|
Post by lopezcabellero on Sept 15, 2019 3:05:19 GMT -5
Hey all. I found an intriguing piece from Passio on Toxic femininity. L In this presentation, he focuses on a manufactured crisis between men and women in order to divide and conquer their minds and thought processes. As enlightened or un enlightened as we may take ourselves to be, all human thinking is within the range of this conditional influence. Just before hour 1 he gets into discussing inbreeding and outbreeding, which got me thinking how unwilling most of the human population is to even entertain this is taking place. More pointedly, the source of the influence. A runaway thought train, or carefully schemed and intentionally delineated power structure? I say, a bit of both. m.youtube.com/watch?v=65GNSDDnh_8&list=PLKNHEPGuTHlSZOUjbAVbha1S_Idgp5o9A&index=8&t=0s
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 20, 2019 8:06:07 GMT -5
Hey all. I found an intriguing piece from Passio on Toxic femininity. L In this presentation, he focuses on a manufactured crisis between men and women in order to divide and conquer their minds and thought processes. As enlightened or un enlightened as we may take ourselves to be, all human thinking is within the range of this conditional influence. Just before hour 1 he gets into discussing inbreeding and outbreeding, which got me thinking how unwilling most of the human population is to even entertain this is taking place. More pointedly, the source of the influence. A runaway thought train, or carefully schemed and intentionally delineated power structure? I say, a bit of both. m.youtube.com/watch?v=65GNSDDnh_8&list=PLKNHEPGuTHlSZOUjbAVbha1S_Idgp5o9A&index=8&t=0sHis notion of the gender war is interesting, but a few things off the top of my head. You don't need a Satanic conspiracy to explain the Princess meme or the gender war. Just human nature. True enough that there are likely culturally powerful people with an interest in perpetuating the gender war, but by my estimation there are a variety of motivations involved. And the Princess thing is going to persist for time immemorial, even on it's own, with like, zero top-down help. Female selection for men with more feminine qualities is something that likely far predated any known civilizations - check out, for instance the jaw lines and brow-ridges of the fossils, and notice how there's no gender-based differential of body hair on the great apes. But it's hardly linear or one-way. It's impossible to turn women, (as in all female-kind) off to testosterone altogether. That's just never gonna' happen. And John seems to me to project alot of his insecurities (and my guess, past relationship fails) onto his ideal of an authentic man. I agree with him to a large extent about the power games, but those are just a fact of the dream. Several of the qualities he lists are arbitrary, and, of course, they happen to fit him perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Sept 22, 2019 14:04:27 GMT -5
Hey all. I found an intriguing piece from Passio on Toxic femininity. L In this presentation, he focuses on a manufactured crisis between men and women in order to divide and conquer their minds and thought processes. As enlightened or un enlightened as we may take ourselves to be, all human thinking is within the range of this conditional influence. Just before hour 1 he gets into discussing inbreeding and outbreeding, which got me thinking how unwilling most of the human population is to even entertain this is taking place. More pointedly, the source of the influence. A runaway thought train, or carefully schemed and intentionally delineated power structure? I say, a bit of both. m.youtube.com/watch?v=65GNSDDnh_8&list=PLKNHEPGuTHlSZOUjbAVbha1S_Idgp5o9A&index=8&t=0sHis notion of the gender war is interesting, but a few things off the top of my head. You don't need a Satanic conspiracy to explain the Princess meme or the gender war. Just human nature. True enough that there are likely culturally powerful people with an interest in perpetuating the gender war, but by my estimation there are a variety of motivations involved. And the Princess thing is going to persist for time immemorial, even on it's own, with like, zero top-down help. Female selection for men with more feminine qualities is something that likely far predated any known civilizations - check out, for instance the jaw lines and brow-ridges of the fossils, and notice how there's no gender-based differential of body hair on the great apes. But it's hardly linear or one-way. It's impossible to turn women, (as in all female-kind) off to testosterone altogether. That's just never gonna' happen. And John seems to me to project alot of his insecurities (and my guess, past relationship fails) onto his ideal of an authentic man. I agree with him to a large extent about the power games, but those are just a fact of the dream. Several of the qualities he lists are arbitrary, and, of course, they happen to fit him perfectly. Mark not John lol! I won't say the video is Mark at his best, but having spent almost a hundred hours watching his videos over the last few years, I don't think you're wrong with regard to some of your observations. Firstly, Mark thinks of Darwin evolution and those who believe in Darwin evolution more as a religion than a science. He accurately points out how much weight society places as a whole on government grant based research and how little of alternative archaeology has actually been studied by the great minds of our society. Anyway, Mark acknowledges and openly discusses his own abandonment complex, admits to having abandonment issues, and I think that's part of why so many people are attracted to him. He also speaks eloquently at times on the nature of the time space framework and how consciousness transcends that framework. Contrary to many new age folks, he advocates that change to our current dilemma can only come about through discovery of what's true, and to the extent humans remain blind to information relays about what's true and how it may contradict what's false and yet simultaneously believed, is to the extent we are to remain enslaved. As for relationship fails, dunno on that one, he was in a long relationship with his partner Deb ( i think Deb) but they separated about a couple years ago and it was seemingly mutual. I'm almost sure this vid was prior to their separation. On a deeper level, and I'm surprised you didn't comment on this, we have where Mark sources his abandonment complex. At the end of the day, the Sumerians are closer in time to human origin than we are, and to dismiss the stories of the sky people as simply mythology may be unwise. At the same time, to steadfastly believe in the Annunaki and the idea of human hybridization may very well be linked to an unhealed parental or God abandonment complex. Meaning, to be born to parents that view you as a curse to their existence is one of the darkest if not the most painful emotions to acknowledge. If your Mother cannot love you, who can? Not saying this is the case with Mark, but he feels an added layer of parental abandonment which happens when parents exist in an unconscious state, also stems from how we were cosmically abandoned by our unloving and ungod like creators. At the end of the day, Mark is a pretty chill guy who doesn't present to make friends. He states publicly his belief in the story of the guy from Fire in the Sky, and while I don't believe his story is an account of an alien abduction, I cannot explain to you how military equipment has been used to observe vessels that travel from Mach 5 to Mach 20 in an instant. If those vessels are created from an alien source, who is to say who was abducted and for what reason? Personally speaking, I had an American Indian on my block, a Navajo I believe, and I draw wisdom from Indian culture. Unlike our collective mindset, they would place an almost undue importance on dreams and the so called spirit world. And I can't help but wonder if something similar wasn't going on with the Sumerians, where 9 foot beings were envisioned but never manifest. I particularly wonder because I sometimes dream of people with abnormally large statures, and this typically manifests due to some underlying fear of authority or confusion to what's true which is to say the destruction of a false belief, which can be scary and painful. Simultaneously, if you look at the 'conehead skulls' of some early humans (which can be created to a degree by wrapping a baby's moldable head in clothe), I can't claim I'm certain these skulls result from that practice. I don't know, but I do know it's certainly possible that believing that humans are a hybrid species can certainly stem from an unhealed complex, and to the extent Mark ackowledges that within his dialogues I applaud him, as many 'absolute non dualist' refuse to do the same while existing in the presence of far more emotional junk. I think teachers like Mark and David Icke are far better at demonstrating to laymans how we are born into an already brainwashed society, and how contagious brainwashing is. To the extent they posit alternate theories of truth, I'm open to entertaining certain ideas they present, clearly see some stuff they are saying as relatively true, and judge that certain stuff may be more likely false or at least possibly false. Their game is that of relative truth, meaning God's truth as to how evolution transpires (not to mention how we are under controlling forces we don't see), and what I notice, is that this is a game that many non dualists simply refuse to engage in because of underlying fears. Personally, I am fascinated by conditioning, that of others as well as myself, and see that revelations unfold as willingness to be conscious appears. I think as a race we will gain a deeper understanding regarding what on earth is happening as we heal the identification complex, and pockets of occulted truth used to control unsuspecting sheep are brought to light. And if you can agree with that statement, that concealed truths from pre biblical times can be used to empower some and disempower others, to what extent are we capable of doing the same thing? And how are these occultists not sorcerers creating a powerful bloodline, particularly to the extent they share truth with some and hide it or distort it from others? And so if we can understand the mind as a tool, how it functions, and most importantly, how it can function when conscious, the importance of knowing the past and how we've evolved loses importance. Ironically, it also becomes more possible.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2019 6:04:59 GMT -5
