unconditional love always existed, but it was applied to Jesus's personality just after he was baptized.

I completely forgot about the idea of using baptisms to induce NDE's! This is fascinating material to me! If unconditional love was applied to Jesus just after baptism, inducing an NDE that allowed him to actually bring something back, doesn't this mean all of this virgin birth and prophets predicting his coming really isn't necessary?

Years back I forced myself to meditate/accept a finite chance of lights-out-after-we-die Atheism. In conjunction I also espoused the probability that Jesus is just an archetype. I haven't yet encountered any idea along those lines that would render it less significant. Meaning, even if Jesus is just an archetype tied to a hormone that activates when humans contemplate the idea of self-sacrifice, it would still have great meaning as long as not taken too literally. Conversely, as long as I keep myself tethered accepting this as a finite probability, I allow myself permission to lean in on the possibility of miracle.
To answer directly: If "God" in this story is actually just an extra terrestrial overlord tweaking the path of humans on Earth, then Yes, I could see the impregnation happening by means of "piece of action". But if "God" is The Creator and author of infinite love, I'd assume it was the equivalent of a wet dream only acting to communicate to human Mary what had occurred. Like the opposite vibe to an alien abduction.

I like this thought. I have always had a mistrust of the word "archetype." It kind of reminds me of Plato's theory of existence, whereas this perfect realm exists independent of this one, whereas forms here are generated, imperfectly, somehow out of the perfect forms in that other realm. What if it is the opposite? Maybe this conglomerate of nonsense, in this realm, generates the ethereal nature of other realms? Think of sand on the beach or desert. If we saw only nice glass vases, sculptures, vases, windows, and so forth; then were shown a pile of sand, what would sound more reasonable? - Did the sand come from the sculptures, or were the sculptures forged from the sand? Nevertheless, I think that the "virgin birth" story is a bad one, wet dream or not, for several reasons. First of all, it assumes that The Creator needs to contradict His own way to prove Himself to humans. We call such circumstances "miracles." I think this is a detraction from the miracle of life itself and a human invention. Human beings have a tendency to forget that this existence itself is a miracle, and so they come up with stories of contradicting its nature to prove otherwise. In other words, we fail to see the miracle that is us because it is "understood."

Let's say one day Shane is allowed the opportunity to create a Metaverse populated with artificial intelligences who reproduce and expire, fully disconnected from the realm in which Shane exists, and with zero connection or proof (not even a bread crumb) of Shanes existence. Now let's also say Shane wants to see if the AI's can be taught the Love which Shane has, but without exposing them to any breadcrumbs or evidence of Shanes realm. I'd say it's not a stretch to think Shane might eventually wonder if the only way to teach that love without leaving behind any bread crumbs is to jump inside for a go?

This is my favorite point and absolutely valid. I think it plays into the entire mystery that is God. Essentially, it puts us in God's shoes as a creator. If we chase the thought to its roots, we can draw so many conclusions. We tend to think in terms of beginning and end, but what if this is the game that God has played, forever, without any beginning or end? Also, why are we separating ourselves from God? Was this intentional? I have played with this thought for a long time, and have determined God wants company. I can only understand evil existing as the price that God had to pay to create genuine company. God had to give His creations autonomy, the capacity to not abide by His will, or else he would never have autonomous company. Was evil intentionally created by God? No, it could not be, but it was a consequence of his desire for autonomous company.

I really appreciate the opportunity to pick this apart with you and with Alex. I don't have the simple answer to this, but to recap I have a feeling that it's monumentally important to the debate, and if I'm right in my hunch, could prove to give more rudimentary access to answers than the Josephus origins.

