Conspiracy

[Chris]

I thought it would be useful to have a separate thread on taking a critical look at conspiracies, not just theories, but real, actual ones and to try and determine, collectively, which of them may have merit and which ones are just crazy talk.

To start us off, It's worth studying the below chart, which is quite useful I think. I don't fully agree with this classification, but it's pretty entertaining and informative anyways.

https://i.redd.it/r3o444yelf181.jpg

One thing I would note, that some of the CTs that were placed in the top "batshit crazy" category are actually demonstrably true, although the chart does not elaborate on what they mean under certain terms.

For instance, secret Satanic Rituals are a real thing, I know people who do them personally, although of course it is a matter of whether you imagine that the "elites" are involved in this thing on a mass scale and whether human sacrifice is involved. Certainly, Jimmy Savile's case should make you think twice.

Another one is "Hollywood is turning your kids gay" and the "Trans Agenda", whilst obviously there is some amount of moral panic and exaggeration involved, there is no question that there is a concerted, super not secret effort to normalise (and legalise) LGBTQ lifestyles worldwide, of which Hollywood is very much an integral part. It isn't a conspiracy theory when it is an openly admitted aim of the political left and many corporations.

There are other examples, but this should suffice for now.

[Aragorn]

Considering that this thread is a more generic and honest approach toward the conspiracy theory phenomenon ─ as opposed to that it would be aiming to become an echo chamber ─ I am moving it to the Watchdog category for now. ;)

[Wind]

This is funny, but really just tells me that people don't know jack shit and it can be super depressing to think about. The worst thing about the truth and conspiracy facts is that there are also lies and bullshit theories mixed together with all of it so that people would be confused. Also the other reason is to make people look crazy in the eyes of the public. Critical thinking is a skill and everyone ain't got that. Qanon for example is on a whole new level of nuttery and Flat Earthers make the likes of Alex Jones look like a genius.

"Grounded in reality". Who defines what that means, is there a Ministry of Truth who decides that? This reality too is just an illusion except for materialists who think that they got the gist of what is true or not when in fact they're like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand. The most educated people can be the most dogmatic ones with their thoughts and beliefs. Intelligent people can be "dumb" and naive too.

[Chris]

This is funny, but really just tells me that people don't know jack shit and it can be super depressing to think about. The worst thing about the truth and conspiracy facts is that there are also lies and bullshit theories mixed together with all of it so that people would be confused. Also the other reason is to make them look people crazy in the eyes of the public. Critical thinking is a skill and everyone ain't got that. Qanon for example is on a whole new level of nuttery and Flat Earthers make the likes of Alex Jones look like a genius.

"Grounded in reality". Who defines what that means, is there a Ministry of Truth who decides that? This reality too is just an illusion except for materialists who think that they got the gist of what is true or not when in fac they're like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand. The most educated people can be the most dogmatic ones with their thoughts and beliefs. Intelligent people can be "dumb" and naive too.

Hear, hear!

You're very wise, my friend, and I wholeheartedly agree.

This is the big issue we face in general. A lot of hidden truth (often hidden on purpose, by the powers that be) mixed in with misinformation and plain crazy talk. The intellectual trick those in the mainstream employ to silence those that are outside of it, works like a charm. Just label everything outside the mainstream as mental illness or conspiracy theory and there you go, you never have to deal with it again. It's the intellectual equivalent of burying your head in the sand, hoping that extranormal phenomena will just go away, because it all must be fantasy or mental illness.

I can't even tell you how many times I was told I was crazy by people who have never met me and read maybe one post or comment I made. Based on a single remark, they extrapolate to you being mentally ill, even though, if you've met me in real life or saw my videos, few people are as calm, sane or generally grounded as I am. They do this to everyone and now en masse, with the power of social media. It is a way for the crabs to pull those that would want to escape the matrix into "reality", which in itself is actually an illusion, but they'll never come to realise that.

[Emil El Zapato]

I thought it would be useful to have a separate thread on taking a critical look at conspiracies, not just theories, but real, actual ones and to try and determine, collectively, which of them may have merit and which ones are just crazy talk.

To start us off, It's worth studying the below chart, which is quite useful I think. I don't fully agree with this classification, but it's pretty entertaining and informative anyways.

One thing I would note, that some of the CTs that were placed in the top "batshit crazy" category are actually demonstrably true, although the chart does not elaborate on what they mean under certain terms.

For instance, secret Satanic Rituals are a real thing, I know people who do them personally, although of course it is a matter of whether you imagine that the "elites" are involved in this thing on a mass scale and whether human sacrifice is involved. Certainly, Jimmy Savile's case should make you think twice.

Another one is "Hollywood is turning your kids gay" and the "Trans Agenda", whilst obviously there is some amount of moral panic and exaggeration involved, there is no question that there is a concerted, super not secret effort to normalise (and legalise) LGBTQ lifestyles worldwide, of which Hollywood is very much an integral part. It isn't a conspiracy theory when it is an openly admitted aim of the political left and many corporations.

There are other examples, but this should suffice for now.

Self-acceptance is a worthy goal. Isn't that the same goal that philosophy teaches as Self-Actualization, which is the pinnacle of moral and spiritual development?

Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer is hilarious, I do know a guy that firmly believed that his father was.

[Wind]

I can't even tell you how many times I was told I was crazy by people who have never met me and read maybe one post or comment I made. Based on a single remark, they extrapolate to you being mentally ill, even though, if you've met me in real life or saw my videos, few people are as calm, sane or generally grounded as I am. They do this to everyone and now en masse, with the power of social media. It is a way for the crabs to pull those that would want to escape the matrix into "reality", which in itself is actually an illusion, but they'll never come to realise that.

That's why I almost never talk about these things in real life, because it just ain't worth it unless there is like-minded company and most often or never there is. In reality I am cool, collected, extremely rational and only if people knew what I know or believe in then some of them obviously would think that I am mentally ill, weird, hippy or something like that. The thing is, I couldn't give two shits about that. Believe it or not, I have been quite skeptical myself too and I never actually take things at face value, I need to test and understand things myself before accepting them. The thing is that I've seen, experienced and realized things that are absolutely "nuts" to some and yet they're so very real on a fundamental level. There's no going back after that ever again and I have no need to prove things to anyone.

[Chris]

That's why I almost never talk about these things in real life, because it just ain't worth it unless there is like-minded company and most often or never there is. In reality I am cool, collected, extremely rational and only if people knew what I know or believe in then some of them obviously would think that I am mentally ill, weird, hippy or something like that. The thing is, I couldn't give two shits about that. Believe it or not, I have been quite skeptical myself too and I never actually take things at face value, I need to test and understand things myself before accepting them. The thing is that I've seen, experienced and realized things that are absolutely "nuts" to some and yet they're so very real on a fundamental level. There's no going back after that ever again and I have no need to prove things to anyone.

Yip, that's exactly how I feel about it.

I actually sort of layer what I will talk about depending on the person. It takes quite a lot of mental gymnastics to work out how far I can go with each individual person and how much they're ready to accept without calling the men in white coats on me.

Regarding my spiritual experiences, in my offline life, practically nobody knows about it. I started a youtube channel with my real (anglicised) name and I have also written a couple of articles for an online magazine here in Hungary, so eventually somebody might find out, but I don't mind. I'm certainly long past caring about what other people think, it's more an issue of me not wanting to shatter their fragile egos and world-views. Most people simply aren't equipped to handle the truth of what is actually out there.

[Wind]

https://www.azquotes.com/image-quotes/Quotation-Leo-Tolstoy-Truth-like-gold-is-to-be-obtained-not-by-its-29-55-09.jpg

[Dreamtimer]

I started exploring conspiracy theory back in 2012. Even the year was caught up in conspiracy. I had kids tell me about the illuminati growing up. I would wonder why. Did they think I'd believe them? Did they think I was naive? Did they believe?

Kids love to tell tall tales. I recall many of the silly stories and assumed the illuminati thing was just one of them.

Seeing adults glom onto these things was a different experience. I tend to think that if a bunch of people are talking about something, there may be a grain of truth. If not, then it's good to know the underlying dynamic.

For example, the doctor widely responsible for spreading the MMR/autism fear was developing his own vaccine and was trying to undermine the competition.

The autism lie never died.

So CT can be problematic, even dangerous.

I decided I should look into things myself before being drawn into something by a 'true believer'.

I checked out everything from Nibiru and 2012 end times, to aliens, to flat earth, and on and on.

The sad thing I discovered was that there is a common through line in most CT. Dig deeply and you find the 'jews' who are controlling/destroying everything. You find the holocaust denial and white supremacy.

I'm not sure how that became so embedded in CT. Perhaps it's just a useful vehicle to draw people in and get them on board before they realize the underlying anti-jew, white supremacist dynamic.

It was a depressing revelation for me.

[Dreamtimer]

It's hard not to get caught up when it's personal.

"We're the true royal line!" "We're the real indigenous people!"

It's much more exciting than 'love your neighbor' or civic duties.

[Emil El Zapato]

I started exploring conspiracy theory back in 2012. Even the year was caught up in conspiracy. I had kids tell me about the illuminati growing up. I would wonder why. Did they think I'd believe them? Did they think I was naive? Did they believe?

Kids love to tell tall tales. I recall many of the silly stories and assumed the illuminati thing was just one of them.

Seeing adults glom onto these things was a different experience. I tend to think that if a bunch of people are talking about something, there may be a grain of truth. If not, then it's good to know the underlying dynamic.

For example, the doctor widely responsible for spreading the MMR/autism fear was developing his own vaccine and was trying to undermine the competition.

The autism lie never died.

So CT can be problematic, even dangerous.

I decided I should look into things myself before being drawn into something by a 'true believer'.

I checked out everything from Nibiru and 2012 end times, to aliens, to flat earth, and on and on.

The sad thing I discovered was that there is a common through line in most CT. Dig deeply and you find the 'jews' who are controlling/destroying everything. You find the holocaust denial and white supremacy.

I'm not sure how that became so embedded in CT. Perhaps it's just a useful vehicle to draw people in and get them on board before they realize the underlying anti-jew, white supremacist dynamic.

It was a depressing revelation for me.

yeah, true that ... that also is an intrinsic part of the cosmos it would seem since it is so prevalent. In reality perhaps it is a perversion of that Universal love thingy ... distorted by anthropomorphic dysfunction. Is that evil? Here's another perspective. Cause and effect. In this case the effect is the perversion but what is the cause ... A belief I've long held is that the cause is parenting but then we know that parenting isn't the begin all, end all, no we are all independent creatures capable of forming our own opinions and acting on them. We can choose a positive motivation for good or we can choose to condemn ourselves to hell. Free will is a concept that runs the gamut with opinions, again cause and effect, which is a dominating principle in the material world, the question is do we have free will granted by that 'above and outside' of the cosmos or does the hopelessly anthropomorphic dictates of our genes take it away.


I started exploring conspiracy theory back in 2012. Even the year was caught up in conspiracy. I had kids tell me about the illuminati growing up. I would wonder why. Did they think I'd believe them? Did they think I was naive? Did they believe?

Kids love to tell tall tales. I recall many of the silly stories and assumed the illuminati thing was just one of them.

Seeing adults glom onto these things was a different experience. I tend to think that if a bunch of people are talking about something, there may be a grain of truth. If not, then it's good to know the underlying dynamic.

For example, the doctor widely responsible for spreading the MMR/autism fear was developing his own vaccine and was trying to undermine the competition.

The autism lie never died.

So CT can be problematic, even dangerous.

I decided I should look into things myself before being drawn into something by a 'true believer'.

I checked out everything from Nibiru and 2012 end times, to aliens, to flat earth, and on and on.

The sad thing I discovered was that there is a common through line in most CT. Dig deeply and you find the 'jews' who are controlling/destroying everything. You find the holocaust denial and white supremacy.

I'm not sure how that became so embedded in CT. Perhaps it's just a useful vehicle to draw people in and get them on board before they realize the underlying anti-jew, white supremacist dynamic.

It was a depressing revelation for me.

The comical thing about the big day in 2012 was that I was moving my furniture from an upstairs apartment and accidentally dropped an exercycle down the stairs. My downstairs neighbor screamed and nearly jumped through her window. I laughed for days, even if it was a really really inside joke and a very bad one for her apparently. :)

[Chris]

I started exploring conspiracy theory back in 2012. Even the year was caught up in conspiracy. I had kids tell me about the illuminati growing up. I would wonder why. Did they think I'd believe them? Did they think I was naive? Did they believe?

Kids love to tell tall tales. I recall many of the silly stories and assumed the illuminati thing was just one of them.

Seeing adults glom onto these things was a different experience. I tend to think that if a bunch of people are talking about something, there may be a grain of truth. If not, then it's good to know the underlying dynamic.

For example, the doctor widely responsible for spreading the MMR/autism fear was developing his own vaccine and was trying to undermine the competition.

The autism lie never died.

So CT can be problematic, even dangerous.

I decided I should look into things myself before being drawn into something by a 'true believer'.

I checked out everything from Nibiru and 2012 end times, to aliens, to flat earth, and on and on.

The sad thing I discovered was that there is a common through line in most CT. Dig deeply and you find the 'jews' who are controlling/destroying everything. You find the holocaust denial and white supremacy.

I'm not sure how that became so embedded in CT. Perhaps it's just a useful vehicle to draw people in and get them on board before they realize the underlying anti-jew, white supremacist dynamic.

It was a depressing revelation for me.

Conspiracy theories have centred around the Jews since at least the middle ages. Nothing's new under the sun.