His notion of the gender war is interesting, but a few things off the top of my head. You don't need a Satanic conspiracy to explain the Princess meme or the gender war. Just human nature. True enough that there are likely culturally powerful people with an interest in perpetuating the gender war, but by my estimation there are a variety of motivations involved. And the Princess thing is going to persist for time immemorial, even on it's own, with like, zero top-down help. Female selection for men with more feminine qualities is something that likely far predated any known civilizations - check out, for instance the jaw lines and brow-ridges of the fossils, and notice how there's no gender-based differential of body hair on the great apes. But it's hardly linear or one-way. It's impossible to turn women, (as in all female-kind) off to testosterone altogether. That's just never gonna' happen. And John seems to me to project alot of his insecurities (and my guess, past relationship fails) onto his ideal of an authentic man. I agree with him to a large extent about the power games, but those are just a fact of the dream. Several of the qualities he lists are arbitrary, and, of course, they happen to fit him perfectly. Mark not John lol! I won't say the video is Mark at his best, but having spent almost a hundred hours watching his videos over the last few years, I don't think you're wrong with regard to some of your observations. Firstly, Mark thinks of Darwin evolution and those who believe in Darwin evolution more as a religion than a science. He accurately points out how much weight society places as a whole on government grant based research and how little of alternative archaeology has actually been studied by the great minds of our society. Anyway, Mark acknowledges and openly discusses his own abandonment complex, admits to having abandonment issues, and I think that's part of why so many people are attracted to him. He also speaks eloquently at times on the nature of the time space framework and how consciousness transcends that framework. Contrary to many new age folks, he advocates that change to our current dilemma can only come about through discovery of what's true, and to the extent humans remain blind to information relays about what's true and how it may contradict what's false and yet simultaneously believed, is to the extent we are to remain enslaved. As for relationship fails, dunno on that one, he was in a long relationship with his partner Deb ( i think Deb) but they separated about a couple years ago and it was seemingly mutual. I'm almost sure this vid was prior to their separation. On a deeper level, and I'm surprised you didn't comment on this, we have where Mark sources his abandonment complex. At the end of the day, the Sumerians are closer in time to human origin than we are, and to dismiss the stories of the sky people as simply mythology may be unwise. At the same time, to steadfastly believe in the Annunaki and the idea of human hybridization may very well be linked to an unhealed parental or God abandonment complex. Meaning, to be born to parents that view you as a curse to their existence is one of the darkest if not the most painful emotions to acknowledge. If your Mother cannot love you, who can? Not saying this is the case with Mark, but he feels an added layer of parental abandonment which happens when parents exist in an unconscious state, also stems from how we were cosmically abandoned by our unloving and ungod like creators. At the end of the day, Mark is a pretty chill guy who doesn't present to make friends. He states publicly his belief in the story of the guy from Fire in the Sky, and while I don't believe his story is an account of an alien abduction, I cannot explain to you how military equipment has been used to observe vessels that travel from Mach 5 to Mach 20 in an instant. If those vessels are created from an alien source, who is to say who was abducted and for what reason? Personally speaking, I had an American Indian on my block, a Navajo I believe, and I draw wisdom from Indian culture. Unlike our collective mindset, they would place an almost undue importance on dreams and the so called spirit world. And I can't help but wonder if something similar wasn't going on with the Sumerians, where 9 foot beings were envisioned but never manifest. I particularly wonder because I sometimes dream of people with abnormally large statures, and this typically manifests due to some underlying fear of authority or confusion to what's true which is to say the destruction of a false belief, which can be scary and painful. Simultaneously, if you look at the 'conehead skulls' of some early humans (which can be created to a degree by wrapping a baby's moldable head in clothe), I can't claim I'm certain these skulls result from that practice. I don't know, but I do know it's certainly possible that believing that humans are a hybrid species can certainly stem from an unhealed complex, and to the extent Mark ackowledges that within his dialogues I applaud him, as many 'absolute non dualist' refuse to do the same while existing in the presence of far more emotional junk. I think teachers like Mark and David Icke are far better at demonstrating to laymans how we are born into an already brainwashed society, and how contagious brainwashing is. To the extent they posit alternate theories of truth, I'm open to entertaining certain ideas they present, clearly see some stuff they are saying as relatively true, and judge that certain stuff may be more likely false or at least possibly false. Their game is that of relative truth, meaning God's truth as to how evolution transpires (not to mention how we are under controlling forces we don't see), and what I notice, is that this is a game that many non dualists simply refuse to engage in because of underlying fears. Personally, I am fascinated by conditioning, that of others as well as myself, and see that revelations unfold as willingness to be conscious appears. I think as a race we will gain a deeper understanding regarding what on earth is happening as we heal the identification complex, and pockets of occulted truth used to control unsuspecting sheep are brought to light. And if you can agree with that statement, that concealed truths from pre biblical times can be used to empower some and disempower others, to what extent are we capable of doing the same thing? And how are these occultists not sorcerers creating a powerful bloodline, particularly to the extent they share truth with some and hide it or distort it from others? And so if we can understand the mind as a tool, how it functions, and most importantly, how it can function when conscious, the importance of knowing the past and how we've evolved loses importance. Ironically, it also becomes more possible. enjoyed muchly.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2019 13:59:49 GMT -5
(** hangs head in shame **) Interesting point about the abandonment complex -- between the two of us you are by far the better amateur psychologist. In terms of that complex as a general, cultural phenomenon, it's of course impossible not to notice how that's a major attraction of monotheism. But embracing the opposite of that in terms of atheism is hardly any sort of cure in and of itself, but if you listen to what Carl had to say in " blue dot", it seems clear that atheism at least offers a path to reconciliation. Mark's Satanist's, of course, offer nether solution. Most of the folks I've corresponded with about nonduality have one level or another of interest in the topic of conditioning. I think most of them would agree that, to one extent or another, most people go through life expressing pre-programmed responses to external stimuli. If you want I'll wonk out a wall about the origins of life on Earth. There's no doubt in my mind that there's a modern secular ideology based on science that's consensus among the educated. The thing about a set of beliefs that are the product of the scientific method is that they're battle-tested. They're the product of skepticism, so challenging them through that mechanism will require greater and greater resources over time. So, if one takes an idea to be true that isn't assailable by means of doubt, then at what state of mind have they arrived? From perusing Reddit, it seems to me that this mindset is getting deeper and stickier in greater numbers, evidenced as a sort of age-gradient in the population, as time rolls on. But to my eye, the most grievous criticism of Mark I've leveled is that you don't need a conspiracy to explain much of what he attributes to it. Most of the mechanisms of social control that the rich and powerful employ are pretty much out in the open if one looks with a critical eye. My guess is that there's probably a wikipedia article on the topic of propaganda that would lay out most of them in a few pages of text. This isn't to say that the details of that control aren't occluded from the public, but it's not ancient technology or insight into the nature of consciousness that's being hidden here. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm a fan of Graham Hanc0ck, and my criticism of conventional history is that they often follow the logical fallacy of mistaking the absence of evidence for the evidence of absence. But, in my opinion, the general outline of what's occluded from our view is, again, mostly out in plain sight. As is often the case, a folksy aphorisim cuts to the chase: "it's not what you know, but who you know". The people making relatively big decisions that effect the relatively many do so in private, and one of the perks of the truly rich and powerful is the insulation from contact with everyone but whom they choose to allow it with.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Sept 28, 2019 12:27:33 GMT -5
Mark not John lol! I won't say the video is Mark at his best, but having spent almost a hundred hours watching his videos over the last few years, I don't think you're wrong with regard to some of your observations. Firstly, Mark thinks of Darwin evolution and those who believe in Darwin evolution more as a religion than a science. He accurately points out how much weight society places as a whole on government grant based research and how little of alternative archaeology has actually been studied by the great minds of our society. Anyway, Mark acknowledges and openly discusses his own abandonment complex, admits to having abandonment issues, and I think that's part of why so many people are attracted to him. He also speaks eloquently at times on the nature of the time space framework and how consciousness transcends that framework. Contrary to many new age folks, he advocates that change to our current dilemma can only come about through discovery of what's true, and to the extent humans remain blind to information relays about what's true and how it may contradict what's false and yet simultaneously believed, is to the extent we are to remain enslaved. As for relationship fails, dunno on that one, he was in a long relationship with his partner Deb ( i think Deb) but they separated about a couple years ago and it was seemingly mutual. I'm almost sure this vid was prior to their separation. On a deeper level, and I'm surprised you didn't comment on this, we have where Mark sources his abandonment complex. At the end of the day, the Sumerians are closer in time to human origin than we are, and to dismiss the stories of the sky people as simply mythology may be unwise. At the same time, to steadfastly believe in the Annunaki and the idea of human hybridization may very well be linked to an unhealed parental or God abandonment complex. Meaning, to be born to parents that view you as a curse to their existence is one of the darkest if not the most painful emotions to acknowledge. If your Mother cannot love you, who can? Not saying this is the case with Mark, but he feels an added layer of parental