Absolutely! I respect Alex's exploration of Josephus and vivisection of the Roman Empire so much! He is probably right about it. Regardless, there are so many other juicy angles to shed some light on here, or even enjoy in the dark! Good to hear from you brother! Looking forward to further thoughts! Almost forgot! I checked out that NDE sight and took this story back for you!

https://www.nderf.org/Experiences/1jean_nde.html

Love you brother! - Shane Dog
 
If unconditional love was applied to Jesus just after baptism, inducing an NDE that allowed him to actually bring something back, doesn't this mean all of this virgin birth and prophets predicting his coming really isn't necessary?
Did you know that in the bible the term "first-born" doesn't always mean first born, and often just means favorite? This is what bugs me about the religious scholarly debate. It's most likely that all of the miracles were attributed after the fact only to ensure that it would ring the same bell 2000 years later. So the answer would be for Christians to beware the temptation of taking their story too literally, but instead to view it as simple utility that each embellishment somehow helps to preserve the communication of "Well whatever it was, it brought something back from the place with the bright light where everything is infinitely loving." And that when sharing it with another person, you can feel something beckon.
A non-spiritual example would be If someone 2000 years ago was shown an iphone 12 and then it was never seen again until it's invention. How would that story be preserved in history and how many embellishments would be added in order to solidify that whatever it was it wasn't normal?
Was evil intentionally created by God? No, it could not be, but it was a consequence of his desire for autonomous company.
This just evolved my theoretic definition of evil. As of now I'm convinced Evil=Scarcity (or is a result of).

I love you too, Shane.

I enjoyed reading that NDERF story.
After everything I've learned, to date I have my flag firmly planted on the fence which separates the two possibilities that (1) that all miracles are physically explainable, but we implicitly embellish the report because it's the only we know how to document that something unexplainable was involved. Or (2) that miracles do physically unexplainable things but they are veiled as part of some eternal law which requires that their handiwork only be seen with the heart.
 
inquiry to perpetuate doubt.

Haha... nice one!

I get the feeling that these old Skeptiko philosophers we're tapping into the "seeker thing" i.e. where you start off thinking you're seeking something... like certainty... and then wind-up realizing that you can't ever get there... and that the closest you ever get to is kind of a double negative... more doubt :)

I also think there are some interesting connections between " doubt" and spirituality. what do you think?
 
Mitch Horowitz, Who Inspires You Satan or Jesus? |508|
by Alex Tsakiris | Jul 6 | Spirituality
Share
Tweet

Mitch Horowitz is an expert esoteric mysticism and the occult who happens to be a Satanist.
skeptiko-508-mitch-horowitz-2-300x300.jpg
There are very few people that actual would say they follow Satan. There are few people that even know Satan's army is what they really are working with. The people that say they are working with Jesus have no clue to what He was even teaching. Bob Dylan admitted it publicly. The people into Satanism have very little power, they may think they do. I work with both - there are only a few people on the planet that have any power , while you hear great stories . Good stories do not come from people using psychic powers. Not one person on this planet can raise the dead , levitate a car or anything. Then again to be a role model you need to know them .
 
Did you know that in the bible the term "first-born" doesn't always mean first born, and often just means favorite? This is what bugs me about the religious scholarly debate. It's most likely that all of the miracles were attributed after the fact only to ensure that it would ring the same bell 2000 years later. So the answer would be for Christians to beware the temptation of taking their story too literally, but instead to view it as simple utility that each embellishment somehow helps to preserve the communication of "Well whatever it was, it brought something back from the place with the bright light where everything is infinitely loving." And that when sharing it with another person, you can feel something beckon.
A non-spiritual example would be If someone 2000 years ago was shown an iphone 12 and then it was never seen again until it's invention. How would that story be preserved in history and how many embellishments would be added in order to solidify that whatever it was it wasn't normal?
This just evolved my theoretic definition of evil. As of now I'm convinced Evil=Scarcity (or is a result of)..

Fascinating! I did not know about the term "first born" doesn't always mean first born, but favorite, in the Bible. I do think there is a lot of good things about Christianity, but this scripture didactic approach, that so many thump their bibles upon, makes me fucking crazy! I don't know if evil equals scarcity, but I know that evil agendas tend to portray a philosophy of scarcity. Personally, I think that true scarcity of resources can lead to innovation or exploration, but this takes a totally different mental approach than what we typically see applied by governments. They don't see scarcity of a resource as an opportunity, but as a detriment to further control and increase paranoia.