When reading about my own city's history (Sopron), I found out that Jews were expelled twice during the middle ages. Then, after the Holocaust, none were left. I met one Jewish person, in a local museum since the whole time I've lived here (my family moved here in 1995).

Even when Jews were allowed to live here in peace, they were often mistrusted. Malicious rumours about them, like the notorious blood libel, abounded and were believed by many.

I occasionally read the writings of Henry Makow, a canadian Jew, whose parents were Holocaust survivors. Despite this, he is a rabid anti-semite himself and swallows the whole anti-semitic conspiracy theory in whole. He reckons the protocols are a real document and that the Jewish elite are actually Satanists (Sabattean-Frankists as he calls them) and they engage in ritual sacrifice and are plotting to control the world and kill off or at least enslave the goyim. He used to be a respected University Professor by the way and he has written several well-regarded books before his rather worrying turn.

Even a person like him a Canadian Jewish university professor, whose family suffered during the Holocaust can be susceptible to such anti-semitic conspiracy theories. Remember the Oprah episode where a Jewish girl came on and claimed that prominent Jews are actually satanists and will sacrifice their own secret babies at night? It caused a stir, but people don't forget such claims and they stick in the collective consciousness even when they're debunked. I'd bet anti-semitism is the driving force behind the Qanon phenomenon as well.

[Wind]

Remember the Oprah episode where a Jewish girl came on and claimed that prominent Jews are actually satanists and will sacrifice their own secret babies at night? It caused a stir, but people don't forget such claims and they stick in the collective consciousness even when they're debunked. I'd bet anti-semitism is the driving force behind the Qanon phenomenon as well.

-ki8gMNPcqk

[Emil El Zapato]

This is for you Chris: I realized another thing while watching this ... The right will countenance no heretics. The mainstream left still living the vestigial legacy of Americanism do.

It may not last long:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC4rAm_SQpg

[Dreamtimer]

So many RINOs all of a sudden. Those would be the political heretics, of course I haven't watched the above vide, yet. I want to have a nice day today.

[Chris]

As far as I'm concerned, it's all about religion.

Fundamentalist Christians (and Muslims, to be fair) are always worried, that the Devil is after them and that the other side is somehow compromised in that regard. They seek secret conspiracies of Devil-worshippers everywhere. Qanon and the current direction of the republican party is just the latest iteration of this paranoid streak in US politics. Ironically, this is incredibly similar to the Islamic world, except there they tend to see the US as the satanic power with Israel closely behind.

I'm not sure that they're entirely wrong there, to be honest...

[Emil El Zapato]

As far as I'm concerned, it's all about religion.

Fundamentalist Christians (and Muslims, to be fair) are always worried, that the Devil is after them and that the other side is somehow compromised in that regard. They seek secret conspiracies of Devil-worshippers everywhere. Qanon and the current direction of the republican party is just the latest iteration of this paranoid streak in US politics. Ironically, this is incredibly similar to the Islamic world, except there they tend to see the US as the satanic power with Israel closely behind.

I'm not sure that they're entirely wrong there, to be honest...

Exactly, it is a tossup for me ... I would be inclined to go with the Fundamentalist Christians though ... :)

[Wind]

This is one confused species... Ay caramba.

[Chris]

The funny things is how both groups (fundamentalist Christians and Muslims) worship the same God, but imagine that the other side is the personification of evil and are footsoldiers for Satan. This is always a worry. In Northern Ireland, protestants used to preach that the Pope was the antichrist and Catholics were devil-worshippers. Same with the Sunni-Shia hatred, which goes back centuries, or the antisemitism of Christians and Muslims.

I think conspiracy theories tap into the same sort of ancient hatred and divisions. Republicans in particular tend to see the democrats as "demonrats", demonic vermin to be exterminated, devil-worshippers that literally eat babies. This is serious stuff and such hatred and division almost always leads to mass violence.

BTW, there are some divisions in Europe too, but never of this magnitude. Disagreements are mostly over economic policy and migration, but one side doesn't think the other side is evil personified. This is really medieval (or totalitarian) stuff.

[Emil El Zapato]

The funny things is how both groups (fundamentalist Christians and Muslims) worship the same God, but imagine that the other side is the personification of evil and are footsoldiers for Satan. This is always a worry. In Northern Ireland, protestants used to preach that the Pope was the antichrist and Catholics were devil-worshippers. Same with the Sunni-Shia hatred, which goes back centuries, or the antisemitism of Christians and Muslims.

I think conspiracy theories tap into the same sort of ancient hatred and divisions. Republicans in particular tend to see the democrats as "demonrats", demonic vermin to be exterminated, devil-worshippers that literally eat babies. This is serious stuff and such hatred and division almost always leads to mass violence.

BTW, there are some divisions in Europe too, but never of this magnitude. Disagreements are mostly over economic policy and migration, but one side doesn't think the other side is evil personified. This is really medieval (or totalitarian) stuff.

All true, but in the U.S. that is almost a sideshow while the 'fundamental' problem is one of racism, the satan worship evolved from the angle of humanism and secularism becoming the predominant sentiment, as in most developed nations, and that brought out the fundamentalist Christians to fight the 'others' and the godless pedophiles. It is a highly toxic mix.

[Chris]

All true, but in the U.S. that is almost a sideshow while the 'fundamental' problem is one of racism, the satan worship evolved from the angle of humanism and secularism becoming the predominant sentiment, as in most developed nations, and that brought out the fundamentalist Christians to fight the 'others' and the godless pedophiles. It is a highly toxic mix.

True, but racism itself seems to stem from ideas rooted in religious thought. For instance the term Aryan, PureBlood, comes from the Hindu concept of a spiritually pure, superior group of humans, itself based on the idea of castes, that is the idea that certain groups (often, though not always, differentiated by certain physical characteristics, such as skin tone) are inherently superior to others by birth, that these should be superior, that is they should rule over the lesser groups and that their superiority is genetic, conferred upon them from birth, true their bloodline and inherited.

If you think about antisemitism, would it even exist if Jews weren't followers of another religion?

[Emil El Zapato]

True, but racism itself seems to stem from ideas rooted in religious thought. For instance the term Aryan, PureBlood, comes from the Hindu concept of a spiritually pure, superior group of humans, itself based on the idea of castes, that is the idea that certain groups (often, though not always, differentiated by certain physical characteristics, such as skin tone) are inherently superior to others by birth, that these should be superior, that is they should rule over the lesser groups and that their superiority is genetic, conferred upon them from birth, true their bloodline and inherited.

If you think about antisemitism, would it even exist if Jews weren't followers of another religion?

:) good point ... another question might be when did those concepts incorporate into religious thought. In the west, Aristotle can be blamed for the notion of 'what you are born to be is what you will be at your last breath'. Religion or philosophy? Or just plain 'the evil gene'. I do know that prior to Judaism the prevailing differentiation of 'me' and 'other' was predicated on culture. Does that mean culture as defined by religion or culture as 'wealth'. If people labeled each other 'within' a religious culture then it might suggest that it is deeper yet than religion. It is just my feeling that Neanderthals didn't make those kind of distinctions, they were united in the goal of survival. It was modern man with his 'technological' breakthroughs that began to believe that they were better than the next person. It's that old 'Caucasus' mountains thing again. It would have infected the Middle East first and then spread to Europe. Modern people in Europe really took to the idea after intermarriage with the 'evil' gene. The 'warrior gene' has been validated by neurologists to exist and is carried by females that are descendants of the first wave of 'gene' spread post Neanderthals. The descendants of hunter-gatherers are innocent of all charges (in most cases). There is, of course, the notion of 'divergent evolution'. If a certain 'flavor' of genetic manifestation imparts a selection benefit then it can and likely will develop in separated but related clans. That's my theory ... :)

[Chris]

To me, it seems this sort of supremacist thinking is as old as empire and thus civilisation itself. Certainly, the Sumerians were aware by 4000 BC, that they were "superior" to the lesser, uncivilised primitive barbarians that lived everywhere else in the world, with them being the first real civilisation, with city-states, writing, irrigation, mathematics, astronomy, laws, etc... The Greeks of course looked down on everyone else as Barbarians (they still do, to be fair) as did the Romans and later Christendom.

Supremacy wasn't really associated with race or skin colour until quite late in the game, my guess is, this came with colonial conquests and the establishment of slave colonies in the New World. Thereafter, Britain's economy in particular, became heavily dependent on the slave trade and sugar plantations in the Caribbean, which necessitated, probably at least from a psychological viewpoint, the creation of racial supremacy as a justification. In fact only today, Barbados is finally casting off the colonial yoke and becoming a republic at midnight, with the Queen no longer the official owner of Barbados, which is what being a "Commonwealth Realm" really means. By the way, the Queen still owns about one-sixth of the world's surface area, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and much of Antarctica (the so-called British, Australian and New Zealand Antarctic territories, which makes up the majority of that continent) as well as their territorial waters. If you want to find the roots of racial supremacy, this is probably where you should look. Am I the only one that thinks it is disgusting, that fifteen sovereign nations are still owned by the Queen and only she and her idiot progeny can be heads of state?

How is that for racism? I somehow never hear wokesters complaining about the unbelievable fact that in fifteen sovereign countries the head of state can only be a white English Anglican woman from just one particular (German-Transylvanian) bloodline.

Which reminds me, one conspiracy on the chart I first posted, which isn't a theory, is about prince Charles, who will be attending Barbados's independence ceremony this evening. He may not be a vampire, strictly speaking, but he is in fact descended from the historical count Dracula, known as Vlad Tepes.

He now owns a castle in Transylvania (the Hungarian part) which he visits every year. His estate is run by Count Kálnoky, a genuine Hungarian-Transylvanian count. Apparently porphyria, a genetic disease that runs in the family and has mostly affected aristocrats, due to inbreeding, was the basis for much of the vampire and Dracula myth. People with porphyria are sensitive to sunlight and have a craving for blood, due to an inherent iron deficiency. Vlad Tepes, famously cruel, used to dunk bread into the blood of his slain enemies and eat it.

[Emil El Zapato]

yes, I have found it disgusting for as long as I can remember.

[Dreamtimer]

The funny things is how both groups (fundamentalist Christians and Muslims) worship the same God, but imagine that the other side is the personification of evil and are footsoldiers for Satan. This is always a worry. In Northern Ireland, protestants used to preach that the Pope was the antichrist and Catholics were devil-worshippers. Same with the Sunni-Shia hatred, which goes back centuries, or the antisemitism of Christians and Muslims.

I think conspiracy theories tap into the same sort of ancient hatred and divisions. Republicans in particular tend to see the democrats as "demonrats", demonic vermin to be exterminated, devil-worshippers that literally eat babies. This is serious stuff and such hatred and division almost always leads to mass violence.

BTW, there are some divisions in Europe too, but never of this magnitude. Disagreements are mostly over economic policy and migration, but one side doesn't think the other side is evil personified. This is really medieval (or totalitarian) stuff.

Yep. This has been the foundation of my concerns for years. I have written here more than once about my father warning me that bringing religion into politics was a bad idea and would be the quickest way for me to lose my freedoms. And nearly right away, along came Gingrich and his Christian Coalition. And now we have fundamentalists seeping into all aspects of public life.

Their mission, their 'freedom of religion' is to witness and convert. They won't stop. And if they need to 'kill the devil' they will.

It is indeed very dangerous. And the distraction of 'socialism! socialism!' is making things worse.

[Dreamtimer]

Am I the only one that thinks it is disgusting, that fifteen sovereign nations are still owned by the Queen and only she and her idiot progeny can be heads of state?


No Chris, you're not. It's nuts.


I think one of the best examples of racism and religion being intertwined comes with the Irish. They're were brutalized and starved. There's a quote from a British noble who said that it would be easier to stomach their suffering if they weren't so pale. So there you have the skin color thing. They didn't look different enough. So one could focus on the red hair.

In America, when I was growing up, it was not good to have red hair. You were a freak and kids made fun of you. Some parents would die their children's hair.

I relish the irony of the Irish becoming incredibly popular all over the world with their music, dance and culture. We now have celtic symbols abounding. The effort to destroy the culture and its roots has failed spectacularly.

I believe it will take much time and effort for racism to die. We need to grow up as a species.

The fact that so many educated folks so easily glom onto conspiracy theories is evidence of this lack of maturity, imo.

[Emil El Zapato]

No Chris, you're not. It's nuts.


I think one of the best examples of racism and religion being intertwined comes with the Irish. They're were brutalized and starved. There's a quote from a British noble who said that it would be easier to stomach their suffering if they weren't so pale. So there you have the skin color thing. They didn't look different enough. So one could focus on the red hair.

In America, when I was growing up, it was not good to have red hair. You were a freak and kids made fun of you. Some parents would die their children's hair.

I relish the irony of the Irish becoming incredibly popular all over the world with their music, dance and culture. We now have celtic symbols abounding. The effort to destroy the culture and its roots has failed spectacularly.

I believe it will take much time and effort for racism to die. We need to grow up as a species.

The fact that so many educated folks so easily glom onto conspiracy theories is evidence of this lack of maturity, imo.

In the Hispanic community, red hair makes you a superstar. :) My adoptive aunt was a red head (in retrospect it might have been dyed but my adoptive mother was very freckled). I've always loved it, just like the community in general. At one point, the Cuban community had many dyed redheads. etc. :)

[Dreamtimer]

Well, red hair is way cool now. People dye their hair many shades of red. I considered it more than once. But I just don't dye my hair.

We had a member who was quite focused on red hair and bloodlines.

