Conspiracy

[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'

Source: 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, 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" 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" 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", there are both female and male angels as well. The same was true in the TV series "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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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?


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


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

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.

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]