Conspiracy

[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?


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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/23862739...ry-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 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 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,

[Emil El Zapato]

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

https://www.scribd.com/book/23862739...ry-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 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 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?