[Chris]

Well, red hair is way cool now. People dye their hair many shades of red. I considered it more than once. But I just don't dye my hair.

We had a member who was quite focused on red hair and bloodlines.

It's the Neanderthal legacy. I must have a higher than average Neanderthal admixture in my gene, I once went through a Neanderthal genetic checklist and the vast majority applied to me. Red hair and freckles are a dead giveaway that your neanderthal DNA has asserted itself. Note, that the people with the highest amount of Neanderthal admixture in their genes are the Jews, followed by the Irish, other celts and some isolated ethnic groups in Russia. Australian aborigines too, I think. Apparently red hair is common amongst all these groups.

There is an excellent book on the subject, which I own, titled the Neanderthal Legacy. It analyses very comprehensively, the distinct characteristics of Neanderthals as opposed to Cro Magnons and how they are so much more common in groups with a high amount of Neanderthal admixture, like the ethnic groups I mentioned.

Some of the characteristics of Neanderthal society that differentiated them from Cro-Magnons:

They were mostly night creatures and slept during the day. They worshipped the moon, were matriarchal and followed a lunar calendar. They were left-handed, sexually promiscous, artistically talented (The Lascaux cave paintings are believed to be their legacy), highly musical and communal. They had bigger brains than cro-magnons or modern humans and were probably more intelligent as well.

I could go on, but if you look at it from a distance, doesn't it suddenly make sense that right-wingers (Cro-magnons) who are patriarchal, early risers, monogamous, often homophobic, nationalist, etc... would hate the left-wingers (Neanderthals) so much? Maybe it is a crude characterisation, but at least some of it fits the mould...

[Emil El Zapato]

It's the Neanderthal legacy. I must have a higher than average Neanderthal admixture in my gene, I once went through a Neanderthal genetic checklist and the vast majority applied to me. Red hair and freckles are a dead giveaway that your neanderthal DNA has asserted itself. Note, that the people with the highest amount of Neanderthal admixture in their genes are the Jews, followed by the Irish, other celts and some isolated ethnic groups in Russia. Australian aborigines too, I think. Apparently red hair is common amongst all these groups.

There is an excellent book on the subject, which I own, titled the Neanderthal Legacy. It analyses very comprehensively, the distinct characteristics of Neanderthals as opposed to Cro Magnons and how they are so much more common in groups with a high amount of Neanderthal admixture, like the ethnic groups I mentioned.

Some of the characteristics of Neanderthal society that differentiated them from Cro-Magnons:

They were mostly night creatures and slept during the day. They worshipped the moon, were matriarchal and followed a lunar calendar. They were left-handed, sexually promiscous, artistically talented (The Lascaux cave paintings are believed to be their legacy), highly musical and communal. They had bigger brains than cro-magnons or modern humans and were probably more intelligent as well.

I could go on, but if you look at it from a distance, doesn't it suddenly make sense that right-wingers (Cro-magnons) who are patriarchal, early risers, monogamous, often homophobic, nationalist, etc... would hate the left-wingers (Neanderthals) so much? Maybe it is a crude characterisation, but at least some of it fits the mould...

:) I'm down with that...


It's the Neanderthal legacy. I must have a higher than average Neanderthal admixture in my gene, I once went through a Neanderthal genetic checklist and the vast majority applied to me. Red hair and freckles are a dead giveaway that your neanderthal DNA has asserted itself. Note, that the people with the highest amount of Neanderthal admixture in their genes are the Jews, followed by the Irish, other celts and some isolated ethnic groups in Russia. Australian aborigines too, I think. Apparently red hair is common amongst all these groups.

There is an excellent book on the subject, which I own, titled the Neanderthal Legacy. It analyses very comprehensively, the distinct characteristics of Neanderthals as opposed to Cro Magnons and how they are so much more common in groups with a high amount of Neanderthal admixture, like the ethnic groups I mentioned.

Some of the characteristics of Neanderthal society that differentiated them from Cro-Magnons:

They were mostly night creatures and slept during the day. They worshipped the moon, were matriarchal and followed a lunar calendar. They were left-handed, sexually promiscous, artistically talented (The Lascaux cave paintings are believed to be their legacy), highly musical and communal. They had bigger brains than cro-magnons or modern humans and were probably more intelligent as well.

I could go on, but if you look at it from a distance, doesn't it suddenly make sense that right-wingers (Cro-magnons) who are patriarchal, early risers, monogamous, often homophobic, nationalist, etc... would hate the left-wingers (Neanderthals) so much? Maybe it is a crude characterisation, but at least some of it fits the mould...

What is the name of the book, Chris ... Cro-Magnon is a somewhat deprecated term for modern humans but nevertheless it sounds like it might be an interesting read.

deprecated: science/technology

[Chris]

:) I'm down with that...



What is the name of the book, Chris ... Cro-Magnon is a somewhat deprecated term for modern humans but nevertheless it sounds like it might be an interesting read.

deprecated: science/technology

It's this one: https://www.scribd.com/book/351486819/The-Neanderthal-Legacy-Reawakening-Our-Genetic-and-Cultural-Origins

[Emil El Zapato]

It's this one: https://www.scribd.com/book/351486819/The-Neanderthal-Legacy-Reawakening-Our-Genetic-and-Cultural-Origins

thanks Chris,

[Chris]

I haven't watched any David Icke videos in ages, but lately I was curious what he's up to.

I found the below video rather interesting, though I disagree with him on many things, not least the vaccine issue or the role of the gods. He seems to believe that both are evil.

However, where we agree is the nature of reality and energy.

He makes the case here that the vaccines are designed by the "gods" (reptilians), which he claims is the Biblical God in fact, to separate the human soul from the body and to create soulless automatons out of the human race which can then be manipulated through virtual reality (Facebook's budding Metaverse) and implants to make them completely dependent on technology and locked into the matrix simulation forever. A wild ride, but well worth listening to if you are into wild conspiracies.


https://banned.video/watch?id=61a9497ce475e67dcac9d97d

[Emil El Zapato]

I haven't watched any David Icke videos in ages, but lately I was curious what he's up to.

I found the below video rather interesting, though I disagree with him on many things, not least the vaccine issue or the role of the gods. He seems to believe that both are evil.

However, where we agree is the nature of reality and energy.

He makes the case here that the vaccines are designed by the "gods" (reptilians), which he claims is the Biblical God in fact, to separate the human soul from the body and to create soulless automatons out of the human race which can then be manipulated through virtual reality (Facebook's budding Metaverse) and implants to make them completely dependent on technology and locked into the matrix simulation forever. A wild ride, but well worth listening to if you are into wild conspiracies.


https://banned.video/watch?id=61a9497ce475e67dcac9d97d

I always liked David Icke but pretty much shied away when he went over the political balance line... but that was probably always the case with him and I just never realized it.

I've been reading that Stan Gooch book about the Neanderthals. He's kind of annoying Sir/Madam if you know what I mean. But he surely has a great imagination ... kind of reminds me of me except he has done a lot more research. :)

[Aragorn]

I haven't watched any David Icke videos in ages, but lately I was curious what he's up to.

I found the below video rather interesting, though I disagree with him on many things, not least the vaccine issue or the role of the gods. He seems to believe that both are evil.

However, where we agree is the nature of reality and energy.

He makes the case here that the vaccines are designed by the "gods" (reptilians), which he claims is the Biblical God in fact, to separate the human soul from the body and to create soulless automatons out of the human race which can then be manipulated through virtual reality (Facebook's budding Metaverse) and implants to make them completely dependent on technology and locked into the matrix simulation forever. A wild ride, but well worth listening to if you are into wild conspiracies.


https://banned.video/watch?id=61a9497ce475e67dcac9d97d

David Icke has already long gone so far off the rails that he'll never reach another train station anymore in his lifetime. He may join Kerry Cassidy in her insanity. :rolleyes:

[Emil El Zapato]

David Icke has already long gone so far off the rails that he'll never reach another train station anymore in his lifetime. He may join Kerry Cassidy in her insanity. :rolleyes:

lol ... yeah ... he gone ...

[Chris]

Well, he's been called a nutter for 30 years but a lot of the stuff he talked about during that time has since come to pass, which explains his popularity. Few people have done so much to expose political paedophilia for instance and bring it into public consciousness. It certainly seems he was vindicated with the revelations about Jimmy Savile, Jeffery Epstein and the Westminster Paedophile ring.

I also don't think he's wrong about the fundamentals, such as this reality being a simulation (or Maya as the Hindus call it) and some sort of interdimensional manipulation going on in the background. We disagree about pretty much everything else though.

[Wind]

I used to think he is a nutter, now I only think that he's a half-nutter. I'd like to believe his intentions are good.

[Chris]

I used to think he is a nutter, now I only think that he's a half-nutter. I'd like to believe his intentions are good.

I honestly don't think he's a nutter, just a bit eccentric.

If we had to rely on the judgement of the mainstream, all of us here would be considered insane, I'm pretty sure about that.

[Wind]

If we had to rely on the judgement of the mainstream, all of us here would be considered insane, I'm pretty sure about that.

Oh, of course.

qYXsKUwnGUs

[Emil El Zapato]

Hey Chris, I finished Stan Gooch's book. I was with him until the end, he went off the deep end and let his ego overcome his thinking processes. Quite a few years ago, I concluded that the Bible's proscriptions against bestiality and the mixing of races came from species' memories. The prime example is Neanderthal and Modern humans. I think Goochy would agree, but he gets highly carried away with himself and his 'theories' eventually completely abandoning any scientific basis in favor of his own conclusions. I disagreed with some of them but most actually made a lot of sense from a purely 'intuitive' perspective. I might do the same but I wouldn't write a book pushing them, in particular since I don't have the credentials he did. :)

[Chris]

Hey Chris, I finished Stan Gooch's book. I was with him until the end, he went off the deep end and let his ego overcome his thinking processes. Quite a few years ago, I concluded that the Bible's proscriptions against bestiality and the mixing of races came from species' memories. The prime example is Neanderthal and Modern humans. I think Goochy would agree, but he gets highly carried away with himself and his 'theories' eventually completely abandoning any scientific basis in favor of his own conclusions. I disagreed with some of them but most actually made a lot of sense from a purely 'intuitive' perspective. I might do the same but I wouldn't write a book pushing them, in particular since I don't have the credentials he did. :)

Well yes, his book isn't exactly scientific, there's a lot of speculation and conjecture, but it actually makes sense of a lot of weird stuff that keeps happening in human society that otherwise makes no sense at all.

E.g., I always wondered what precisely people with a far-right or conservative bent have against Jews, Homosexuals, Women, Sexuality, Artists and Musicians, etc...

Well, now I kinda know, it seems to be a reaction by the Cro-magnon component of our species against the Neanderthal component.

Same thing with people (usually men), who think in a militaristic manner, crop their hair short, wake up at 3 am to do pushups and often enjoy exacting violence on others, as opposed to other who go to bed at 3 am, sleep in until noon and often spend their time in seemingly worthless pursuits like music and poetry. I now have a much greater understanding of where this comes from and the genetic history behind it.

BTW, I have a fleeting suspicion that it was actually Cro-magnon man that hunted Neanderthals to extinction and we probably ate them too. This memory might also be why conservative, religious types often go mad when they see people dancing, enjoying themselves, listening to music, staying up late, writing poetry, enjoying free love or any of the other "Satanic" things that people of a more liberal bent seem to enjoy. It is also worth noting that Neanderthals were red-haired and the devil is often portrayed as being red.

[Aragorn]

E.g., I always wondered what precisely people with a far-right or conservative bent have against Jews, Homosexuals, Women, Sexuality, Artists and Musicians, etc...

Catholicism, predominantly. Islam is actually more liberal in certain ways, while being even more strict in other ways.


It is also worth noting that Neanderthals were red-haired and the devil is often portrayed as being red.

The devil is often portrayed as being red because he's supposedly red-hot from living in Hell ─ the eternally burning lakes of oil, you know? ;)

[Chris]

Catholicism, predominantly. Islam is actually more liberal in certain ways, while being even more strict in other ways.

I would disagree with that, all mainstream religions are pretty conservative, even Buddhism and Hinduism. In a strict interpretation of Islam, even listening to music, playing sports or watching TV is forbidden. ISIS would famously execute teenagers for such offences.


The devil is often portrayed as being red because he's supposedly red-hot from living in Hell ─ the eternally burning lakes of oil, you know? ;)

I think it's a bit more complex than that, he's usually portrayed as having red skin and horns, which would make him some as yet unknown species. You sometimes see species with red skin in Star Trek or other sci-fi series, as well as various myths.

In any case, Neanderthals were associated with the colour red for various reasons.

[Aragorn]

Catholicism, predominantly. Islam is actually more liberal in certain ways, while being even more strict in other ways.

I would disagree with that, all mainstream religions are pretty conservative, even Buddhism and Hinduism. In a strict interpretation of Islam, even listening to music, playing sports or watching TV is forbidden. ISIS would famously execute teenagers for such offences.

That's how it is now, yes, but Islam hasn't always been like that, and it still isn't like that in many countries. Of course, the branches of Islam and the Muslims we here in the western world usually come into contact with ─ or that are depicted in the media ─ are usually far more conservative.

Most of the original Muslims here in Belgium came from very poor and under-educated regions, where religious fanaticism and dogma were the strongest because those people simply didn't know any better. These people were brought here by our government to do the dirty (and often dangerous) work that the native Belgian population didn't want to do anymore, such as working in the coal mines. And those Muslims ─ first a wave recruited from Morocco in the late 1950s, later a wave recruited from Turkey in the early-to-mid 1960s ─ were not the first immigrants brought in by the government either. Earlier, they had already recruited Italians for the same purposes.