abandonment which happens when parents exist in an unconscious state, also stems from how we were cosmically abandoned by our unloving and ungod like creators. At the end of the day, Mark is a pretty chill guy who doesn't present to make friends. He states publicly his belief in the story of the guy from Fire in the Sky, and while I don't believe his story is an account of an alien abduction, I cannot explain to you how military equipment has been used to observe vessels that travel from Mach 5 to Mach 20 in an instant. If those vessels are created from an alien source, who is to say who was abducted and for what reason? Personally speaking, I had an American Indian on my block, a Navajo I believe, and I draw wisdom from Indian culture. Unlike our collective mindset, they would place an almost undue importance on dreams and the so called spirit world. And I can't help but wonder if something similar wasn't going on with the Sumerians, where 9 foot beings were envisioned but never manifest. I particularly wonder because I sometimes dream of people with abnormally large statures, and this typically manifests due to some underlying fear of authority or confusion to what's true which is to say the destruction of a false belief, which can be scary and painful. Simultaneously, if you look at the 'conehead skulls' of some early humans (which can be created to a degree by wrapping a baby's moldable head in clothe), I can't claim I'm certain these skulls result from that practice. I don't know, but I do know it's certainly possible that believing that humans are a hybrid species can certainly stem from an unhealed complex, and to the extent Mark ackowledges that within his dialogues I applaud him, as many 'absolute non dualist' refuse to do the same while existing in the presence of far more emotional junk. I think teachers like Mark and David Icke are far better at demonstrating to laymans how we are born into an already brainwashed society, and how contagious brainwashing is. To the extent they posit alternate theories of truth, I'm open to entertaining certain ideas they present, clearly see some stuff they are saying as relatively true, and judge that certain stuff may be more likely false or at least possibly false. Their game is that of relative truth, meaning God's truth as to how evolution transpires (not to mention how we are under controlling forces we don't see), and what I notice, is that this is a game that many non dualists simply refuse to engage in because of underlying fears. Personally, I am fascinated by conditioning, that of others as well as myself, and see that revelations unfold as willingness to be conscious appears. I think as a race we will gain a deeper understanding regarding what on earth is happening as we heal the identification complex, and pockets of occulted truth used to control unsuspecting sheep are brought to light. And if you can agree with that statement, that concealed truths from pre biblical times can be used to empower some and disempower others, to what extent are we capable of doing the same thing? And how are these occultists not sorcerers creating a powerful bloodline, particularly to the extent they share truth with some and hide it or distort it from others? And so if we can understand the mind as a tool, how it functions, and most importantly, how it can function when conscious, the importance of knowing the past and how we've evolved loses importance. Ironically, it also becomes more possible. enjoyed muchly. Grand! Good to see you again A
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Sept 28, 2019 13:08:23 GMT -5
(** hangs head in shame **) Interesting point about the abandonment complex -- between the two of us you are by far the better amateur psychologist. In terms of that complex as a general, cultural phenomenon, it's of course impossible not to notice how that's a major attraction of monotheism. But embracing the opposite of that in terms of atheism is hardly any sort of cure in and of itself, but if you listen to what Carl had to say in " blue dot", it seems clear that atheism at least offers a path to reconciliation. Mark's Satanist's, of course, offer nether solution. Most of the folks I've corresponded with about nonduality have one level or another of interest in the topic of conditioning. I think most of them would agree that, to one extent or another, most people go through life expressing pre-programmed responses to external stimuli. If you want I'll wonk out a wall about the origins of life on Earth. There's no doubt in my mind that there's a modern secular ideology based on science that's consensus among the educated. The thing about a set of beliefs that are the product of the scientific method is that they're battle-tested. They're the product of skepticism, so challenging them through that mechanism will require greater and greater resources over time. So, if one takes an idea to be true that isn't assailable by means of doubt, then at what state of mind have they arrived? From perusing Reddit, it seems to me that this mindset is getting deeper and stickier in greater numbers, evidenced as a sort of age-gradient in the population, as time rolls on. But to my eye, the most grievous criticism of Mark I've leveled is that you don't need a conspiracy to explain much of what he attributes to it. Most of the mechanisms of social control that the rich and powerful employ are pretty much out in the open if one looks with a critical eye. My guess is that there's probably a wikipedia article on the topic of propaganda that would lay out most of them in a few pages of text. This isn't to say that the details of that control aren't occluded from the public, but it's not ancient technology or insight into the nature of consciousness that's being hidden here. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm a fan of Graham Hanc0ck, and my criticism of conventional history is that they often follow the logical fallacy of mistaking the absence of evidence for the evidence of absence. But, in my opinion, the general outline of what's occluded from our view is, again, mostly out in plain sight. As is often the case, a folksy aphorisim cuts to the chase: "it's not what you know, but who you know". The people making relatively big decisions that effect the relatively many do so in private, and one of the perks of the truly rich and powerful is the insulation from contact with everyone but whom they choose to allow it with. Absence of evidence for evidence of an absence or evidence of a conspiracy. What we can see in plain sight is a a system of rule held together by man made law that just so happens to have the un natural effect of dividing human thinking and separating form from spirit. When you factor in how and why humans worship money, particularly in light of how unconscious emotional compensation cascades out, religion is a logical effect of a need to bind and constrict thinking, as opposed to expand or make aware. As far as Mark goes, when you trim the fat and look at his work as a whole, he's one of the great pioneers of our time. His work on order followers is second to none, particularly as he explores how a classical order follower is created. Traumatization, repetition regarding what is right as opposed to true, placing authority in a father or mother figure, played by the part of God or maybe the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket, rewarding blind belief in what is right with absence of trauma infliction, such that what is true no longer matters and what is right but actually wrong becomes simultaneously true. I agree Mark simplifies humanity's issue with the abandonment complex umbrella. The human tendency to unconsciously compartmentalize emotion through the repression mechanism opens the gateway to a world of self identification. It's abbey normal to think of the gain of self identification as a loss of true awareness, and so I gladly hang up my amateur psychology certificate and take on the role of propagating human combustion. I don't agree with a few of Mark's theories, but his work on the collective engine in general is well researched and a joy to observe. As far as people making big decisions in private, I guess it depends on how far we want to take the illusion of choice. Is there a current of energy which dictates who will become president next? Who controls that current and how remote are the odds such a person is in elected office? Collectively speaking we are quite far removed from the intelligent expression of love, and I think this have everything to do with how false truths bind the collective mind and how forces which work to unravel the resulting complex are too often labelled as evil or even satanic. Maybe random acts of kindness connect us to an unseen tapestry of angels, and so we could spin this whole story another way. But to the extent our personalities are co-dependent on each others actions and these actions are arranged so that we can avoid pain, most pointedly, already existing compartmentalized pain, maybe a random act of kindness is nothing more than enabling an emotional drug addict. Which is to say, none of this is really random. It's all programmed and it's the condition of now that is doing the programming. To equate this statement with the idea that all programming is God like or heavenly is just one more layer of dust a dark occultist can hide behind. Which is to say, what if what's right isn't true?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 28, 2019 17:18:59 GMT -5
(** hangs head in shame **) Interesting point about the abandonment complex -- between the two of us you are by far the better amateur psychologist. In terms of that complex as a general, cultural phenomenon, it's of course impossible not to notice how that's a major attraction of monotheism. But embracing the opposite of that in terms of atheism is hardly any sort of cure in and of itself, but if you listen to what Carl had to say in " blue dot", it seems clear that atheism at least offers a path to reconciliation. Mark's Satanist's, of course, offer nether solution. Most of the folks I've corresponded with about nonduality have one level or another of interest in the topic of conditioning. I think most of them would agree that, to one extent or another, most people go through life expressing pre-programmed responses to external stimuli. If you want I'll wonk out a wall about the origins of life on Earth. There's no doubt in my mind that there's a modern secular ideology based on science that's consensus among the educated. The thing about a set of beliefs that are the product of the scientific method is that they're battle-tested. They're the product of skepticism, so challenging them through that mechanism will require greater and greater resources over time. So, if one takes an idea to be true that isn't assailable by means of doubt, then at what state of mind have they arrived? From perusing Reddit, it seems to me that this mindset is getting deeper and stickier in greater numbers, evidenced as a sort of age-gradient in the population, as time rolls on. But to my eye, the most grievous criticism of Mark I've leveled is that you don't need a conspiracy to explain much of what he attributes to it. Most of the mechanisms of social control that the rich and powerful