The question remains, are these people doing evil things actually evil, or are they fucking retarded? Take a guy like Dr. Fuaci, for example. Does he actually want to kill a bunch of people, or is he too stupid to get things right, then inevitably ends up making countless excuses? Is it a case whereas the psychology of a leader, who suppose to lead, ends up backfiring on itself because everything is going wrong? Could it be that evil is only the denial of the reality that one is seen as a cause of during tragic circumstances? Leadership isn't easy for conscientious people, but arm chair quarterbacks that don't give a fuck.....anything goes as long as they save face.

I love you too, Shane.

Love you always, brother! How many people on this forum know that we are blood brothers?


After everything I've learned, to date I have my flag firmly planted on the fence which separates the two possibilities that (1) that all miracles are physically explainable, but we implicitly embellish the report because it's the only we know how to document that something unexplainable was involved. Or (2) that miracles do physically unexplainable things but they are veiled as part of some eternal law which requires that their handiwork only be seen with the heart.

This is the danger zone, for sure, and I love thinking in this area. I liken it to becoming involved in foreign circumstances. Let us take a different approach, however, to the psychology of those that shun "miracles." I think they do so out of the comfort of habit. We need to do a vivisection of the word "explainable," at first, because we hear this constantly when anything "supernatural" happens. If people threw out the word "explainable," and replaced it with the phrase "I don't expect this shit to happen in my everyday, normal ass life," then we are getting somewhere. Also, the term "supernatural" doesn't mean impossible; it only translates to "things that I don't expect to happen in my everyday, normal ass life."

I missed you at Christmas, brother! Maybe we can get together at St. Patricks day! I hate that mother fucker for killing all the snakes in Ireland, but we grew up in Dublin, so on our merry way with a few four leafed clovers, shall we?
 
Well first on the Bible - it was based on who? Moses who wrote 1/3 of the old test. The new test,, out of the 40 books they picked 4. And only two of them were Jesus disciples. How many words did they have back then? Sadly no one understood what Jesus was even teaching. To be translated 2000 years later - really including it was written in a few different Languages.
But then again on Peter Moon. He is a great story teller, I would go into it but don't want to get blocked. There are so many lies about Tesla and nothing important. Just his weapons he gave mankind- the most dangerous to the planet and people. Then call him a great minded person- but he received all his info from an alien race- and they were not trying to make earth better.
 
Haha... nice one!

I get the feeling that these old Skeptiko philosophers we're tapping into the "seeker thing" i.e. where you start off thinking you're seeking something... like certainty... and then wind-up realizing that you can't ever get there... and that the closest you ever get to is kind of a double negative... more doubt :)

I also think there are some interesting connections between " doubt" and spirituality. what do you think?

Alex, you are ABSOLUTELY right that there is a connection between "doubt" and spirituality. This seems counterintuitive at face value, because we have been trained to think the opposite. In my philosophy, doubt would be faith. Also, I am not a traditional skeptic, and honestly, I can't stand skeptics in that sense. There are a lot of people that are skeptical about everything, yet they fall right into living that everyday, normal ass life that they aren't skeptical about at all. Dude, I can rip this kind of subject matter into enough pieces of bread to feed a million conspiracy theorists for at least a year!

What drives me crazy about Christians, and Satanists, is that they are using books to explain their cases. Let me give an example besides Mitch: Richie From Boston. Have you ever listened to this guy? He is actually a really good dude trying to help a lot of people, but he is just completely hung up on this didactic bullshit. Also, Nicholson 1968, smart guy, but completely hung up on didactic bullshit. Nevertheless, I really like Richie as a human being, and I say this in the most non secular, God promoting way.

I am also open minded to the fact that I could be absolutely wrong about Christianity, but that doesn't mean I am going to jump in and believe it wholeheartedly. I doubt the shit because it fucked with not only the entire world, but my whole childhood. What I fear about this entire sequence of events, concerning all things "corona virus" across the world, is not religion vs. secularism. It seems that nobody is contemplating, whether or not, that this religious bullshit(Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.)has something to do with this Great Reset agenda.