Yet, back in the days that the Roman Catholic Empire ruled the western world with an iron fist, Muslim culture was internally a lot more liberal, and especially with regard to their treatment of and respect for women.



The devil is often portrayed as being red because he's supposedly red-hot from living in Hell ─ the eternally burning lakes of oil, you know? ;)

I think it's a bit more complex than that, he's usually portrayed as having red skin and horns, which would make him some as yet unknown species.

The horns were a metaphor for the scapegoat, itself a linguistic derivative of the passages in the Old Testament where the Israelites had to send a sacrificial goat out into the desert for Azazel, purportedly a fallen angel. Whenever the Israelites were going to bring a sacrifice to Yahweh, they also had to send a goat out into the desert for Azazel, as atonement for their sins. The goat supposedly carried their sins away from them.

This, in combination with the goat-face-like appearance of an upside-down pentagram, led to the cultural representation of the devil ─ or in Freemasonry, of Baphomet ─ as a being with goat legs, the curved horns of a billy goat or a ram, the face of a goat, and a body that was androgynous in appearance, i.e. with a male torso that had female breasts.

The androgyny of this being was also inspired by Catholicism, namely through the vilification of sexuality, which in and of itself was a direct consequence of the mandatory vow of celibacy for Catholic priests and monks. Sexuality was thus considered a temptation to the priests and monks, and was therefore considered evil, and taboo. The depiction of the devil as an androgynous being was as such meant to explicitly emphasize sexuality as being evil.

Likewise, for the same reason, angels were usually depicted as asexual, although it was often difficult for religious artists to depict an angel that way, which is why angels are usually depicted as babies or toddlers ─ e.g. the typical depiction of Cupid as a cherubim ─ or as flat-chested females wearing era-specific armor and carrying weaponry. In some later religious paintings, angels are depicted as anatomically completely female and without wearing any armor or carrying any weapons, but this was probably due to the painters using real women as models for their paintings.

[Emil El Zapato]

Well yes, his book isn't exactly scientific, there's a lot of speculation and conjecture, but it actually makes sense of a lot of weird stuff that keeps happening in human society that otherwise makes no sense at all.

E.g., I always wondered what precisely people with a far-right or conservative bent have against Jews, Homosexuals, Women, Sexuality, Artists and Musicians, etc...

Well, now I kinda know, it seems to be a reaction by the Cro-magnon component of our species against the Neanderthal component.

Same thing with people (usually men), who think in a militaristic manner, crop their hair short, wake up at 3 am to do pushups and often enjoy exacting violence on others, as opposed to other who go to bed at 3 am, sleep in until noon and often spend their time in seemingly worthless pursuits like music and poetry. I now have a much greater understanding of where this comes from and the genetic history behind it.

BTW, I have a fleeting suspicion that it was actually Cro-magnon man that hunted Neanderthals to extinction and we probably ate them too. This memory might also be why conservative, religious types often go mad when they see people dancing, enjoying themselves, listening to music, staying up late, writing poetry, enjoying free love or any of the other "Satanic" things that people of a more liberal bent seem to enjoy. It is also worth noting that Neanderthals were red-haired and the devil is often portrayed as being red.

Well, that the moderns 'eliminated' the Neanderthal was always the prevailing view but later research sort of ameliorated that hardcore belief. Later the speculation became similar to the opinion on how the Eastern-European/Northern African/Western Asian elements genetically prevailed in Middle Europe. They just outbred them mostly due to their more militaristic nature. That is spelled 'rape' of the indigenous women which is characteristic of events when 'superior' men and 'inferior' women come into contact.

The cerebrum/cerebellum split that he focuses on I found questionable. I have never run across any research regarding the 'dual' natures of those two portions of the brain, but of course, that is what he is banging on during the book because that is what he sees as a conspiratorial pattern that seeks to 'hide' that knowledge.

I guess I should give him credit for railing against both the left and the right and it is no wonder that he has been scientifically and religiously vilified for his views. I personally don't believe the dichotomy is as stark as he paints it, some can be both spiritual and scientific as well, but the general split is obvious and the tendencies portray evident hard differences.

[Emil El Zapato]

Catholicism, predominantly. Islam is actually more liberal in certain ways, while being even more strict in other ways.

In truth, in this book, Gooch does make a point that the 'negative' aspects of traditional religiosity are 'man-made', in fact, he says that all religions, spiritualists, mediums, telepaths, in effect all of the paranormal are manifestations of the 'neanderthal in moderns' hybrid's highly developed cerebellum. My impression was that he felt that there was no greater 'mind' at work and it was on that point that we disagreed most completely. Of course, it is a matter of faith for me and virtually no religionist or scientist can take issue with that. Faith is unassailable as it is a matter of choice.

[Emil El Zapato]

That's how it is now, yes, but Islam hasn't always been like that, and it still isn't like that in many countries. Of course, the branches of Islam and the Muslims we here in the western world usually come into contact with ─ or that are depicted in the media ─ are usually far more conservative.

Most of the original Muslims here in Belgium came from very poor and under-educated regions, where religious fanaticism and dogma were the strongest because those people simply didn't know any better. These people were brought here by our government to do the dirty (and often dangerous) work that the native Belgian population didn't want to do anymore, such as working in the coal mines. And those Muslims ─ first a wave recruited from Morocco in the late 1950s, later a wave recruited from Turkey in the early-to-mid 1960s ─ were not the first immigrants brought in by the government either. Earlier, they had already recruited Italians for the same purposes.

Yet, back in the days that the Roman Catholic Empire ruled the western world with an iron fist, Muslim culture was internally a lot more liberal, and especially with regard to their treatment of and respect for women.



The horns were a metaphor for the scapegoat, itself a linguistic derivative of the passages in the Old Testament where the Israelites had to send a sacrificial goat out into the desert for Azazel, purportedly a fallen angel. Whenever the Israelites were going to bring a sacrifice to Yahweh, they also had to send a goat out into the desert for Azazel, as atonement for their sins. The goat supposedly carried their sins away from them.

This, in combination with the goat-face-like appearance of an upside-down pentagram, led to the cultural representation of the devil ─ or in Freemasonry, of Baphomet ─ as a being with goat legs, the curved horns of a billy goat or a ram, the face of a goat, and a body that was androgynous in appearance, i.e. with a male torso that had female breasts.

The androgyny of this being was also inspired by Catholicism, namely through the vilification of sexuality, which in and of itself was a direct consequence of the mandatory vow of celibacy for Catholic priests and monks. Sexuality was thus considered a temptation to the priests and monks, and was therefore considered evil, and taboo. The depiction of the devil as an androgynous being was as such meant to explicitly emphasize sexuality as being evil.

Likewise, for the same reason, angels were usually depicted as asexual, although it was often difficult for religious artists to depict an angel that way, which is why angels are usually depicted as babies or toddlers ─ e.g. the typical depiction of Cupid as a cherubim ─ or as flat-chested females wearing era-specific armor and carrying weaponry. In some later religious paintings, angels are depicted as anatomically completely female and without wearing any armor or carrying any weapons, but this was probably due to the painters using real women as models for their paintings.

I find that pretty interesting, given that most cultures pattern that practice of exploitation, excision, and abandonment. The final act is the pretense that no such thing ever occurred as if history doesn't exist. Just as Aianawa would state, fake history.

[Emil El Zapato]

That's how it is now, yes, but Islam hasn't always been like that, and it still isn't like that in many countries. Of course, the branches of Islam and the Muslims we here in the western world usually come into contact with ─ or that are depicted in the media ─ are usually far more conservative.

Most of the original Muslims here in Belgium came from very poor and under-educated regions, where religious fanaticism and dogma were the strongest because those people simply didn't know any better. These people were brought here by our government to do the dirty (and often dangerous) work that the native Belgian population didn't want to do anymore, such as working in the coal mines. And those Muslims ─ first a wave recruited from Morocco in the late 1950s, later a wave recruited from Turkey in the early-to-mid 1960s ─ were not the first immigrants brought in by the government either. Earlier, they had already recruited Italians for the same purposes.

Yet, back in the days that the Roman Catholic Empire ruled the western world with an iron fist, Muslim culture was internally a lot more liberal, and especially with regard to their treatment of and respect for women.



The horns were a metaphor for the scapegoat, itself a linguistic derivative of the passages in the Old Testament where the Israelites had to send a sacrificial goat out into the desert for Azazel, purportedly a fallen angel. Whenever the Israelites were going to bring a sacrifice to Yahweh, they also had to send a goat out into the desert for Azazel, as atonement for their sins. The goat supposedly carried their sins away from them.

This, in combination with the goat-face-like appearance of an upside-down pentagram, led to the cultural representation of the devil ─ or in Freemasonry, of Baphomet ─ as a being with goat legs, the curved horns of a billy goat or a ram, the face of a goat, and a body that was androgynous in appearance, i.e. with a male torso that had female breasts.

The androgyny of this being was also inspired by Catholicism, namely through the vilification of sexuality, which in and of itself was a direct consequence of the mandatory vow of celibacy for Catholic priests and monks. Sexuality was thus considered a temptation to the priests and monks, and was therefore considered evil, and taboo. The depiction of the devil as an androgynous being was as such meant to explicitly emphasize sexuality as being evil.

Likewise, for the same reason, angels were usually depicted as asexual, although it was often difficult for religious artists to depict an angel that way, which is why angels are usually depicted as babies or toddlers ─ e.g. the typical depiction of Cupid as a cherubim ─ or as flat-chested females wearing era-specific armor and carrying weaponry. In some later religious paintings, angels are depicted as anatomically completely female and without wearing any armor or carrying any weapons, but this was probably due to the painters using real women as models for their paintings.

Interesting, I wondered about that actually, the androgyny thing. I'm thinking about the movie 'Constantine'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEa508Xmmio

[Aragorn]

I find that pretty interesting, given that most cultures pattern that practice of exploitation, excision, and abandonment.

Well, it all goes back to Roman Catholicism, really, because unlike Judaism and Islam, Roman Catholicism was literally everywhere. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's a reason why the whole of South America is Catholic and speaks Spanish. Even local religions and/or spiritual beliefs became imbued with elements from Catholicism over time ─ e.g. Santeria and Voodoo.

On the other hand, Islam is now more or less catching up with its own equivalent of Christianity's medieval domination, both in terms of cruelty and in terms of being widespread. Judaism by contrast has always remained more of a humble religion, relying more on the history of the Israelites as Yahweh's chosen people than on proselytizing and conquering.

In addition to that, most spiritual beliefs do indeed know a kind of abstention from material and physical pleasures in favor of spiritual enlightenment, but no religion or spiritual belief on Earth has ever vilified sexuality as much across the pages of history as what Roman Catholicism has done. And this was explicitly a Freudian consequence of the forced celibacy among the Catholic clergy, because if you are forced into celibacy, then sexuality is a temptation, and temptations are "of the Devil", you know? ;)





Interesting, I wondered about that actually, the androgyny thing. I'm thinking about the movie 'Constantine'

I have watched "Constantine", but it was a long time ago. As I recall, the role of the angel Gabriel is played there by British actress Tilda Swinton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilda_Swinton), whose body is ─ shall we say ─ "not exactly curvaceous", which somehow made her eligible for the role of an asexual being in the eyes of the producers of the movie.

In the first and third movie of the "The Prophecy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prophecy_(film_series))" film series, the angels are played by male actors and ─ with the exception of the androgynous-looking Pyriel in the third movie ─ all have a distinctly male appearance, often with a beard or visible beard growth, and sometimes even a receding hairline, but in both these movies, an autopsy revealed that they are non-functional hermaphrodites ─ on Earth they are not immortal, but one has to remove their heart in order to kill them.

In the second movie however, there is no mention of angels being hermaphrodites, and in fact, the angel Danayel is sent to Earth by Michael to sire a nephilim ─ a child that is half human, half angel, and that will thus have a soul (which angels do not have, according to the franchise) and free will, in combination with the power of an angel ─ with the human nurse Valerie Rosalez. The third movie follows this child ─ also named Danayel, like the angel who sired him and who was killed by Gabriel at the end of the second movie ─ by the time he is approximately eighteen, although the actor who played him was visibly older, and the same was true for the actress who played Danayel's girlfriend.

The fourth and fifth movies in the series depart from the original three in several ways and revolve around completely different characters, but the stories still involve angels ─ including Lucifer, although he is not named that in the movies. As in the second movie, there is no reference to angels being either asexual or androgynous, although the fourth movie revolves around a demon who can take over human bodies, and this demon uses both male and female hosts. An important character from the fourth movie also becomes the leading character in the fifth movie, and she then turns out to be a nephilim, sired by an angel named Simon, who was killed by Gabriel in the first movie but shows up again (played by a different actor) as an apparition in the fifth movie.

By the way, one could also posit that "The Girl" (as she is named in the list of characters) in Roman Polanski's "The Ninth Gate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninth_Gate)" was in fact a (fallen) angel. For most part, she behaves very humanly, but she does appear to have the ability to fly ─ or at the very least, resist gravity ─ on two occasions during the movie. And in "City of Angels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Angels_(film))", there are both female and male angels as well. The same was true in the TV series "Touched by an Angel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touched_by_an_Angel)".

Even the Catholic Bible has a passage in which two winged women are seen (in a vision) carrying a basket, although a footnote in the particular Bible copy I read said that these women were not angels. Islam in turn knows the concept of Houris, but there is some contention over whether they would be the spirits of female Muslims or whether they would be angels, with ─ at least, according to what I've read ─ the majority of Muslims believing that Houris would be angelic beings.