employ are pretty much out in the open if one looks with a critical eye. My guess is that there's probably a wikipedia article on the topic of propaganda that would lay out most of them in a few pages of text. This isn't to say that the details of that control aren't occluded from the public, but it's not ancient technology or insight into the nature of consciousness that's being hidden here. Now, don't get me wrong: I'm a fan of Graham Hanc0ck, and my criticism of conventional history is that they often follow the logical fallacy of mistaking the absence of evidence for the evidence of absence. But, in my opinion, the general outline of what's occluded from our view is, again, mostly out in plain sight. As is often the case, a folksy aphorisim cuts to the chase: "it's not what you know, but who you know". The people making relatively big decisions that effect the relatively many do so in private, and one of the perks of the truly rich and powerful is the insulation from contact with everyone but whom they choose to allow it with. Absence of evidence for evidence of an absence or evidence of a conspiracy. What we can see in plain sight is a a system of rule held together by man made law that just so happens to have the un natural effect of dividing human thinking and separating form from spirit. When you factor in how and why humans worship money, particularly in light of how unconscious emotional compensation cascades out, religion is a logical effect of a need to bind and constrict thinking, as opposed to expand or make aware. As far as Mark goes, when you trim the fat and look at his work as a whole, he's one of the great pioneers of our time. His work on order followers is second to none, particularly as he explores how a classical order follower is created. Traumatization, repetition regarding what is right as opposed to true, placing authority in a father or mother figure, played by the part of God or maybe the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket, rewarding blind belief in what is right with absence of trauma infliction, such that what is true no longer matters and what is right but actually wrong becomes simultaneously true. I agree Mark simplifies humanity's issue with the abandonment complex umbrella. The human tendency to unconsciously compartmentalize emotion through the repression mechanism opens the gateway to a world of self identification. It's abbey normal to think of the gain of self identification as a loss of true awareness, and so I gladly hang up my amateur psychology certificate and take on the role of propagating human combustion. I don't agree with a few of Mark's theories, but his work on the collective engine in general is well researched and a joy to observe. As far as people making big decisions in private, I guess it depends on how far we want to take the illusion of choice. Is there a current of energy which dictates who will become president next? Who controls that current and how remote are the odds such a person is in elected office? Collectively speaking we are quite far removed from the intelligent expression of love, and I think this have everything to do with how false truths bind the collective mind and how forces which work to unravel the resulting complex are too often labelled as evil or even satanic. Maybe random acts of kindness connect us to an unseen tapestry of angels, and so we could spin this whole story another way. But to the extent our personalities are co-dependent on each others actions and these actions are arranged so that we can avoid pain, most pointedly, already existing compartmentalized pain, maybe a random act of kindness is nothing more than enabling an emotional drug addict. Which is to say, none of this is really random. It's all programmed and it's the condition of now that is doing the programming. To equate this statement with the idea that all programming is God like or heavenly is just one more layer of dust a dark occultist can hide behind. Which is to say, what if what's right isn't true? In my opinion, the idea that all programming is heavenly or God like is silly, and even, really, ignorant. But, is a tornado evil? Is a flood malignant? Does a forest fire have deliberate bad intent? What's the difference between tragedy and misfortune? What's the difference between pain, and suffering? It's possible to see programming for what it is, and really, in the final analysis, this is sufficient, as the only house we can ever really clean, is, our own. As far as the worship of money is concerned, it seems to me rather undeniable that the greed for wealth and power is a major relative cause of human suffering, and further, American culture programs that greed into everyone from a very young age, to various matters of degree of success, depending on the individual. But there's a flip side to this. Both Niz and, purportedly, the Buddha, used the phrase "the world is on fire". For as long as we live and breath and walk we all need to eat. We all need the basics: food, clothing and shelter. And very few people would be able to provide those for themselves outside of some sort of social group. So what we see play out is the drama of life, and, have you ever noticed just how uncompromising, stark and brutal the natural world plays this out absent any interference from mankind? The difference between some robber-barron or bureaucrat or cabal of such that decimates a community with an economic decision and a lion that snaps the neck of his rival's cub is twofold. One is that, even within the dream, even if infected with the existential delusion, a people-peep has all sorts of signals as to how their actions can lead to the suffering of others. The other is the potential for that person to realize the existential truth, and in either case, it's possible for people to get present to the consequences of their actions. The lion, on the other hand, is a lion. Innocent in what we would describe as a savage cruelty. It's true that in the existential context, nothing is random, but neither is it predetermined. The context in which we can identify and define programming is relative, and material. In that relative and material context, various movements of consciousness take place that exhibit either or both of randomness and clockwork predetermination. The two define one another, and there is no such thing as a one-ended stick. Within that relative, material context, it's certainly possible to apply commonsense human value judgments to the abusive nature of some of the conditioning methods you describe. Believe me when I tell you, Mark was very easy for me to listen to. .. but that doesn't mean that I'll not speak what I see as falsity in what he says.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Sept 30, 2019 10:55:18 GMT -5
Absence of evidence for evidence of an absence or evidence of a conspiracy. What we can see in plain sight is a a system of rule held together by man made law that just so happens to have the un natural effect of dividing human thinking and separating form from spirit. When you factor in how and why humans worship money, particularly in light of how unconscious emotional compensation cascades out, religion is a logical effect of a need to bind and constrict thinking, as opposed to expand or make aware. As far as Mark goes, when you trim the fat and look at his work as a whole, he's one of the great pioneers of our time. His work on order followers is second to none, particularly as he explores how a classical order follower is created. Traumatization, repetition regarding what is right as opposed to true, placing authority in a father or mother figure, played by the part of God or maybe the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket, rewarding blind belief in what is right with absence of trauma infliction, such that what is true no longer matters and what is right but actually wrong becomes simultaneously true. I agree Mark simplifies humanity's issue with the abandonment complex umbrella. The human tendency to unconsciously compartmentalize emotion through the repression mechanism opens the gateway to a world of self identification. It's abbey normal to think of the gain of self identification as a loss of true awareness, and so I gladly hang up my amateur psychology certificate and take on the role of propagating human combustion. I don't agree with a few of Mark's theories, but his work on the collective engine in general is well researched and a joy to observe. As far as people making big decisions in private, I guess it depends on how far we want to take the illusion of choice. Is there a current of energy which dictates who will become president next? Who controls that current and how remote are the odds such a person is in elected office? Collectively speaking we are quite far removed from the intelligent expression of love, and I think this have everything to do with how false truths bind the collective mind and how forces which work to unravel the resulting complex are too often labelled as evil or even satanic. Maybe random acts of kindness connect us to an unseen tapestry of angels, and so we could spin this whole story another way. But to the extent our personalities are co-dependent on each others actions and these actions are arranged so that we can avoid pain, most pointedly, already existing compartmentalized pain, maybe a random act of kindness is nothing more than enabling an emotional drug addict. Which is to say, none of this is really random. It's all programmed and it's the condition of now that is doing the programming. To equate this statement with the idea that all programming is God like or heavenly is just one more layer of dust a dark occultist can hide behind. Which is to say, what if what's right isn't true? In my opinion, the idea that all programming is heavenly or God like is silly, and even, really, ignorant. But, is a tornado evil? Is a flood malignant? Does a forest fire have deliberate bad intent? What's the difference between tragedy and misfortune? What's the difference between pain, and suffering? It's possible to see programming for what it is, and really, in the final analysis, this is sufficient, as the only house we can ever really clean, is, our own. As far as the worship of money is concerned, it seems to me rather undeniable that the greed for wealth and power is a major relative cause of human suffering, and further, American culture programs that greed into everyone from a very young age, to various matters of degree of success, depending on the individual. But there's a flip side to this. Both Niz and, purportedly, the Buddha, used the phrase "the world is on fire". For as long as we live and breath and walk we all need to eat. We all need the basics: food, clothing and shelter. And very few people would be able to provide those for themselves outside of some sort of social group. So what we see play out is the drama of life, and, have you ever noticed just how uncompromising, stark and brutal the natural world plays this out absent any interference from mankind? The difference between some robber-barron or bureaucrat or cabal of such that decimates a community with an economic decision and a lion that snaps the neck of his rival's cub is twofold. One is that, even within the dream, even if infected