Has anybody perused the possibility that all things for the Judea/Christian history facilitated these "dark arts" people? Often, tulpas and Egregores can be sighted amongst these possibilities. The bible is the dominate book of all time, and it seems as though the book of "revelations" is playing out in real time. Has anybody contemplated the fact that all these fucking people doing this shit are just following the darker side of the Bible?

It could be that "doubt" is the only real effective weapon to forge faith.

Does that sound counterintuitive? Good! It should!
 
Well first on the Bible - it was based on who? Moses who wrote 1/3 of the old test. The new test,, out of the 40 books they picked 4. And only two of them were Jesus disciples. How many words did they have back then? Sadly no one understood what Jesus was even teaching. To be translated 2000 years later - really including it was written in a few different Languages.
But then again on Peter Moon. He is a great story teller, I would go into it but don't want to get blocked. There are so many lies about Tesla and nothing important. Just his weapons he gave mankind- the most dangerous to the planet and people. Then call him a great minded person- but he received all his info from an alien race- and they were not trying to make earth better.

It doesn't matter what is written in the bible. People need to think about what is written in their hearts.
 
Well first on the Bible - it was based on who? Moses who wrote 1/3 of the old test. The new test,, out of the 40 books they picked 4. And only two of them were Jesus disciples. How many words did they have back then? Sadly no one understood what Jesus was even teaching. To be translated 2000 years later - really including it was written in a few different Languages.
But then again on Peter Moon. He is a great story teller, I would go into it but don't want to get blocked. There are so many lies about Tesla and nothing important. Just his weapons he gave mankind- the most dangerous to the planet and people. Then call him a great minded person- but he received all his info from an alien race- and they were not trying to make earth better.

Tell us about Peter Moon. Nobody is going to block you here.
 
Fascinating! I did not know about the term "first born" doesn't always mean first born, but favorite, in the Bible. I do think there is a lot of good things about Christianity, but this scripture didactic approach, that so many thump their bibles upon, makes me fucking crazy! I don't know if evil equals scarcity, but I know that evil agendas tend to portray a philosophy of scarcity. Personally, I think that true scarcity of resources can lead to innovation or exploration, but this takes a totally different mental approach than what we typically see applied by governments. They don't see scarcity of a resource as an opportunity, but as a detriment to further control and increase paranoia.

The question remains, are these people doing evil things actually evil, or are they fucking retarded? Take a guy like Dr. Fuaci, for example. Does he actually want to kill a bunch of people, or is he too stupid to get things right, then inevitably ends up making countless excuses? Is it a case whereas the psychology of a leader, who suppose to lead, ends up backfiring on itself because everything is going wrong? Could it be that evil is only the denial of the reality that one is seen as a cause of during tragic circumstances? Leadership isn't easy for conscientious people, but arm chair quarterbacks that don't give a fuck.....anything goes as long as they save face.



Love you always, brother! How many people on this forum know that we are blood brothers?




This is the danger zone, for sure, and I love thinking in this area. I liken it to becoming involved in foreign circumstances. Let us take a different approach, however, to the psychology of those that shun "miracles." I think they do so out of the comfort of habit. We need to do a vivisection of the word "explainable," at first, because we hear this constantly when anything "supernatural" happens. If people threw out the word "explainable," and replaced it with the phrase "I don't expect this shit to happen in my everyday, normal ass life," then we are getting somewhere. Also, the term "supernatural" doesn't mean impossible; it only translates to "things that I don't expect to happen in my everyday, normal ass life."

I missed you at Christmas, brother! Maybe we can get together at St. Patricks day! I hate that mother fucker for killing all the snakes in Ireland, but we grew up in Dublin, so on our merry way with a few four leafed clovers, shall we?
On "Scarcity" I'm using it to describe the Source of Evil rather than the substance of it. This could apply all the way back to the tale of Lucifer arguing for God to allow him to save humanity by force (no free will) instead of Jesus's plan to allow humans free will and save them with spiritual guidance.

