Thursday, 3 December 2015

Evil as Test


Being good is relatively easy when you're untested. This is why evil seeks to win the individual over, first, through the promise of a better life in terms of fame, fortune, comfort - what is generally called bribery - and, second, through the threat of punishment, pain, poverty, exposure (as in blackmail), humiliation, death, torture - what is generally called coercion. 

It routinely trumps both these methods via soft or hard mind control techniques that both promote and enforce the polarity of fear (the shutting down of consciousness) as opposed to the polarity of love (the force that expands consciousness) in order to conceal truth and evil's true nature. Indeed, evil loves to disguise itself as good and common sense. 

In other words, evil promises the earth for compliance or, conversely, earthly damnation for non compliance and, through mind control, evil hides its true nature so as to confuse and win people over to its cause. 

Thus Jesus, who saw through the workings of evil (mind control), was promised riches and power by Satan during his journey in the desert but resisted and, on the opposite side, did not flee from a fate he knew to be bleak and replete with suffering if he carried on his course of preaching over and above the thought police of his day; it is key in this respect that Jesus knew he would be betrayed to the authorities. 

Jesus walked the walk of evil's test and cunning. We are left to ask ourselves how far we, as individuals or groups, would go in this journey of challenging the rule of evil, whether and to what extent we would be able to, 

  1. recognise evil by unlearning mind control and not being fooled as regards its true nature, 
  2. resist the promise of earthly bliss and the pleasures that come with Evil's methods of corruption and 
  3. deal with the consequences of not complying with Satan's rule, that is, suffer and maybe die. 

Good and evil are at work every day and some would argue few have truly confronted Satan and the rule of evil all the way regarding these three points. 

Conclusion: evil tests and seeks to corrupt goodness. Challenging its dominion on earth, let alone overcoming it, has been the hallmark of only the greatest and rarest human beings for evil is both commonplace (cf. Hannah Arendt) and powerful.   



When Reason Breaks Down


When faced with conflicting or novel information from a variety of sources which contradict each other, rational methods may have limitations when it comes to discern what is true and what is not true, i.e. which does not correspond to what is (Whitehead: truth consists of all the events that have already taken place at a given time). 

Truth is that which is, according to researcher Mark Passio, but determining what is can be an arduous task, especially in our age of generalised propaganda and dis-information. To be sure, one has to be able to exercise one's critical mind but I would suggest that more is needed: one needs to holistically gauge the veracity of the information by a not entirely rational process located in the holistic right-brain hemisphere.

Moreover, it is not possible to falsify explanations - an alleged criterion of science - that, unlike experiments performed in a laboratory setting, take place in an open environment where influencing factors are infinite and impossible to completely account for in their entirety. 

Thus, in order to construe events in an open environment, such as a suspicious death, knowledge or, at the least, an understanding of context is necessary to interpret the death and the suspicious (or not) circumstances in which it took place and which attended it. 

Thus someone with the view that establishments are generally psychopathic and immoral will more likely see conspiracy in daily events and phenomena than someone who believes in the benign nature of government. It is a case of being able to determine weather from climate, and climate from weather.

The argument I am putting forward from my own experience of seeking truth, whether it be philosophical or political truth, is that there comes a point where rationalisations stop enlightening us and one has to determine for oneself what feels true in one's heart of hearts

That is, the analytical left brain has to commune with the right brain hemisphere which includes holistic and emotional intelligence to determine whether or not to take on board a novel or conflicting theory, interpretation, conspiracy. 

Someone experiencing cognitive dissonance will deny any fact that discomforts him or clashes with his belief system and, to be sure, we all have a cognitive bias in interpreting the world from a certain angle. 

The argument thus comes full circle: it is the prerogative and responsibility of right-minded humanity, which is not completely cut off from the emotional centre of the limbic or mammal brain, to ascertain whether new knowledge feels right or feels wrong, beyond any ex post facto rationalisation supporting either this view or that view. 

Time Travel


The fundamental error present in popular culture regarding time travel is that it generally confuses the essence of time, which consists in the ever recurring cycle of inception, revolution and termination, with the measurement of time, which is linear according to the Christian understanding of time as going from infinity before Christ to infinity after Christ. 

Thus going back to the year 1985 is ridiculous since the year 1985 is only a completely arbitrary and conventional demarcation of a time period that is fully realised in the now and that can only be conceptualised retrospectively. The well known philosophical turn of phrase that the past in the no longer now, the future, the not yet now and the present the endless recurrence of succeeding nows shows, for all its simplicity, that past and future are always fully realised in the present moment. 

All that is past has contributed to the now of the present moment and cannot be isolated, for the purposes of time travel, as a convenient time period based on a linear dating system which does not reflect the cycle of becoming. This is a basically a convoluted way of saying that time is not outside or independent of us but that by virtue of being em-bobied, born and destined to die, we are time, in every sense of the word. 

Time, naturally conceived, is not a resource that we have, but a modality, a configuration of existence, that we are.

Put differently, time is consciousness. 

Origins of Man


In his book Rule By Secrecy, Jim Marrs opened my eyes to an alternative narrative concerning the origins of humans, situated at a an equal distance from both creationism and darwinism. He argues that this is the knowledge taught in the Mystery Schools over the ages right up to the present day, to wit, the extra-terrestrial fashioning of humans as a slave labour force in Ancient Sumeria, located in present day Iraq. The narrative is complex, compelling, unbelievable and so far from anything I've heard that it certainly got me thinking.

I do not wish to comment on the research of Sumerian artefacts linked to Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt and the Hebrews save to say that it pointed me to an insight concerning a key difference between classical, particularly Greek, and modern understandings of human evolution. 

Just as the alien life-form fashioning humans shows, if we accept this theory, that we derive from a higher species, and that humans were progressively made weaker over the centuries to avoid direct competition with those aliens (note that many of the early Old Testament characters lived for centuries), so did the Ancient Greeks view humanity as having generally devolved over time. 


This is clear in both Homer and Hesiod's poems. For those authorities, humans had become weaker in strength over time and had become more removed from the divine over the ages. This actually fits in with the alien version of human origins as well, if we see in those alien life forms the origin of the concept of gods and that these aliens largely left us to fend for ourselves.

Even within creationism, based as it is on the Genesis story, man came from God and was thus derived from a higher being, just like the Sumerian version of human origins as well as the Greek. It is only with nineteenth century 
Darwinism (19th c. being the 'century of rubbish' according to one author) that a completely opposing view asserted itself, namely that man evolved from so-called lower species.

It is worth noting that this is the same century that promulgated the view that prior to the modern age, the general conviction of humanity was that the earth was flat. This is demonstrably false and is a case of loathsome presentism still adhered to by overrated left-brain imbalanced scientists working today. 

Leaving aside the flawed theories of both Darwinism and Creationism, the view that we evolved from lower species and, conversely, that we are higher beings than what came previously - despite evidence that advanced civilisations (at least as advanced as ours) existed hundreds of millennia ago (see the Jim Marrs book) - is symptomatic of a general reversal of the old world order into a new world order, where the truth is stood on its head, for the benefit of covert and occult powers that rule the day. 


More broadly, however, is the following problem; on what basis can we claim superior knowledge than those who existed millennia ago? What makes us so special or privileged compared to our forebears? The point is this: the Darwinist view is not only a minuscule brainchild of a century and half ago, but opposes millennia of insight by human beings - as if not more sophisticated than we are today - according to which we derived from higher, superior beings and that as rule humanity has devolved rather than evolved over time.