with the existential delusion, a people-peep has all sorts of signals as to how their actions can lead to the suffering of others. The other is the potential for that person to realize the existential truth, and in either case, it's possible for people to get present to the consequences of their actions. The lion, on the other hand, is a lion. Innocent in what we would describe as a savage cruelty. It's true that in the existential context, nothing is random, but neither is it predetermined. The context in which we can identify and define programming is relative, and material. In that relative and material context, various movements of consciousness take place that exhibit either or both of randomness and clockwork predetermination. The two define one another, and there is no such thing as a one-ended stick. Within that relative, material context, it's certainly possible to apply commonsense human value judgments to the abusive nature of some of the conditioning methods you describe. Believe me when I tell you, Mark was very easy for me to listen to. .. but that doesn't mean that I'll not speak what I see as falsity in what he says. On the all programming being God thing, that happens in a round about way. The logic typically goes, if the present moment is all there is, was, or will be, then everything is now and even I am God or at least not separate from creation in any actual way. As such, my past programming doesn't exist in its own right because all is now and all is God. But yea, the way I worded it does sounds silly because it is silly. As far as Mark, and calling him out. Well in terms of evolution being battle tested Mark points out some issues with the absence of evidence thingy. I remember him blathering on about chromosome 2. Now I'm not a geneticist but apparently the presence of this chromosome requires the fusion of two other chromosomes, a fusion that doesn't typically happen in nature. Additionally, there is a complete absence of any transitional fossils, meaning, not one transitional fossil. When we think evolution, I'm sure anyone reading this thinks of the cartoon picture of the caveman evolving and eventually ending up on two feet. But a lot of that is not directly supported by evidence. In terms of the fusion required for chromosome 2, Mark states this is evidence for interference theory. When we leave the box of archaeology and look at the earliest known texts of the Sumerians (have you read the stories of the Anunaki and the two brothers?), in addition to all the other unexplained evidence that is potentially alien in nature, you have at least a case for interference theory, which is to say, that humans were created through the science of a different species, and wouldn't have evolved on their own. And so unlike Darwin, interference theory considers the earliest texts of humankind. Ironically, evolution proponents feel the fusion of chromosome 2 is evidence of evolution itself, while folks who back the creation story take it as evidence that God intervened. They can't all be right. Now, as far as interference theory, there are some gaping holes. Firstly, if a species had the technology to alter DNA and travel great distances if not interdimensionally, why not use robotics to accomplish whatever was desired to be accomplished? Meaning, is DNA technology dependent on other technology? Second, there is no tangible evidence or fossil records of these beings, which of course doesn't mean they didn't exist. But as far as Darwin being battle tested, if there is clear and convincing evidence that the fusion required for chromosome 2 happened naturally, I'm curious to hear about that. As of now, it seems mostly like speculation to support a desired conclusion, which has ego written all over it. I mean, how horrifying would it be to find out the human race is a pod race? And say what you will about the similarities to chimps, at the end of the day, how do you explain the differences, which are also staggering in number? Personally, as far as we can tell creation could have started 5 minutes ago and everything anyone can remember about anything could just be an experiential implant from a creative source. When you get down to how shaky is the foundation to all knowledge, what can really be known? But simply because you can't actually know what we're talking about, every human could believe something that's not true, and it is these very beliefs that form the backbone for spirit cloaking and mind control that perpetuates division and degradation, which we all agree is happening. To dismiss the worst case scenario, that you and I are pods, may not be the most intelligent thing to do until we've looked at this from every angle. But of course, life rolls on. I appreciate the research and information other great thinkers are able to provide. Nature can be cruel, you're right, and as the development of human empathy unravels so will the universe which we know change. The mind identification complex involves the repression of pain and unwanted emotion, and to the extent that complex may involve emotions about God abandonment based on being a pod, I'm open to a bat maybe existing in the belfry. I think some of us are so disillusioned we are able to laugh at the prospect, which doesn't mean nightmare scenarios which may create or even represent the bulk of humanity's pain need to be true. Meaning, one common dynamic in people that have had a rough go of it is the unconscious compulsion to want others to suffer pain, as a twisted form of divine justice. And in my opinion, this is where I am leaning with interference theory. But it's certainly not a fore drawn conclusion. What say you?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 30, 2019 11:52:33 GMT -5
In my opinion, the idea that all programming is heavenly or God like is silly, and even, really, ignorant. But, is a tornado evil? Is a flood malignant? Does a forest fire have deliberate bad intent? What's the difference between tragedy and misfortune? What's the difference between pain, and suffering? It's possible to see programming for what it is, and really, in the final analysis, this is sufficient, as the only house we can ever really clean, is, our own. As far as the worship of money is concerned, it seems to me rather undeniable that the greed for wealth and power is a major relative cause of human suffering, and further, American culture programs that greed into everyone from a very young age, to various matters of degree of success, depending on the individual. But there's a flip side to this. Both Niz and, purportedly, the Buddha, used the phrase "the world is on fire". For as long as we live and breath and walk we all need to eat. We all need the basics: food, clothing and shelter. And very few people would be able to provide those for themselves outside of some sort of social group. So what we see play out is the drama of life, and, have you ever noticed just how uncompromising, stark and brutal the natural world plays this out absent any interference from mankind? The difference between some robber-barron or bureaucrat or cabal of such that decimates a community with an economic decision and a lion that snaps the neck of his rival's cub is twofold. One is that, even within the dream, even if infected with the existential delusion, a people-peep has all sorts of signals as to how their actions can lead to the suffering of others. The other is the potential for that person to realize the existential truth, and in either case, it's possible for people to get present to the consequences of their actions. The lion, on the other hand, is a lion. Innocent in what we would describe as a savage cruelty. It's true that in the existential context, nothing is random, but neither is it predetermined. The context in which we can identify and define programming is relative, and material. In that relative and material context, various movements of consciousness take place that exhibit either or both of randomness and clockwork predetermination. The two define one another, and there is no such thing as a one-ended stick. Within that relative, material context, it's certainly possible to apply commonsense human value judgments to the abusive nature of some of the conditioning methods you describe. Believe me when I tell you, Mark was very easy for me to listen to. .. but that doesn't mean that I'll not speak what I see as falsity in what he says. On the all programming being God thing, that happens in a round about way. The logic typically goes, if the present moment is all there is, was, or will be, then everything is now and even I am God or at least not separate from creation in any actual way. As such, my past programming doesn't exist in its own right because all is now and all is God. But yea, the way I worded it does sounds silly because it is silly. As far as Mark, and calling him out. Well in terms of evolution being battle tested Mark points out some issues with the absence of evidence thingy. I remember him blathering on about chromosome 2. Now I'm not a geneticist but apparently the presence of this chromosome requires the fusion of two other chromosomes, a fusion that doesn't typically happen in nature. Additionally, there is a complete absence of any transitional fossils, meaning, not one transitional fossil. When we think evolution, I'm sure anyone reading this thinks of the cartoon picture of the caveman evolving and eventually ending up on two feet. But a lot of that is not directly supported by evidence. In terms of the fusion required for chromosome 2, Mark states this is evidence for interference theory. When we leave the box of archaeology and look at the earliest known texts of the Sumerians (have you read the stories of the Anunaki and the two brothers?), in addition to all the other unexplained evidence that is potentially alien in nature, you have at least a case for interference theory, which is to say, that humans were created through the science of a different species, and wouldn't have evolved on their own. And so unlike Darwin, interference theory considers the earliest texts of humankind. Ironically, evolution proponents feel the fusion of chromosome 2 is evidence of evolution itself, while folks who back the creation story take it as evidence that God intervened. They can't all be right. Now, as far as interference theory, there are some gaping holes. Firstly, if a species had the technology to alter DNA and travel great distances if not interdimensionally, why not use robotics to accomplish whatever was desired to be accomplished? Meaning, is DNA technology dependent on other technology? Second, there is no tangible evidence or fossil records of these beings, which of course doesn't mean they didn't exist. But as far as Darwin being battle tested, if there is clear and convincing evidence that the fusion required for chromosome 2 happened naturally, I'm curious to hear about that. As of now, it seems mostly like speculation to support a desired conclusion, which has ego written all over it. I mean, how horrifying would it be to find out the human race is a pod race? And say what you will about the similarities to chimps, at the end of the day, how do you explain the differences, which are also staggering in number? Personally, as far as we can tell creation could have