On Whether the oligarchs are Evil or Retarded, I think "sociopath" follows your explanation much better. The continuous cycle of fuck-up-and-hide-it must render them desensitized to consideration of those they're harming.

On the question of supernaturality of Miracles, I'm referring to them as either (1) Events that are altered by a source from outside of this realm, or (2) Events altered by a code/law undetectable within this realm. Either case meaning Science would by definition never have admissible evidence. I choose to believe both.
 
Last edited:
On "Scarcity" I'm using it to describe the Source of Evil rather than the substance of it. This could apply all the way back to the tale of Lucifer arguing for God to allow him to save humanity by force (no free will) instead of Jesus's plan to allow humans free will and save them with spiritual guidance.

On Whether the oligarchs are Evil or Retarded, I think "sociopath" follows your explanation much better. The continuous cycle of fuck-up-and-hide-it must render them desensitized to consideration of those they're harming.

On the question of supernaturality of Miracles, I'm referring to them as either (1) Events that are altered by a source from outside of this realm, or (2) Events altered by a code/law undetectable within this realm. Either case meaning Science would by definition never have admissible evidence. I choose to believe both.

The Oligarchs are evil, retarded, and sociopaths at the same time. You are probably right about the "fuck up and hide it" activity, but they have been fucking up and not hiding it, recently, A LOT! So fuck up and hide it isn't their agenda. I think that one of the other problems is that we are are relatively brainwashed because we have been part of this system for such a long period of time; - this makes it difficult to tell the difference between truth and reality. On a deeper level, let us say that consciousness is generating reality. Nevertheless, we can see that not a single consciousness is doing this, but it is done by many, and turns into one reality. Existence is a myriad of expression, not a conglomerate of consequences.

Also, love you, brother! Don't forget that!
 
Apocalypse means unveiling. Revealing.
Words are losing the power and sway they once held as our dormant higher faculties awaken.
The old game is over. It's all about the inner now. Personal integrity. The stage magicians can no longer hide their tricks.
Exciting times my brothers!
Love is the drug!
 
that we are are relatively brainwashed because we have been part of this system for such a long period of time; - this makes it difficult to tell the difference between truth and reality. On a deeper level, let us say that consciousness is generating reality. Nevertheless, we can see that not a single consciousness is doing this, but it is done by many, and turns into one reality. Existence is a myriad of expression, not a conglomerate of consequences.
Apocalypse means unveiling. Revealing.
Words are losing the power and sway they once held as our dormant higher faculties awaken.
The old game is over. It's all about the inner now. Personal integrity. The stage magicians can no longer hide their tricks.
Exciting times my brothers!
Love is the drug!
If Brother Starmonkey is right, the indicator will be Oligarchs increasingly losing their cool. That doesn’t sound pretty, unless they some how lose it so fast that the general population is able to swoop up the narrative and the authority simultaneously. Alex Jones has been increasingly on high alert to watch out for false flags. Very much painting the field of awareness into existence.
So to brass tacks: If we’re winning we should expect frantic messy attempts of the Oligarchs to put general pop back to sleep, and the best sign of our success will be if gen pop response is something like: Nah
 
Last edited:
If Brother Starmonkey is right, the indicator will be Oligarchs increasingly losing their cool. That doesn’t sound pretty, unless they some how lose it so fast that the general population is able to swoop up the narrative and the authority simultaneously. Alex Jones has been increasingly on high alert to watch out for false flags. Very much painting the field of awareness into existence.
So to brass tacks: If we’re winning we should expect frantic messy attempts of the Oligarchs to put general pop back to sleep, and the best sign of our success will be if gen pop response is something like: Nah
That is happening. Most of it is just "blehh".
The revolution will not be televised. It's mostly happening within.
But it has to be run into the ground incontrovertibly, for the deep sleepers to get it, so the tedium and tyranny must continue for a bit. This year will be like riding all the rides in the midway after eating to many funnel cakes. Until everyone is clamoring "let me off! Let me off! I'm going to be sick!".
;)
 
Back
Top