[Wind]

It's interesting to think demons as fallen angels. Angels don't really have free will as they directly serve God. If angels didn't have free will then how could have Lucifer decided to go against the will of God which is the good? Also there is a hierarchy of Angels with the Archangels and then there are just "ordinary" angels. Michael is considered to be the leader of Archangels and then comes Gabriel. Also I wonder if Lucifer would still be a different entity from Satan. I did not know this until now, but apparently in Jewish legend, the king of demons is a deity called Asmodeus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmodeus). If such a being such as that or Satan would exist and they would be the opposite force to God and they had their own army of demons, it still means that at one point they were angels?

All that exists in this Creation is of the Creator, however could you imagine that something like demons are so far away from the light of God in creation that how can they be even remotely divine? Is that something the human mind could comprehend? Also according to many religions, mythologies and stories on these "lower levels" of existence it's all about spiritual warfare, only on higher planes of existence there is no longer any need for battle and warfare, or duality because all becomes closer to the One and duality becomes obsolete in a way or at least it is seen that there is no distinction between "separate" beings so why even have conflict. The Creator is beyond good and evil anyways. I'm just theorizing here, you don't have to take this as a fact, if you wish you can just consider it as fiction too. :hmm:

The destiny of human beings is to become luminous beings like angels eventually, but from the biological perspective something like that seems very far away for us now as we have these chemical bodies mostly made out of meat and water. The human consciousness collectively is not very advanced and people's consciousness is still very much tied to the animal body and the lower ego-mind. The human brain of course makes all this possible, in terms of experiencing life as a physical being in these physical bodies.

[Aragorn]

It's interesting to think demons as fallen angels. Angels don't really have free will as they directly serve God. If angels didn't have free will then how could have Lucifer decided to go against the will of God which is the good?

Okay, I am going to be repeating myself again, because I've explained this numerous times already, both here and back at Project Avalon. ;)

The character of Lucifer does not exist. Not. Never did. The name Lucifer stems from a mistranslation and misinterpretation of the angry letter that Isaiah wrote to the king of Babylon, who was very much a mortal man. Isaiah's letter was very sarcastic in tone, and very bombastic in its wording. In said letter, he likens the king of Babylon to an angel ─ the word "angel" at that point in time not referring to any celestial being, but used in the significance of "an emissary" ─ who fell from grace, and he calls him a (false) "light bearer". In Latin, the language in which said letter was written, "light bearer" translates to the noun "lucifer" ─ a noun, not a name.

However, King James ordered the Bible translated into English, and whoever read that letter and then transcribed it into English, either did not properly understand what he was reading, or decided to put his own interpretation of the letter in English, instead of what was really being said. As such, the Latin noun lucifer was not translated but interpreted to be the proper name of a purportedly fallen angel. And it was only much, much later, that this angel was also given a background story, as that he would have been the first of all angels ─ even though Catholicism actually states that all angels were created at the same time ─ and that he was also the highest of all angels, only to become so arrogant that he ─ depending on what story one looks at ─ either...


went in against Yahweh's will by telling Eve to eat from the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; or...
wanted mankind to worship himself instead of that they would worship Yahweh.

Allegedly, this then led to a war in Heaven, with the loyal angels ─ led by Michael ─ expelling the rebellious angels, led by Lucifer, whereby one third of Heaven's Legion was cast down into Hell ─ or on Earth, again, depending on whose version you look at.

Even though I don't know who initially came up with that whole backstory ─ possibly it was the 17th-century poet John Milton, in "Paradise Lost" ─ to this very day, the King James translation of the Bible is still the only one in which Lucifer is a proper name, and for that matter, the name of a fallen angel. In all other Bible translations, the Latin noun lucifer was correctly translated into "bearer of light", and Isaiah's letter is interpreted as indeed having been directed at the corrupt king of Babylon, who "led his people astray".

Now, the Old Testament does make a reference to a being named the Satan ─ with an article in front, suggesting that it is not a name but rather a title ─ in the Book of Job. And in said book, the Satan is a celestial being; far from a fallen angel or a demon, because he resides in Heaven. However, he fulfills the role of an accuser or prosecutor in the court of Yahweh, exposing Man's weaknesses and flaws before Yahweh. The Satan makes the statement that if Yahweh weren't so forthcoming to humans, then they would quickly stop worshiping him. And thus, so as to prove the Satan wrong, it is Yahweh himself who exposes Job to all of his ordeals and makes him suffer, throughout all of which Job remains loyal to Yahweh and continues having faith in Yahweh and praying to him.

It is not unthinkable that this particular allegory somehow got woven into the New Testament context of Isaiah's letter to the king of Babylon, and dressed up with the events described in John Milton's "Paradise Lost".

For that matter, the late Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, did himself not believe in the existence of an entity named Satan, or any entity that fulfilled that role in the cosmos. He saw the character of Satan as merely a metaphor. Some of his followers however do believe in the existence of a supernatural creature named Satan and/or a fallen angel named Lucifer.

Now, as to the collective description of the fallen angels, there is the story of the Grigori, the Watchers, who were supposedly referred to in the Book of Genesis as "the sons of God who had come to Earth to take the daughters of men as their wives", and who supposedly sired the Nephilim. These Nephilim were said to be fearsome and brutal giants who would even devour one another, and it took a great flood ─ cfr. the story of Noah's Ark ─ to get rid of them.

However, this story, too, only appears in the King James translation of the Bible. In the other Bible translations, there is no mention of the Nephilim, although the "sons of God" are mentioned there as having come down to Earth and taken human wives. If we assume for the sake of argument that there would have been a genuinely historical context behind this story, then it is my personal belief that it would rather be a description of some extraterrestrial visitation and possibly the deliberate or accidental creation of human-alien hybrids. The story of the Deluge in the Old Testament was either way only a retelling of a legend that already existed among the Sumerians, as well as among the Ancient Greek ─ i.e. the destruction of Atlantis.

If you look at the original Bible ─ i.e. not the King James translation ─ then it mentions only three angels by name, i.e. ...


Michael ─ described only in the New Testament's Book of Revelations as being the leader of God's legion;
Gabriel ─ described only in the New Testament, as the messenger who came to announce to Elizabeth the birth of John the Baptist, and then later to Mary the birth of Yeshua/Jesus; and...
Raphael ─ described in the Old Testament's Book of Tobit. In the story, Raphael assumes a human form and travels with Tobit's son Tobias. He also captures the demon Asmodeus and chains him under a rock.

Lastly, the Old Testament also mentions Azazel, whom I have already referred to higher up, but the official Old Testament makes no mention of who Azazel really is. Some non-canonical works refer to him as one ─ if not the leader ─ of the (allegedly 200) Grigori who fell because they had taken human wives, sired hybrid offspring, and taught humans about things they were not supposed to know.


Also there is a hierarchy of Angels with the Archangels and then there are just "ordinary" angels.

It's a lot more complicated than that. The Book of Enoch ─ which is not part of the canonical books of the Bible, although Enoch as a character is mentioned, and is described as having been many hundreds of years old, as well as that he is said to have ascended to the heavens, just like Yeshua/Jesus ─ describes nine orders of angels, divided across three Spheres. They are ranked as follows...



1. The Seraphim
2. The Cherubim
3. The Ophanim (also known as "Thrones")

4. The Dominations
5. The Virtues
6. The Powers

7. The Principalities
8. The Archangels
9. The Angels


[...] I did not know this until now, but apparently in Jewish legend, the king of demons is a deity called Asmodeus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmodeus). If such a being such as that or Satan would exist and they would be the opposite force to God and they had their own army of demons, it still means that at one point they were angels?

Well, according to some Kabbalah experts, the leader of the fallen angels would either be the mysterious Azazel referenced in the Old Testament or an angel named Samael/Sammael ─ not to be confused with Camael/Camiel; the "C" is pronounced as a "k".

In Islam however, there are no fallen angels, and that which Christianity calls demons are in fact djinn. The Shaitan ─ the Islamic devil, although the word is obviously derived from the Hebrew word "haschatan", which means "the opponent", "the adversary", and which was probably the original Hebrew word used for The Satan in the Book of Job ─ is a djinni called Iblis. And as the story goes, Iblis worshiped Allah, but when Allah told Iblis to bow before Man, Iblis refused.

Djinn do not have the same origins as angels, and were already mentioned in several Arabic stories long before the advent of Islam. They were supposedly created out of fire ─ as opposed to angels, who were created out of light ─ and they have free will, just like humans. Therefore, some djinn are benevolent, some are evil, and most others are just lukewarm and minding their own business, just like humans.

The word "demon" then again stems from Greek ─ it was spelled daemon, and is as such still used in the context of UNIX operating systems as the term for a non-interactive background process ─ refers to a spirit of nature. The Ancient Greek were polytheists, and they saw deities and spirits in everything, from the wind moving the leaves of the bushes and trees, to the waves on the sea, to somebody having a simple cough or sneeze, and so on. And the Greek daemons were very capricious, and there were good ones, bad ones, and then some that were neither good nor bad. Again, all just like humans.


[...] The destiny of human beings is to become luminous beings like angels eventually, [...]

No, I do not believe that this would be the objective. The destiny of humans is to be humans, for it is their human existence which gives them the subjective experience of a life on Earth ─ and likewise for other intelligent and corporeal life out in the universe.

The myth that humans are destined to become angelic beings is just that, a myth, perpetrated by New Age storytellers like David Wilcock. It's make-believe. Besides, all you have to do is open your eyes and look around you in order to realize that things aren't quite going in that direction. And that's exactly what gives these New Age storytellers ─ and religious leaders ─ the nutrition for continuing to spread their fairy tales. In a way, it gives people hope, but it's a false hope, and it's based upon a promised intervention by a supernatural entity on mankind's behalf. It externalizes both responsibility and guilt, turning the followers into mere cattle, just like the Eloi in H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine".

Don't buy into that, Brother. It may be nice to believe in, but it's a distraction. The creator of the universe ─ or of the omniverse, whatever ─ is neither benevolent nor malevolent, and is certainly not going to intervene in the natural course of things. Nobody is going to intervene on our behalf. This planet is where we were born, and it is our responsibility to stop things from getting out of hand down here if we want to survive, and if we want our children and grandchildren to survive.

A job ─ I might add ─ that we've so far managed to fuck up quite royally, and we're still fucking it all up as we speak.

[Emil El Zapato]

It's interesting to think demons as fallen angels. Angels don't really have free will as they directly serve God. If angels didn't have free will then how could have Lucifer decided to go against the will of God which is the good? Also there is a hierarchy of Angels with the Archangels and then there are just "ordinary" angels. Michael is considered to be the leader of Archangels and then comes Gabriel. Also I wonder if Lucifer would still be a different entity from Satan. I did not know this until now, but apparently in Jewish legend, the king of demons is a deity called Asmodeus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmodeus). If such a being such as that or Satan would exist and they would be the opposite force to God and they had their own army of demons, it still means that at one point they were angels?

All that exists in this Creation is of the Creator, however could you imagine that something like demons are so far away from the light of God in creation that how can they be even remotely divine? Is that something the human mind could comprehend? Also according to many religions, mythologies and stories on these "lower levels" of existence it's all about spiritual warfare, only on higher planes of existence there is no longer any need for battle and warfare, or duality because all becomes closer to the One and duality becomes obsolete in a way or at least it is seen that there is no distinction between "separate" beings so why even have conflict. The Creator is beyond good and evil anyways. I'm just theorizing here, you don't have to take this as a fact, if you wish you can just consider it as fiction too. :hmm:

The destiny of human beings is to become luminous beings like angels eventually, but from the biological perspective something like that seems very far away for us now as we have these chemical bodies mostly made out of meat and water. The human consciousness collectively is not very advanced and people's consciousness is still very much tied to the animal body and the lower ego-mind. The human brain of course makes all this possible, in terms of experiencing life as a physical being in these physical bodies.

Hi Wind, in my estimation the contradictions are injected into the spiritual reality from a lack of understanding. By definition, these higher matters are ineffable to the human. So as humans we do what humans do, fill in the blanks. Unfortunately, as humans, we have an abiding need to be at the high end of the hierarchy and as such, we fight wars because we disagree. Completely human and completely stupid ... but we all do it. :)

[Wind]

That's interesting, Aragorn. Yes, I've been aware of the word daemon and also about djinns, I think there are just many very kind of spirits and indeed some of them are good, others bad and so forth. Also the elements of nature could hardly be called bad as they just serve a basic function and sometimes they tend to affect humans negatively, then again humans treat the Earth, Gaia very badly. She herself is a living being too and one could say that we are her children. Sadly as you said most of humanity is misbehaving like naughty chaotic toddlers.

I think all life serves the evolution of consciousness as nothing is just random, despite the fact that materialist scientists would like to believe so. If we as spirit descend into physical form, then we eventually would ascend too to a higher state, at least mentally and spiritually. I would assume that eventually physically too, meaning that our bodies wouldn't be so dense as they are now. How long it would take, now that's another story. I think there has been plenty of tampering with the human DNA though and once upon a time humanity didn't look as it looks now. "There were giants in the earth in those days..."

What do you think the Farsight remote viewers were seeing then when they rv'd Lucifer?

XPvRCigfEZ8

[Emil El Zapato]

That's interesting, Aragorn. Yes, I've been aware of the word daemon and also about djinns, I think there are just many very kind of spirits and indeed some of them are good, others bad and so forth. Also the elements of nature could hardly be called bad as they just serve a basic function and sometimes they tend to affect humans negatively, then again humans treat the Earth, Gaia very badly. She herself is a living being too and one could say that we are her children. Sadly as you said most of humanity is misbehaving like naughty chaotic toddlers.