started 5 minutes ago and everything anyone can remember about anything could just be an experiential implant from a creative source. When you get down to how shaky is the foundation to all knowledge, what can really be known? But simply because you can't actually know what we're talking about, every human could believe something that's not true, and it is these very beliefs that form the backbone for spirit cloaking and mind control that perpetuates division and degradation, which we all agree is happening. To dismiss the worst case scenario, that you and I are pods, may not be the most intelligent thing to do until we've looked at this from every angle. But of course, life rolls on. I appreciate the research and information other great thinkers are able to provide. Nature can be cruel, you're right, and as the development of human empathy unravels so will the universe which we know change. The mind identification complex involves the repression of pain and unwanted emotion, and to the extent that complex may involve emotions about God abandonment based on being a pod, I'm open to a bat maybe existing in the belfry. I think some of us are so disillusioned we are able to laugh at the prospect, which doesn't mean nightmare scenarios which may create or even represent the bulk of humanity's pain need to be true. Meaning, one common dynamic in people that have had a rough go of it is the unconscious compulsion to want others to suffer pain, as a twisted form of divine justice. And in my opinion, this is where I am leaning with interference theory. But it's certainly not a fore drawn conclusion. What say you? Circa 2006-2009, I was reading a lot of channelings and stuff generally related to the creation of the human species. It's quite a pleasure to revisit these ideas, I haven't thought about it in a while, my attention is normally wrapped up in the relatively mundane world of british politics. Anyway, my understanding was (and is) that the human species was indeed an experiment by our galactic family. Our genes are partially derived from a mixture of our galactic neighbours, including Arcturian, Syrian, Reptilian and others. Not all humans were created with the same blueprint, the 'elites' over the centuries know this, and hence why they try to keep their bloodline pure (but unfortunately for them, after many years, it's all beginning to look a bit 'Deliverance'). There was a reason for the experiment. Several 'alien' races (including reptilians) have been stuck at a particular level of evolution for a long time and are seeking to evolve. By studying human evolution, they could acquire the necessary knowledge that could help them to evolve. Specifically, the test was to see if humans could awaken to their true nature over a period of time. They were given the apparatus and conditions to make them unconscious BUT they were also given 'access' to higher intelligence through dreams, intuition and imagination. In a sense, the test was to see if this 'access' would be enough to ensure their awakening as a species. There have been difficulties during the experiment that have had to be addressed. Those with stronger reptilian bloodline basically became a bit big for their boots and began to seek ultimate control of the earth. They see their bloodline as superior and consider themselves to be the true inheritors. They believe that it is both right and compassionate for the rest of the species to basically be their slaves. So, to counter this problem, several highly evolved beings were sent to earth, that had little 'human experience' but didn't need it. Buddha, Jesus etc are these beings. In addition, a bunch of beings were nominated with the role of balancing the troublesome beings by holding the energy of love and acceptance. These beings are often living normal lives, in the 'shadows'. They can probably be found on spiritual forums, but they aren't necessarily obviously 'spiritual' in their thoughts, they could be the drunk on the street. Over a very long period, the experiment has been a success. Awakening is happening. In addition, our genes are no longer exactly the same as they were 5000 years ago, or even 500 years ago, so the beings born today are much more receptive to awakening. Often we hear spiritual folks talk about this in terms of 'indigo' or 'crystal' or 'rainbow' children. I have no idea what the current label is. But of course the elites still exist and are using all the tricks they have. The 'war' of energy is over at the higher levels of evolution, but it's still playing out on earth. Personally, my opinion is that it is useful for people to know the truth of their galactic origins. When we know that we have family in the stars, that life is multi-dimensional, that we're not isolated and alone on a rock with limited and scarce resources, it will resolve a great deal of people's existential issues. Simply, it's just not good for us to live a lie. In addition, the knowledge will give us permission to really begin to tune into the value of dreams, intuition and imagination. And also, the idea that we evolved directly from chimps seems quite ludicrous to me. I think we accept it on the basis that we don't have a better idea, and the elites have done a great job of ridiculing the idea of 'believing in aliens', though these days, it seems a great many do believe. There's a decent docu on Netflix called 'Unacknowledged'.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 30, 2019 12:29:23 GMT -5
On the all programming being God thing, that happens in a round about way. The logic typically goes, if the present moment is all there is, was, or will be, then everything is now and even I am God or at least not separate from creation in any actual way. As such, my past programming doesn't exist in its own right because all is now and all is God. But yea, the way I worded it does sounds silly because it is silly. As far as Mark, and calling him out. Well in terms of evolution being battle tested Mark points out some issues with the absence of evidence thingy. I remember him blathering on about chromosome 2. Now I'm not a geneticist but apparently the presence of this chromosome requires the fusion of two other chromosomes, a fusion that doesn't typically happen in nature. Additionally, there is a complete absence of any transitional fossils, meaning, not one transitional fossil. When we think evolution, I'm sure anyone reading this thinks of the cartoon picture of the caveman evolving and eventually ending up on two feet. But a lot of that is not directly supported by evidence. In terms of the fusion required for chromosome 2, Mark states this is evidence for interference theory. When we leave the box of archaeology and look at the earliest known texts of the Sumerians (have you read the stories of the Anunaki and the two brothers?), in addition to all the other unexplained evidence that is potentially alien in nature, you have at least a case for interference theory, which is to say, that humans were created through the science of a different species, and wouldn't have evolved on their own. And so unlike Darwin, interference theory considers the earliest texts of humankind. Ironically, evolution proponents feel the fusion of chromosome 2 is evidence of evolution itself, while folks who back the creation story take it as evidence that God intervened. They can't all be right. Now, as far as interference theory, there are some gaping holes. Firstly, if a species had the technology to alter DNA and travel great distances if not interdimensionally, why not use robotics to accomplish whatever was desired to be accomplished? Meaning, is DNA technology dependent on other technology? Second, there is no tangible evidence or fossil records of these beings, which of course doesn't mean they didn't exist. But as far as Darwin being battle tested, if there is clear and convincing evidence that the fusion required for chromosome 2 happened naturally, I'm curious to hear about that. As of now, it seems mostly like speculation to support a desired conclusion, which has ego written all over it. I mean, how horrifying would it be to find out the human race is a pod race? And say what you will about the similarities to chimps, at the end of the day, how do you explain the differences, which are also staggering in number? Personally, as far as we can tell creation could have started 5 minutes ago and everything anyone can remember about anything could just be an experiential implant from a creative source. When you get down to how shaky is the foundation to all knowledge, what can really be known? But simply because you can't actually know what we're talking about, every human could believe something that's not true, and it is these very beliefs that form the backbone for spirit cloaking and mind control that perpetuates division and degradation, which we all agree is happening. To dismiss the worst case scenario, that you and I are pods, may not be the most intelligent thing to do until we've looked at this from every angle. But of course, life rolls on. I appreciate the research and information other great thinkers are able to provide. Nature can be cruel, you're right, and as the development of human empathy unravels so will the universe which we know change. The mind identification complex involves the repression of pain and unwanted emotion, and to the extent that complex may involve emotions about God abandonment based on being a pod, I'm open to a bat maybe existing in the belfry. I think some of us are so disillusioned we are able to laugh at the prospect, which doesn't mean nightmare scenarios which may create or even represent the bulk of humanity's pain need to be true. Meaning, one common dynamic in people that have had a rough go of it is the unconscious compulsion to want others to suffer pain, as a twisted form of divine justice. And in my opinion, this is where I am leaning with interference theory. But it's certainly not a fore drawn conclusion. What say you? Circa 2006-2009, I was reading a lot of channelings and stuff generally related to the creation of the human species. It's quite a pleasure to revisit these ideas, I haven't thought about it in a while, my attention is normally wrapped up in the relatively mundane world of british politics. Anyway, my understanding was (and is) that the human species was indeed an experiment by our galactic family. Our genes are partially derived from a mixture of our galactic neighbours, including Arcturian, Syrian, Reptilian and others. Not all humans were created with the same blueprint, the 'elites' over the centuries know this, and hence why they try to keep their bloodline pure (but unfortunately for them, after many years, it's all beginning to look a bit 'Deliverance'). There was a reason for the experiment. Several 'alien' races (including reptilians) have been stuck at a particular level of evolution for a long time and are seeking to evolve. By studying human evolution, they could acquire the necessary knowledge that could help them to evolve. Specifically, the test was to see if humans could awaken to their true nature over a period of time. They were given the apparatus and conditions to make them unconscious BUT they were also given 'access' to higher intelligence through dreams, intuition and imagination. In a