I think all life serves the evolution of consciousness as nothing is just random, despite the fact that materialist scientists would like to believe so. If we as spirit descend into physical form, then we eventually would ascend too to a higher state, at least mentally and spiritually. I would assume that eventually physically too, meaning that our bodies wouldn't be so dense as they are now. How long it would take, now that's another story. I think there has been plenty of tampering with the human DNA though and once upon a time humanity didn't look as it looks now. "There were giants in the earth in those days..."

What do you think the Farsight remote viewers were seeing then when they rv'd Lucifer?

XPvRCigfEZ8

That was the central notion of Gooch's book, all fabrications of the hybrid human mind. I choose not to believe that just as I choose to believe that the higher power intervenes. In the Catholic Trinity, there is God, the Father, Jesus the son of man, and the Holy Spirit who most assuredly is either the source of understanding or is meant to represent the source of understanding. So to put it in a colloquial framework, God sits and either nods or shakes his head, Jesus is meant to show us the way and is willing to help, and the Spirit guides us to a better way. And they all encourage each other for these ends (I added that bit for emphasis of my opinion). :)

[Aragorn]

What do you think the Farsight remote viewers were seeing then when they rv'd Lucifer?

The primordial evil: chaos, acting without responsibility, without understanding, out of purely self-gratifying reasons. No respect, no love, no honor, no value system.





In the Catholic Trinity, there is God, the Father, Jesus the son of man, and the Holy Spirit who most assuredly is either the source of understanding or is meant to represent the source of understanding.

No, it's a lot simpler than that. Thesis (the "Father"), Antithesis (the "Son") and Synthesis (the "Holy Spirit"). Or otherwise put, the thesis is the infinite but undefined potential. The antithesis is the subjective experience. The synthesis is the knowledge of how to incorporate that learned through the subjective experience into the infinite potential.

[Wind]

The primordial evil: chaos, acting without responsibility, without understanding, out of purely self-gratifying reasons. No respect, no love, no honor, no value system.

So you think that's a conscious energy form?

[Aragorn]

The primordial evil: chaos, acting without responsibility, without understanding, out of purely self-gratifying reasons. No respect, no love, no honor, no value system.

So you think that's a conscious energy form?

Hmm... More of a subconscious drive. It's not alive in and of itself, but it's rather a kind of energy ─ for lack of a better word ─ that one can tap into. And of course, many do. :hmm:

It was not created intentionally, but came into being as an inescapable side-effect of creation, given that creation equals the generation of ordered and therefore understandable, logical constructs. It's the antithesis of this ordering. It's a destructive force.

[Emil El Zapato]

Hmm... More of a subconscious drive. It's not alive in and of itself, but it's rather a kind of energy ─ for lack of a better word ─ that one can tap into. And of course, many do. :hmm:

It was not created intentionally, but came into being as an inescapable side-effect of creation, given that creation equals the generation of ordered and therefore understandable, logical constructs. It's the antithesis of this ordering. It's a destructive force.

creation is an ongoing example of how 'balance' must be maintained. At least on the physical level.

[Dreamtimer]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. Qx2GTNs42CgELCd-Zq5XWQAAAA%26pid%3DApi&f=1

[Chris]

That's interesting, Aragorn. Yes, I've been aware of the word daemon and also about djinns, I think there are just many very kind of spirits and indeed some of them are good, others bad and so forth. Also the elements of nature could hardly be called bad as they just serve a basic function and sometimes they tend to affect humans negatively, then again humans treat the Earth, Gaia very badly. She herself is a living being too and one could say that we are her children. Sadly as you said most of humanity is misbehaving like naughty chaotic toddlers.

I think all life serves the evolution of consciousness as nothing is just random, despite the fact that materialist scientists would like to believe so. If we as spirit descend into physical form, then we eventually would ascend too to a higher state, at least mentally and spiritually. I would assume that eventually physically too, meaning that our bodies wouldn't be so dense as they are now. How long it would take, now that's another story. I think there has been plenty of tampering with the human DNA though and once upon a time humanity didn't look as it looks now. "There were giants in the earth in those days..."

What do you think the Farsight remote viewers were seeing then when they rv'd Lucifer?

XPvRCigfEZ8

They lost me at "Lucifer appears in the Bible"

No, he does not. Lucifer is a medieval invention, most likely based on a Roman God. Similar story with Beelzebub (Based on Baal) and many other so-called demons, who were pagan gods, that were literally demonised by highly ignorant medieval grimoire writers.

[Chris]

Well, that the moderns 'eliminated' the Neanderthal was always the prevailing view but later research sort of ameliorated that hardcore belief. Later the speculation became similar to the opinion on how the Eastern-European/Northern African/Western Asian elements genetically prevailed in Middle Europe. They just outbred them mostly due to their more militaristic nature. That is spelled 'rape' of the indigenous women which is characteristic of events when 'superior' men and 'inferior' women come into contact.

The cerebrum/cerebellum split that he focuses on I found questionable. I have never run across any research regarding the 'dual' natures of those two portions of the brain, but of course, that is what he is banging on during the book because that is what he sees as a conspiratorial pattern that seeks to 'hide' that knowledge.

I guess I should give him credit for railing against both the left and the right and it is no wonder that he has been scientifically and religiously vilified for his views. I personally don't believe the dichotomy is as stark as he paints it, some can be both spiritual and scientific as well, but the general split is obvious and the tendencies portray evident hard differences.

There is another excellent book, The Daemon: A Guide to Your Extraordinary Secret Self

https://www.scribd.com/book/238627391/The-Daemon-A-Guide-to-Your-Extraordinary-Secret-Self

This one goes into more detail regarding the two personalities that supposedly inhabit the two hemispheres of the brain, which the Greeks called the Daemon (Higher Self) and Eidolon (Lower Self or Ego).

There is quite a lot of scientific research to underpin this theory, to me it seems legit.

[Aragorn]

They lost me at "Lucifer appears in the Bible"

No, he does not. Lucifer is a medieval invention, most likely based on a Roman God.

I've explained the mythology behind Lucifer in post #52 (https://jandeane81.com/showthread.php/14439-Conspiracy?p=842043051&viewfull=1#post842043051) of this thread. ;)





↓



Okay, I am going to be repeating myself again, because I've explained this numerous times already, both here and back at Project Avalon. ;)

The character of Lucifer does not exist. Not. Never did. The name Lucifer stems from a mistranslation and misinterpretation of the angry letter that Isaiah wrote to the king of Babylon, who was very much a mortal man. Isaiah's letter was very sarcastic in tone, and very bombastic in its wording. In said letter, he likens the king of Babylon to an angel ─ the word "angel" at that point in time not referring to any celestial being, but used in the significance of "an emissary" ─ who fell from grace, and he calls him a (false) "light bearer". In Latin, the language in which said letter was written, "light bearer" translates to the noun "lucifer" ─ a noun, not a name.

However, King James ordered the Bible translated into English, and whoever read that letter and then transcribed it into English, either did not properly understand what he was reading, or decided to put his own interpretation of the letter in English, instead of what was really being said. As such, the Latin noun lucifer was not translated but interpreted to be the proper name of a purportedly fallen angel. And it was only much, much later, that this angel was also given a background story, as that he would have been the first of all angels ─ even though Catholicism actually states that all angels were created at the same time ─ and that he was also the highest of all angels, only to become so arrogant that he ─ depending on what story one looks at ─ either...


went in against Yahweh's will by telling Eve to eat from the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; or...
wanted mankind to worship himself instead of that they would worship Yahweh.

Allegedly, this then led to a war in Heaven, with the loyal angels ─ led by Michael ─ expelling the rebellious angels, led by Lucifer, whereby one third of Heaven's Legion was cast down into Hell ─ or on Earth, again, depending on whose version you look at.

Even though I don't know who initially came up with that whole backstory ─ possibly it was the 17th-century poet John Milton, in "Paradise Lost" ─ to this very day, the King James translation of the Bible is still the only one in which Lucifer is a proper name, and for that matter, the name of a fallen angel. In all other Bible translations, the Latin noun lucifer was correctly translated into "bearer of light", and Isaiah's letter is interpreted as indeed having been directed at the corrupt king of Babylon, who "led his people astray".

Now, the Old Testament does make a reference to a being named the Satan ─ with an article in front, suggesting that it is not a name but rather a title ─ in the Book of Job. And in said book, the Satan is a celestial being; far from a fallen angel or a demon, because he resides in Heaven. However, he fulfills the role of an accuser or prosecutor in the court of Yahweh, exposing Man's weaknesses and flaws before Yahweh. The Satan makes the statement that if Yahweh weren't so forthcoming to humans, then they would quickly stop worshiping him. And thus, so as to prove the Satan wrong, it is Yahweh himself who exposes Job to all of his ordeals and makes him suffer, throughout all of which Job remains loyal to Yahweh and continues having faith in Yahweh and praying to him.

It is not unthinkable that this particular allegory somehow got woven into the New Testament context of Isaiah's letter to the king of Babylon, and dressed up with the events described in John Milton's "Paradise Lost".

For that matter, the late Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, did himself not believe in the existence of an entity named Satan, or any entity that fulfilled that role in the cosmos. He saw the character of Satan as merely a metaphor. Some of his followers however do believe in the existence of a supernatural creature named Satan and/or a fallen angel named Lucifer.

[...]

[Chris]

Okay, I am going to be repeating myself again, because I've explained this numerous times already, both here and back at Project Avalon. ;)

The character of Lucifer does not exist. Not. Never did. The name Lucifer stems from a mistranslation and misinterpretation of the angry letter that Isaiah wrote to the king of Babylon, who was very much a mortal man. Isaiah's letter was very sarcastic in tone, and very bombastic in its wording. In said letter, he likens the king of Babylon to an angel ─ the word "angel" at that point in time not referring to any celestial being, but used in the significance of "an emissary" ─ who fell from grace, and he calls him a (false) "light bearer". In Latin, the language in which said letter was written, "light bearer" translates to the noun "lucifer" ─ a noun, not a name.

However, King James ordered the Bible translated into English, and whoever read that letter and then transcribed it into English, either did not properly understand what he was reading, or decided to put his own interpretation of the letter in English, instead of what was really being said. As such, the Latin noun lucifer was not translated but interpreted to be the proper name of a purportedly fallen angel. And it was only much, much later, that this angel was also given a background story, as that he would have been the first of all angels ─ even though Catholicism actually states that all angels were created at the same time ─ and that he was also the highest of all angels, only to become so arrogant that he ─ depending on what story one looks at ─ either...


went in against Yahweh's will by telling Eve to eat from the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; or...
wanted mankind to worship himself instead of that they would worship Yahweh.

Allegedly, this then led to a war in Heaven, with the loyal angels ─ led by Michael ─ expelling the rebellious angels, led by Lucifer, whereby one third of Heaven's Legion was cast down into Hell ─ or on Earth, again, depending on whose version you look at.

Even though I don't know who initially came up with that whole backstory ─ possibly it was the 17th-century poet John Milton, in "Paradise Lost" ─ to this very day, the King James translation of the Bible is still the only one in which Lucifer is a proper name, and for that matter, the name of a fallen angel. In all other Bible translations, the Latin noun lucifer was correctly translated into "bearer of light", and Isaiah's letter is interpreted as indeed having been directed at the corrupt king of Babylon, who "led his people astray".

Now, the Old Testament does make a reference to a being named the Satan ─ with an article in front, suggesting that it is not a name but rather a title ─ in the Book of Job. And in said book, the Satan is a celestial being; far from a fallen angel or a demon, because he resides in Heaven. However, he fulfills the role of an accuser or prosecutor in the court of Yahweh, exposing Man's weaknesses and flaws before Yahweh. The Satan makes the statement that if Yahweh weren't so forthcoming to humans, then they would quickly stop worshiping him. And thus, so as to prove the Satan wrong, it is Yahweh himself who exposes Job to all of his ordeals and makes him suffer, throughout all of which Job remains loyal to Yahweh and continues having faith in Yahweh and praying to him.

It is not unthinkable that this particular allegory somehow got woven into the New Testament context of Isaiah's letter to the king of Babylon, and dressed up with the events described in John Milton's "Paradise Lost".

For that matter, the late Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, did himself not believe in the existence of an entity named Satan, or any entity that fulfilled that role in the cosmos. He saw the character of Satan as merely a metaphor. Some of his followers however do believe in the existence of a supernatural creature named Satan and/or a fallen angel named Lucifer.

Now, as to the collective description of the fallen angels, there is the story of the Grigori, the Watchers, who were supposedly referred to in the Book of Genesis as "the sons of God who had come to Earth to take the daughters of men as their wives", and who supposedly sired the Nephilim. These Nephilim were said to be fearsome and brutal giants who would even devour one another, and it took a great flood ─ cfr. the story of Noah's Ark ─ to get rid of them.

However, this story, too, only appears in the King James translation of the Bible. In the other Bible translations, there is no mention of the Nephilim, although the "sons of God" are mentioned there as having come down to Earth and taken human wives. If we assume for the sake of argument that there would have been a genuinely historical context behind this story, then it is my personal belief that it would rather be a description of some extraterrestrial visitation and possibly the deliberate or accidental creation of human-alien hybrids. The story of the Deluge in the Old Testament was either way only a retelling of a legend that already existed among the Sumerians, as well as among the Ancient Greek ─ i.e. the destruction of Atlantis.

If you look at the original Bible ─ i.e. not the King James translation ─ then it mentions only three angels by name, i.e. ...


Michael ─ described only in the New Testament's Book of Revelations as being the leader of God's legion;
Gabriel ─ described only in the New Testament, as the messenger who came to announce to Elizabeth the birth of John the Baptist, and then later to Mary the birth of Yeshua/Jesus; and...
Raphael ─ described in the Old Testament's Book of Tobit. In the story, Raphael assumes a human form and travels with Tobit's son Tobias. He also captures the demon Asmodeus and chains him under a rock.

Lastly, the Old Testament also mentions Azazel, whom I have already referred to higher up, but the official Old Testament makes no mention of who Azazel really is. Some non-canonical works refer to him as one ─ if not the leader ─ of the (allegedly 200) Grigori who fell because they had taken human wives, sired hybrid offspring, and taught humans about things they were not supposed to know.



It's a lot more complicated than that. The Book of Enoch ─ which is not part of the canonical books of the Bible, although Enoch as a character is mentioned, and is described as having been many hundreds of years old, as well as that he is said to have ascended to the heavens, just like Yeshua/Jesus ─ describes nine orders of angels, divided across three Spheres. They are ranked as follows...



1. The Seraphim
2. The Cherubim
3. The Ophanim (also known as "Thrones")

4. The Dominations
5. The Virtues
6. The Powers

7. The Principalities
8. The Archangels
9. The Angels



Well, according to some Kabbalah experts, the leader of the fallen angels would either be the mysterious Azazel referenced in the Old Testament or an angel named Samael/Sammael ─ not to be confused with Camael/Camiel; the "C" is pronounced as a "k".

In Islam however, there are no fallen angels, and that which Christianity calls demons are in fact djinn. The Shaitan ─ the Islamic devil, although the word is obviously derived from the Hebrew word "haschatan", which means "the opponent", "the adversary", and which was probably the original Hebrew word used for The Satan in the Book of Job ─ is a djinni called Iblis. And as the story goes, Iblis worshiped Allah, but when Allah told Iblis to bow before Man, Iblis refused.

Djinn do not have the same origins as angels, and were already mentioned in several Arabic stories long before the advent of Islam. They were supposedly created out of fire ─ as opposed to angels, who were created out of light ─ and they have free will, just like humans. Therefore, some djinn are benevolent, some are evil, and most others are just lukewarm and minding their own business, just like humans.

The word "demon" then again stems from Greek ─ it was spelled daemon, and is as such still used in the context of UNIX operating systems as the term for a non-interactive background process ─ refers to a spirit of nature. The Ancient Greek were polytheists, and they saw deities and spirits in everything, from the wind moving the leaves of the bushes and trees, to the waves on the sea, to somebody having a simple cough or sneeze, and so on. And the Greek daemons were very capricious, and there were good ones, bad ones, and then some that were neither good nor bad. Again, all just like humans.



No, I do not believe that this would be the objective. The destiny of humans is to be humans, for it is their human existence which gives them the subjective experience of a life on Earth ─ and likewise for other intelligent and corporeal life out in the universe.

The myth that humans are destined to become angelic beings is just that, a myth, perpetrated by New Age storytellers like David Wilcock. It's make-believe. Besides, all you have to do is open your eyes and look around you in order to realize that things aren't quite going in that direction. And that's exactly what gives these New Age storytellers ─ and religious leaders ─ the nutrition for continuing to spread their fairy tales. In a way, it gives people hope, but it's a false hope, and it's based upon a promised intervention by a supernatural entity on mankind's behalf. It externalizes both responsibility and guilt, turning the followers into mere cattle, just like the Eloi in H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine".

Don't buy into that, Brother. It may be nice to believe in, but it's a distraction. The creator of the universe ─ or of the omniverse, whatever ─ is neither benevolent nor malevolent, and is certainly not going to intervene in the natural course of things. Nobody is going to intervene on our behalf. This planet is where we were born, and it is our responsibility to stop things from getting out of hand down here if we want to survive, and if we want our children and grandchildren to survive.

A job ─ I might add ─ that we've so far managed to fuck up quite royally, and we're still fucking it all up as we speak.

Thanks,

Lots of useful information in there.

I try not to go too deep into Judeo-Christian theology, because it literally makes no sense and is just a confusing jumble of nonsense. I choose not to engage with it to keep my sanity.

However, it must be said that the various archangels (the "El"s) appear to be various aspects of god. RaphaEL - the healer, MichaEL, the protector, AzazEl - the opposer, etc...

Since El has Canaanite origins, who in turn is descended from Sumer (An), we can assume that the various Els, or sons of God, as they are often referred to are the equivalent of a court or a council surrounding EL, which is very apparent in the book of Job story you quoted for instance. In that story, it is pretty clear that the character of Satan (whoever he may be at that point in time) sits on the council along with the other Elohim (or sons of EL).

Btw, whoever came up with Superman as a character must have known this, hence they named the various Kryptonites after El as well (Superman is Kal-EL for instance).

It is pretty clear that modern superheroes are also based on ancient polytheistic myths about gods and their exploits.

In fact it often goes both ways. I remember reading Salman Rushdie about a cult leader in India, who was groomed for his role by his mother from birth, who created a mythology about his divine origins by shamelessly stealing the story of superman and applying it in an Indian context.


I've explained the mythology behind Lucifer in post #52 (https://jandeane81.com/showthread.php/14439-Conspiracy?p=842043051&viewfull=1#post842043051) of this thread. ;)





↓




Yip, I got it now. Too much going on on this thread all of a sudden.

[Dreamtimer]

I remember reading Salman Rushdie about a cult leader in India, who was groomed for his role by his mother from birth, who created a mythology about his divine origins by shamelessly stealing the story of superman and applying it in an Indian context.

For real? Dear lord.

Again,

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. Qx2GTNs42CgELCd-Zq5XWQAAAA%26pid%3DApi&f=1

[Emil El Zapato]

There is another excellent book, The Daemon: A Guide to Your Extraordinary Secret Self

https://www.scribd.com/book/238627391/The-Daemon-A-Guide-to-Your-Extraordinary-Secret-Self

This one goes into more detail regarding the two personalities that supposedly inhabit the two hemispheres of the brain, which the Greeks called the Daemon (Higher Self) and Eidolon (Lower Self or Ego).

There is quite a lot of scientific research to underpin this theory, to me it seems legit.

I don't touch 'Demons/Daemons' ... uh uh. I never knew whether to laugh or be suspicious of Unix terminology.

[Emil El Zapato]

In the recent book, I'm reading which I guess is considered a scholarly work (there is a handwritten note in the flyleaf of the book saying ... "A gift to you because every Professor should a have a library of scholarly works). It's called 'Inventing the Middle Ages' and guess what? I now know why there is so much friction among the Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Muslims, and it devolves into the most basic of human emotions, jealousy. Yeah, jealousy.

The marked differences of education and wealth between the populace of the respective religions caused an injudicious jealousy among the largely illiterate Christians of the wealth and stature of the Jews and Muslims. Over the centuries it sparked the Crusades of which the true primary goal of the 'Christian Warriors' was to divest the Middle Eastern religious and secular culture of their lofty 'status' afforded by wealth. The actual goal was only in a peripheral manner related to 'God'. The story is the same regarding the Jews. 'We're gonna get their asses!'. Ever heard that one before.

It is also the basic reason that the Christian clergy amassed such fortunes by way of overt greed, but nevertheless, the people loved them while it lasted. It was their education that created a 'cultural' separation that we have witnessed throughout the ages that culminated in a 'Storm the Bastille' mentality. And that is hardly a surprise.

Of further interest in the book is that it categorically states that Pope Gregory the Great in the 6th century made concessions to the illiterate masses to allow pagan worship because he surmised that the Christian faith would not survive if something more appealing to their cultural tastes was not entertained. It seems that the 'nature' of the uneducated has not changed one whit over the centuries. A desperate substandard existence always drives humans to extremes and all of this is just another historical and cultural artifact of what we see even today. Not coincidentally this is the main thesis of the book. Not sure what year it was written, by the by but assuredly in the last half of the 20th century.

[Wind]

Similar story with Beelzebub (Based on Baal) and many other so-called demons, who were pagan gods, that were literally demonised by highly ignorant medieval grimoire writers.

Baal is also based on the name Belial.


The word Ba’al in Hebrew means “owner”. It can be used for a landowner, for the master of a slave, or for a husband. It can mean the author of a book. It can also mean “He of the…” as in “Ba’al Heness” = “He of the miracle”.

But it’s always used relative to some property or description, not as a standalone title. Except as a reference to a diety.

Historically, Beelzebub and Lucifer have been alternate names for Satan, the adversary in Abrahamic theistic traditions.

Theologically and demonologically, though, they are not the same.

Satan has been portrayed as an angel cast out from heaven, the serpent who tempted Eve, and is called the ruler of demons, ruler of the world, and god of this world in the New Testament.

Beelzebub started out as a play on words Ba'al Zebul, meaning "lord of the manor". Ba'al Zəbûb meant "lord of the flies", and was used in a derogatory manner against the enemies of the Israelites, most notably the Philistines and their cult of flies.

Demonologically Beelzebub is one of the seven princes of hell; he led a successful revolt against Satan, he is the chief lieutenant of Lucifer, and he presides over the Order of the Fly.

Lucifer is a transliteration of the Hebrew הֵילֵל hêlêl, which means "the morning star" or "light bringer". Christian tradition uses this name as the proper name of the devil as he was before his fall. However, Isaiah 14 refers to Nebuchadnezzar II, the King of Babylon, as "son of the morning", so it could be Lucifer was also another name for this king.

Demonologically Lucifer is one of the four crown princes of hell, particularly of the East, the lord of the air, and is the bringer of light, intellectualism, and enlightenment.

When the original god(s) Baal-Zebul (“Lord of Heaven”), Baal-Berith (“Lord of the Covenant”), and others in Canaan were “demonized” by the Jews, there was no devil to speak of. There wasn’t even any real commitment to having them as demons in Jewish belief: it seems to straddle the line between “your god is weak” and “he is a false god”.

As should also be obvious by their names, they were just different forms of the same deity worshipped by the Jews, who were one variety of Canaanite among many. It was really one cult centre among many, competing to centralize the worship of different reflections of the same Canaanite-Semitic “Lord”.

Additionally, the idea of “Baal is a demon” or some-such probably owes more to the 16th century Protestants than the Jews, and especially Milton’s Paradise Lost, where the Old Testament theology is folded into the Christian Hell. Keep in mind that Baal as “Lord” or “Master” remained in use in Hebrew into modern times; it is a honorific associated with great learning, esp. in religion. Think “guru” or “sensei”.

During the times of Atlantis (http://www.shellac.org/slu/scayce01.html) there existed two factions or groups of people and one of them were the Sons of Belial or Baal. They were service to self-oriented humans who ended up destroying the whole continent due to their selfishness and lust for power. They were all about self-gratification at the expense of others and they viewed other lesser humanoid-type creatures as objects. The other faction, basically the good guys were the Children of The Law of One. Once Atlantis fell, the survivors of that civilization went to Egypt, South America and some other places with their knowledge. To current humanity that is mostly forgotten information and unbelievable.


Hence we find there had been the separating into groups (as we would call them) for this or that phase of activity; and those that were against that manner of development. The Sons of Belial were of one group, or those that sought more the gratifying, the satisfying, the use of material things for self, without thought or consideration as to the sources of such nor the hardships in the experiences of others. Or, in other words, as we would term it today, they were those without a standard of morality. The other group - those who followed the Law of One - had a standard. The Sons of Belial had no standard, save of self, self-aggrandizement.

[Emil El Zapato]

I don't touch 'Demons/Daemons' ... uh uh. I never knew whether to laugh or be suspicious of Unix terminology.

Here's a modern gem:


Drawn heavenward by divine accord
I had seen and heard more mysteries yet;
But always men would have and hoard
And gain the more; the more they get.
So banished I was, by cares beset,
From realms eternal untimely sent.


[Pearl, XX, English midlands, late fourteenth century]

[Aianawa]

After a wee convo with Aragorn, feel i may be able to join in the thread here, earlier i felt it would lead to my demise, banning if i were to engage, so wandered away, due to my thoughts, feelings and very interestingly, my experiences and experiments regards what has been talked about here so far. Would love to share about demonic data if that be okay Chris ?.

[Emil El Zapato]

After a wee convo with Aragorn, feel i may be able to join in the thread here, earlier i felt it would lead to my demise, banning if i were to engage, so wandered away, due to my thoughts, feelings and very interestingly, my experiences and experiments regards what has been talked about here so far. Would love to share about demonic data if that be okay Chris ?.

I think Chris would be quite enthused about that Aianawa ... :)

[Chris]

After a wee convo with Aragorn, feel i may be able to join in the thread here, earlier i felt it would lead to my demise, banning if i were to engage, so wandered away, due to my thoughts, feelings and very interestingly, my experiences and experiments regards what has been talked about here so far. Would love to share about demonic data if that be okay Chris ?.

You do what you like, it's free country, mate :)


Baal is also based on the name Belial.



During the times of Atlantis (http://www.shellac.org/slu/scayce01.html) there existed two factions or groups of people and one of them were the Sons of Belial or Baal. They were service to self-oriented humans who ended up destroying the whole continent due to their selfishness and lust for power. They were all about self-gratification at the expense of others and they viewed other lesser humanoid-type creatures as objects. The other faction, basically the good guys were the Children of The Law of One. Once Atlantis fell, the survivors of that civilization went to Egypt, South America and some other places with their knowledge. To current humanity that is mostly forgotten information and unbelievable.