sense, the test was to see if this 'access' would be enough to ensure their awakening as a species. There have been difficulties during the experiment that have had to be addressed. Those with stronger reptilian bloodline basically became a bit big for their boots and began to seek ultimate control of the earth. They see their bloodline as superior and consider themselves to be the true inheritors. They believe that it is both right and compassionate for the rest of the species to basically be their slaves. So, to counter this problem, several highly evolved beings were sent to earth, that had little 'human experience' but didn't need it. Buddha, Jesus etc are these beings. In addition, a bunch of beings were nominated with the role of balancing the troublesome beings by holding the energy of love and acceptance. These beings are often living normal lives, in the 'shadows'. They can probably be found on spiritual forums, but they aren't necessarily obviously 'spiritual' in their thoughts, they could be the drunk on the street. Over a very long period, the experiment has been a success. Awakening is happening. In addition, our genes are no longer exactly the same as they were 5000 years ago, or even 500 years ago, so the beings born today are much more receptive to awakening. Often we hear spiritual folks talk about this in terms of 'indigo' or 'crystal' or 'rainbow' children. I have no idea what the current label is. But of course the elites still exist and are using all the tricks they have. The 'war' of energy is over at the higher levels of evolution, but it's still playing out on earth. Personally, my opinion is that it is useful for people to know the truth of their galactic origins. When we know that we have family in the stars, that life is multi-dimensional, that we're not isolated and alone on a rock with limited and scarce resources, it will resolve a great deal of people's existential issues. Simply, it's just not good for us to live a lie. In addition, the knowledge will give us permission to really begin to tune into the value of dreams, intuition and imagination. And also, the idea that we evolved directly from chimps seems quite ludicrous to me. I think we accept it on the basis that we don't have a better idea, and the elites have done a great job of ridiculing the idea of 'believing in aliens', though these days, it seems a great many do believe. There's a decent docu on Netflix called 'Unacknowledged'. To be accurate, humans are not thought to be directly descended from chimps. Chimps, apes, and humans are thought to be descended from a common ancestor. The picture has become somewhat clearer in the last few years as more fossils have been found.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 30, 2019 13:06:56 GMT -5
Circa 2006-2009, I was reading a lot of channelings and stuff generally related to the creation of the human species. It's quite a pleasure to revisit these ideas, I haven't thought about it in a while, my attention is normally wrapped up in the relatively mundane world of british politics. Anyway, my understanding was (and is) that the human species was indeed an experiment by our galactic family. Our genes are partially derived from a mixture of our galactic neighbours, including Arcturian, Syrian, Reptilian and others. Not all humans were created with the same blueprint, the 'elites' over the centuries know this, and hence why they try to keep their bloodline pure (but unfortunately for them, after many years, it's all beginning to look a bit 'Deliverance'). There was a reason for the experiment. Several 'alien' races (including reptilians) have been stuck at a particular level of evolution for a long time and are seeking to evolve. By studying human evolution, they could acquire the necessary knowledge that could help them to evolve. Specifically, the test was to see if humans could awaken to their true nature over a period of time. They were given the apparatus and conditions to make them unconscious BUT they were also given 'access' to higher intelligence through dreams, intuition and imagination. In a sense, the test was to see if this 'access' would be enough to ensure their awakening as a species. There have been difficulties during the experiment that have had to be addressed. Those with stronger reptilian bloodline basically became a bit big for their boots and began to seek ultimate control of the earth. They see their bloodline as superior and consider themselves to be the true inheritors. They believe that it is both right and compassionate for the rest of the species to basically be their slaves. So, to counter this problem, several highly evolved beings were sent to earth, that had little 'human experience' but didn't need it. Buddha, Jesus etc are these beings. In addition, a bunch of beings were nominated with the role of balancing the troublesome beings by holding the energy of love and acceptance. These beings are often living normal lives, in the 'shadows'. They can probably be found on spiritual forums, but they aren't necessarily obviously 'spiritual' in their thoughts, they could be the drunk on the street. Over a very long period, the experiment has been a success. Awakening is happening. In addition, our genes are no longer exactly the same as they were 5000 years ago, or even 500 years ago, so the beings born today are much more receptive to awakening. Often we hear spiritual folks talk about this in terms of 'indigo' or 'crystal' or 'rainbow' children. I have no idea what the current label is. But of course the elites still exist and are using all the tricks they have. The 'war' of energy is over at the higher levels of evolution, but it's still playing out on earth. Personally, my opinion is that it is useful for people to know the truth of their galactic origins. When we know that we have family in the stars, that life is multi-dimensional, that we're not isolated and alone on a rock with limited and scarce resources, it will resolve a great deal of people's existential issues. Simply, it's just not good for us to live a lie. In addition, the knowledge will give us permission to really begin to tune into the value of dreams, intuition and imagination. And also, the idea that we evolved directly from chimps seems quite ludicrous to me. I think we accept it on the basis that we don't have a better idea, and the elites have done a great job of ridiculing the idea of 'believing in aliens', though these days, it seems a great many do believe. There's a decent docu on Netflix called 'Unacknowledged'. To be accurate, humans are not thought to be directly descended from chimps. Chimps, apes, and humans are thought to be descended from a common ancestor. The picture has become somewhat clearer in the last few years as more fossils have been found. Great, as I said, that idea seemed ludicrous to me. Looking at the research, the few fossils they have found are millions of years apart. That also fits in with the spiritual belief that there have been several different epochs/cycles in which different experiments were happening e.g the time of Atlantis and Lemuria was another one.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 30, 2019 15:00:17 GMT -5
In my opinion, the idea that all programming is heavenly or God like is silly, and even, really, ignorant. But, is a tornado evil? Is a flood malignant? Does a forest fire have deliberate bad intent? What's the difference between tragedy and misfortune? What's the difference between pain, and suffering? It's possible to see programming for what it is, and really, in the final analysis, this is sufficient, as the only house we can ever really clean, is, our own. As far as the worship of money is concerned, it seems to me rather undeniable that the greed for wealth and power is a major relative cause of human suffering, and further, American culture programs that greed into everyone from a very young age, to various matters of degree of success, depending on the individual. But there's a flip side to this. Both Niz and, purportedly, the Buddha, used the phrase "the world is on fire". For as long as we live and breath and walk we all need to eat. We all need the basics: food, clothing and shelter. And very few people would be able to provide those for themselves outside of some sort of social group. So what we see play out is the drama of life, and, have you ever noticed just how uncompromising, stark and brutal the natural world plays this out absent any interference from mankind? The difference between some robber-barron or bureaucrat or cabal of such that decimates a community with an economic decision and a lion that snaps the neck of his rival's cub is twofold. One is that, even within the dream, even if infected with the existential delusion, a people-peep has all sorts of signals as to how their actions can lead to the suffering of others. The other is the potential for that person to realize the existential truth, and in either case, it's possible for people to get present to the consequences of their actions. The lion, on the other hand, is a lion. Innocent in what we would describe as a savage cruelty. It's true that in the existential context, nothing is random, but neither is it predetermined. The context in which we can identify and define programming is relative, and material. In that relative and material context, various movements of consciousness take place that exhibit either or both of randomness and clockwork predetermination. The two define one another, and there is no such thing as a one-ended stick. Within that relative, material context, it's certainly possible to apply commonsense human value judgments to the abusive nature of some of the conditioning methods you describe. Believe me when I tell you, Mark was very easy for me to listen to. .. but that doesn't mean that I'll not speak what I see as falsity in what he says. On the all programming being God thing, that happens in a round about way. The logic typically goes, if the present moment is all there is, was, or will be, then everything is now and even I am God or at least not separate from creation in any actual way. As such, my past programming doesn't exist in its own right because all is now and all is God. But yea, the way I worded it does sounds silly because it is silly. As far as Mark, and calling him out. Well in terms of evolution being battle tested Mark points out some issues with the absence of evidence thingy. I remember him blathering on about chromosome 2. Now I'm not a geneticist but apparently the presence of this chromosome requires the fusion of two other chromosomes, a fusion that doesn't typically happen in nature. Additionally, there is a complete absence of any transitional fossils, meaning, not one transitional fossil. When we think evolution, I'm sure anyone reading this thinks of the cartoon picture of the caveman evolving and eventually ending up on two feet. But a lot of that is not directly supported by evidence. In terms of the fusion required for chromosome 2, Mark states this is evidence for interference theory. When we leave the box of archaeology and look at the earliest known texts of the Sumerians (have you read the stories of the Anunaki and the two brothers?), in addition to all the other unexplained evidence that is potentially alien in nature, you have at least a case for interference theory, which is to say, that humans were created through the science of a different species, and wouldn't have evolved on their own. And so unlike Darwin, interference theory considers the earliest texts of humankind. Ironically, evolution proponents feel the fusion of chromosome 2 is evidence of evolution itself, while folks who back the creation story take it as evidence that God intervened. They can't all be right. Now, as far as interference theory, there are some gaping holes. Firstly, if a species had the technology to alter DNA and travel great distances if not interdimensionally, why not use robotics to accomplish whatever was desired to be accomplished? Meaning, is DNA technology dependent on other technology? Second, there is no tangible evidence or fossil records of these beings, which of course doesn't mean they didn't exist. But as far as Darwin being battle tested, if there is clear and convincing evidence that the fusion required for chromosome 2 happened naturally, I'm curious to hear about that. As of now, it seems mostly like speculation to support a desired conclusion, which has ego written all over it. I mean, how horrifying would it be to find out the human race is a pod race? And say what you will about the similarities to chimps, at the end of the day, how do you explain the differences, which are also staggering in number? Personally, as far as we can tell creation could have started 5 minutes ago and everything anyone can remember about anything could just be an experiential implant from a creative source. When you get down to how shaky is the foundation to all knowledge, what can really be known? But simply because you can't actually know what we're talking about, every human could believe something that's not true, and it is these very beliefs that form the backbone for spirit cloaking and mind control that perpetuates division and degradation, which we all agree is happening. To dismiss the worst case scenario, that you and I are pods, may not be the most intelligent thing to do until we've looked at this from every angle. But of course, life rolls on. I appreciate the research and information other great thinkers are able to provide. Nature can be cruel, you're right, and as the development of human empathy unravels so will the universe which we know change. The mind identification complex involves the repression of pain and unwanted emotion, and to the extent that complex may involve emotions about God abandonment based on being a pod, I'm open to a bat maybe existing in the belfry. I think some of us are so disillusioned we are able to laugh at the prospect, which doesn't mean nightmare scenarios which may create or even represent the bulk of humanity's pain need to be true. Meaning, one common dynamic in people that have had a rough go of it is the unconscious compulsion to want others to suffer pain, as a twisted form of divine justice. And in my opinion, this is where I am leaning with interference theory. But it's certainly not a fore drawn conclusion. What say you? Didn't mean to dismiss the silly idea as inconsequential, because it's definitely consequential, especially when the subconscious ramifications are taken into account. Whether it's arrived at through devotional fatalism or a misconceived intellectualized version of "Oneness", it's just plain wrong. Don't know enough about genetics to opine about chromosome 2, but how would Mark account for starfish? You see, there's this line of flora on the planet that demonstrate a fractal-five branching-pattern. Every mammalian body shares this characteristic. Not to say that some sort of seeding theory can't explain that, but comparing the two explanations, the evolutionary alternative strikes me as similar to how some fundamentalist Christians explain dinosaur bones as a practical joke or test of faith rigged by "God". See, the thing about evolution is that it relies on deep time, and our imaginations would be stretched as to how things would go over even ten's of thousands of years, much less a million, not to mention a billion. While there are certainly gaps in the fossil record, and conventional theories based mostly on speculation that are (probably incorrect) academic consensus, there certainly is a trend demonstrated in what has been found: from apes to Australopithecus to Homo Erectus to the Neanderthal branch. Haven't read the Anunaki story, no. But waterbears have been shown to have survived a trip on the outside of a spaceship, and the notion that the DNA that seeded the process of evolution arrived during the formation of the Earth has moved more into the mainstream as a possibility over the years. The theories of how the Earth formed are usually expressed in terms of some sort of distinction between when the accumulation of material from space became bombardment instead of aggregation, but any bright line between the two is arbitrary. Perhaps the Cambrian explosion might be explained in these terms. But deliberate seeding by some interstellar race is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence to find scientific acceptance. You could say that is a conspiracy of a sort. I guess. As far as the pain and suffering that leads to Schadenfreude is concerned, I think all we need to explain that is the natural stress of day-to-day life combined with the inherent arbitrary luck of the social draw that leads to a process that is unfair to the degree of essentially expressing a perpetual cosmic joke.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Sept 30, 2019 22:59:50 GMT -5
Circa 2006-2009, I was reading a lot of channelings and stuff generally related to the creation of the human species. It's quite a pleasure to revisit these ideas, I haven't thought about it in a while, my attention is normally wrapped up in the relatively mundane world of british politics. Anyway, my understanding was (and is) that the human species was indeed an experiment by our galactic family. Our genes are partially derived from a mixture of our galactic neighbours, including Arcturian, Syrian, Reptilian and others. Not all humans were created with the same blueprint, the 'elites' over the centuries know this, and hence why they try to keep their bloodline pure (but unfortunately for them, after many years, it's all beginning to look a bit 'Deliverance'). There was a reason for the experiment. Several 'alien' races (including reptilians) have been stuck at a particular level of evolution for a long time and are seeking to evolve. By studying human evolution, they could acquire the necessary knowledge that could help them to evolve. Specifically, the test was to see if humans could awaken to their true nature over a period of time. They were given the apparatus and conditions to make them unconscious BUT they were also given 'access' to higher intelligence through dreams, intuition and imagination. In a sense, the test was to see if this 'access' would be enough to ensure their awakening as a species. There have been difficulties during the experiment that have had to be addressed. Those with stronger reptilian bloodline basically became a bit big for their boots and began to seek ultimate control of the earth. They see their bloodline as superior and consider themselves to be the true inheritors. They believe that it is both right and compassionate for the rest of the species to basically be their slaves. So, to counter this problem, several highly evolved beings were sent to earth, that had little 'human experience' but didn't need it. Buddha, Jesus etc are these beings. In addition, a bunch of beings were nominated with the role of balancing the troublesome beings by holding the energy of love and acceptance. These beings are often living normal lives, in the 'shadows'. They can probably be found on spiritual forums, but they aren't necessarily obviously 'spiritual' in their thoughts, they could be the drunk on the street. Over a very long period, the experiment has been a success. Awakening is happening. In addition, our genes are no longer exactly the same as they were 5000 years ago, or even 500 years ago, so the beings born today are much more receptive to awakening. Often we hear spiritual folks talk about this in terms of 'indigo' or 'crystal' or 'rainbow' children. I have no idea what the current label is. But of course the elites still exist and are using all the tricks they have. The 'war' of energy is over at the higher levels of evolution, but it's still playing out on earth. Personally, my opinion is that it is useful for people to know the truth of their galactic origins. When we know that we have family in the stars, that life is multi-dimensional, that we're not isolated and alone on a rock with limited and scarce resources, it will resolve a great deal of people's existential issues. Simply, it's just not good for us to live a lie. In addition, the knowledge will give us permission to really begin to tune into the value of dreams, intuition and imagination. And also, the idea that we evolved directly from chimps seems quite ludicrous to me. I think we accept it on the basis that we don't have a better idea, and the elites have done a great job of ridiculing the idea of 'believing in aliens', though these days, it seems a great many do believe. There's a decent docu on Netflix called 'Unacknowledged'. To be accurate, humans are not thought to be directly descended from chimps. Chimps, apes, and humans are thought to be descended from a common ancestor. The picture has become somewhat clearer in the last few years as more fossils have been found. Right on the chimp thing. The point was tangential. Apparently there are precisely 0 bones in hominids that also appear in the modern human skeleton. And exactly 0 transitional fossils from hominids to humans. Archaeologists call this the missing link. I mean to write more and respond to Andrew and laffy when I regain computer access. Chimps are from what I recall our closest dna match, which is sometimes used as proof that there is a common ancestor or that evolution is actual. But my understanding is that the missing link is still missing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 1, 2019 4:22:27 GMT -5
To be accurate, humans are not thought to be directly descended from chimps. Chimps, apes, and humans are thought to be descended from a common ancestor. The picture has become somewhat clearer in the last few years as more fossils have been found. Right on the chimp thing. The point was tangential. Apparently there are precisely 0 bones in hominids that also appear in the modern human skeleton. And exactly 0 transitional fossils from hominids to humans. Archaeologists call this the missing link. I mean to write more and respond to Andrew and laffy when I regain computer access. Chimps are from what I recall our closest dna match, which is sometimes used as proof that there is a common ancestor or that evolution is actual. But my understanding is that the missing link is still missing. Well, that's an interesting way to look at it. We could also say, for example, that there are zero cobblestones on I-95. Personally, I see it as a fallacy. Lucy looks more like a human than she does a gorilla. She has what's recognizable as a ribcage, pelvis, shins, thighs, etc.
|
|