Yeah, I always get Beelzebub and Belial cpnfused. Not great on goetic demons or their pagan antecedents.

The Law of One thing is interesting, I've never gotten that far in the material. Tend to think it is a great resource, though I generally dislike channelled books.

[Wind]

The Law of One thing is interesting, I've never gotten that far in the material. Tend to think it is a great resource, though I generally dislike channelled books.

It's one of the few exceptions which I would say that is for certain legit, of course I can't convince anyone about that nor do I even try. Edgar Cayce talked about the Law of One way before the channeled material even came out, because it's all based on the truth. Actually that quote I have up there is the info from his readings.

[Chris]

It's one of the few exceptions which I would say that is for certain legit, of course I can't convince anyone about that nor do I even try. Edgar Cayce talked about the Law of One way before the channeled material even came out, because it's all based on the truth. Actually that quote I have up there is the info from his readings.

I don't know about Edgar Cayce, he predicted a lot of shit that didn't come to pass, like major earth changes and disasters. In that sense, he is a bit like David Icke.

I'm wary of prophecies in general, they almost always fall flat, especially when they predict major disasters or the end of the world. I actually have a (quantum or many worlds) theory about why that is, but it's rather convoluted. Suffice to say, we usually end up living on in the quantum reality or timeline in which the major disaster that was predicted did not happen and life goes on. In this sense I'm actually a bit of an optimist, despite appearances. Sure, there will be a reality where things go to shit, but with the right mindset, it won't be ours. I am a believer in each person choosing the particular quantum reality they wish to inhabit and each choice we make shifts us slightly into another one.

[Emil El Zapato]

I don't know about Edgar Cayce, he predicted a lot of shit that didn't come to pass, like major earth changes and disasters. In that sense, he is a bit like David Icke.

I'm wary of prophecies in general, they almost always fall flat, especially when they predict major disasters or the end of the world. I actually have a (quantum or many worlds) theory about why that is, but it's rather convoluted. Suffice to say, we usually end up living on in the quantum reality or timeline in which the major disaster that was predicted did not happen and life goes on. In this sense I'm actually a bit of an optimist, despite appearances. Sure, there will be a reality where things go to shit, but with the right mindset, it won't be ours. I am a believer in each person choosing the particular quantum reality they wish to inhabit and each choice we make shifts us slightly into another one.

It's like predicting the weather ... one can be right 40% of the time and be at the top of their game. I'm sure that Cayce wasn't subjected to strict scientific scrutiny and testing controls but it is possible that he was way beyond probability. What I've read of him that is almost a certainty?

[Wind]

I don't know about Edgar Cayce, he predicted a lot of shit that didn't come to pass, like major earth changes and disasters. In that sense, he is a bit like David Icke.

Perhaps you should read more about him and his books too before jumping so fast into conclusions. He isn't Icke. He is mainly known for his past life readings as he accessed the akashic records and he mainly helped people with their health issues with a really good track record, the center for A.R.E. in Virginia Beach is mostly based on holistic healing if I'm not mistaken. They started to notice that once he helped people with their health issues that often the issues were due to past lives and things which happened during them, including the time of Atlantis. Then they got more interested in Atlantis and wanted to know about it and started to study it even more in the readings.


I'm wary of prophecies in general, they almost always fall flat, especially when they predict major disasters or the end of the world. I actually have a (quantum or many worlds) theory about why that is, but it's rather convoluted. Suffice to say, we usually end up living on in the quantum reality or timeline in which the major disaster that was predicted did not happen and life goes on. In this sense I'm actually a bit of an optimist, despite appearances. Sure, there will be a reality where things go to shit, but with the right mindset, it won't be ours. I am a believer in each person choosing the particular quantum reality they wish to inhabit and each choice we make shifts us slightly into another one.

I would agree with you there. Cayce was correct about some future predictions, but that's where it's easy to get things wrong because the future is never fully set in stone, it's just potential although I still struggle with determinism as I certainly believe in fate, yet some things still seem to be changing and happening later or not at all. The past has already happened and with the right tools it can be accessed.

[Lord Sidious]

In Northern Ireland, protestants used to preach that the Pope was the antichrist and Catholics were devil-worshippers.

If that was a thing, it was a tiny minority.
I've never heard of it.



How is that for racism? I somehow never hear wokesters complaining about the unbelievable fact that in fifteen sovereign countries the head of state can only be a white English Anglican woman from just one particular (German-Transylvanian) bloodline.

The guelphs are Venetians.
Yes, they married into German royalty and are connected to Vlad the Impaler, but they are Venetians.
Also, the monarch is an appointment by parliament, it's not on heredity anymore.
The bill of rights was amended as were other acts, so that catholics can be on the throne.

[Chris]

If that was a thing, it was a tiny minority.
I've never heard of it.

It was the reverend Ian Paisley, who said that on numerous occasions. Since he was the leader of Northern Ireland and before that, the spiritual and political leader of Northern Irish Protestants, it is no small matter. Way before that, British schoolchildren were taught that the Irish were uncivilised cannibals.



The guelphs are Venetians.
Yes, they married into German royalty and are connected to Vlad the Impaler, but they are Venetians.
Also, the monarch is an appointment by parliament, it's not on heredity anymore.
The bill of rights was amended as were other acts, so that catholics can be on the throne.


Obviously the Windsors aren't just one bloodline, they have a very extensive family tree. However, they are in fact related to Transylvanian royalty through Mary of Teck, who was a Rhédey, one of the old aristocratic families of Transylvania and a direct descendant of Vlad the Impaler (who was born in Transylvania and ruled over part of it, but most of his domain was to the south). Prince Charles is actually quite proud of his Transylvanian ancestry and he spends a few weeks every year in his castle (more like a mansion) in Transylvania, usually in the company of a Hungarian count.

[Wind]

I wonder how many bats he has in the attic.

[Chris]

I wonder how many bats he has in the attic.

I don't know, but if you look at him, he does look like your stereotypical movie vampire / dracula. The only things missing are pointy ears and teeth, plus a cape.

Here's prince Charles being rather droll about it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ikR49Q-fk&t=57s

Btw, unlike a lot of conspiracy theorists an occultists, I don't believe in the existence of actual vampires, rather I think these stories were allegories about the oppression of the peasantry by the aristocracy.

[Wind]

I don't believe in the existence of actual vampires, rather I think these stories were allegories about the oppression of the peasantry by the aristocracy.

Oh me neither, but the myth of vampires is actually based on energy vampires i.e. people or beings who consume your energy.

[Dreamtimer]

Don't forget the Blood Countess. Horrible story.

I recall posting a video here featuring a woman who does ouija and is an energy vampire. She spoke of asking people for permission and having it be a mutual experience. She was a red-head who used to show up on History Channel shows as a medium. (I haven't tried to look her up yet).

A connection to vampire legends could also be the disease which causes folks to crave blood. It involves bad absorption of iron and poor oxygenation of the blood.

I instinctively stay away from people who seem to suck energy. I don't think it's necessarily an energy vampire dynamic. Some people just need a lot of drama and attention and it becomes exhausting.

Perhaps folks who glom easily onto conspiracy theories seek/need the rush and the thrill. Regular life is too staid and predictable. Regular life means you're not 'in the know' and part of a 'special' group.

[Lord Sidious]

It was the reverend Ian Paisley, who said that on numerous occasions. Since he was the leader of Northern Ireland and before that, the spiritual and political leader of Northern Irish Protestants, it is no small matter. Way before that, British schoolchildren were taught that the Irish were uncivilised cannibals.

Ah, that windsock.
I would expect claims like that from him.



Obviously the Windsors aren't just one bloodline, they have a very extensive family tree. However, they are in fact related to Transylvanian royalty through Mary of Teck, who was a Rhédey, one of the old aristocratic families of Transylvania and a direct descendant of Vlad the Impaler (who was born in Transylvania and ruled over part of it, but most of his domain was to the south). Prince Charles is actually quite proud of his Transylvanian ancestry and he spends a few weeks every year in his castle (more like a mansion) in Transylvania, usually in the company of a Hungarian count.

Yeah, I've seen the turd talking about it.

[Wind]

I recall posting a video here featuring a woman who does ouija and is an energy vampire.

I bet she's a party pooper.


Yeah, I've seen the turd talking about it.

The royal turd? ;)

[Chris]

Oh me neither, but the myth of vampires is actually based on energy vampires i.e. people or beings who consume your energy.

Yeah, I'm not sure if that is a real thing. Certainly, some people seem to think so. I follow occult forums from time to time and they have entire communities dedicated to this stuff, vampiric magic apparently. The main author seems to be a guy calling himself Blackwood.

If you ask me, they're just poseurs, along with Satanists in general, with some exceptions.

[Chris]

Don't forget the Blood Countess. Horrible story.

I recall posting a video here featuring a woman who does ouija and is an energy vampire. She spoke of asking people for permission and having it be a mutual experience. She was a red-head who used to show up on History Channel shows as a medium. (I haven't tried to look her up yet).

A connection to vampire legends could also be the disease which causes folks to crave blood. It involves bad absorption of iron and poor oxygenation of the blood.

I instinctively stay away from people who seem to suck energy. I don't think it's necessarily an energy vampire dynamic. Some people just need a lot of drama and attention and it becomes exhausting.

Perhaps folks who glom easily onto conspiracy theories seek/need the rush and the thrill. Regular life is too staid and predictable. Regular life means you're not 'in the know' and part of a 'special' group.

Yeah, Elisabeth Báthory is interesting. Although not from Transylvania, her family ruled over a big chunk of what was then called upper Hungary (Slovakia). I looked into her story in some detail and it is not at all clear that it really did happen, a lot of the details don't add up. Apparently her political opponents wanted to depose her, especially since she was a woman with a lot of power and they at the very least highly exaggerated her deeds. You obviously can't bathe in blood for one, because blood congeals. Was she cruel to her servants and were some of them tortured and perhaps even murdered? Probably, but it's all down to eyewitness testimony and witnesses could be bought, especially in medieval Hungary.

The Porphyria link to the vampire myth is well known, it probably affected quite a few aristocrats due to inbreeding.

[Wind]

Yeah, I'm not sure if that is a real thing.

I am and it's spiritual parasitism, but it's a topic I don't like to talk about. What you focus on will invite more of that into your reality.

[Dreamtimer]

I found the woman I referenced, Michelle Belanger. She has a website and wrote a Dictionary of Demons.

Hey BOB!

She doesn't sport the red hair and doesn't wear makeup anymore. She was already a blocky woman. Now she really looks like a man. I don't know if she's still into being an energy vampire.

But when she spoke about it on the show I watched, it really just sounded like a kind of sexual encounter. You get close and touch, or nearly touch, and that's certainly a path to arousal.

I agree, Wind, that spending too much time focusing on a subject can bring that kind of energy. There are many things I spend little to no time with for that very reason.


We're collectively falling down the rabbit hole here in the US with conspiracy. It's so bad folks are beginning to brag about not washing their hands.

[Emil El Zapato]

Yeah, I'm not sure if that is a real thing. Certainly, some people seem to think so. I follow occult forums from time to time and they have entire communities dedicated to this stuff, vampiric magic apparently. The main author seems to be a guy calling himself Blackwood.

If you ask me, they're just poseurs, along with Satanists in general, with some exceptions.

rabies was one theory for the origin of the Vampire legend.

[Aragorn]

rabies was one theory for the origin of the Vampire legend.

Vampires were originally not blood-sucking creatures, but rather a kind of cannibalistic zombies. But various folklore legends eventually were woven together and ─ through Bram Stoker ─ blended in with the history of Vlad the Impaler.

Wikipedia has a very good article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire) on it all. ;)










A vampire is a creature from folklore that subsists by feeding on the vital essence (generally in the form of blood) of the living. In European folklore, vampires are undead creatures that often visited loved ones and caused mischief or deaths in the neighbourhoods they inhabited while they were alive. They wore shrouds and were often described as bloated and of ruddy or dark countenance, markedly different from today's gaunt, pale vampire which dates from the early 19th century.

Vampiric entities have been recorded in cultures around the world; the term vampire was popularized in Western Europe after reports of an 18th-century mass hysteria of a pre-existing folk belief in the Balkans and Eastern Europe that in some cases resulted in corpses being staked and people being accused of vampirism. Local variants in Eastern Europe were also known by different names, such as shtriga in Albania, vrykolakas in Greece and strigoi in Romania.

In modern times, the vampire is generally held to be a fictitious entity, although belief in similar vampiric creatures such as the chupacabra still persists in some cultures. Early folk belief in vampires has sometimes been ascribed to the ignorance of the body's process of decomposition after death and how people in pre-industrial societies tried to rationalize this, creating the figure of the vampire to explain the mysteries of death. Porphyria was linked with legends of vampirism in 1985 and received much media exposure, but has since been largely discredited.

The charismatic and sophisticated vampire of modern fiction was born in 1819 with the publication of "The Vampyre" by the English writer John Polidori; the story was highly successful and arguably the most influential vampire work of the early 19th century. Bram Stoker's 1897 novel Dracula is remembered as the quintessential vampire novel and provided the basis of the modern vampire legend, even though it was published after fellow Irish author Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu's 1872 novel Carmilla. The success of this book spawned a distinctive vampire genre, still popular in the 21st century, with books, films, television shows, and video games. The vampire has since become a dominant figure in the horror genre.


- Continue reading here... - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire)

[Dreamtimer]

This takes so much energy... ;)