orthodoxymoron quoted: I would really like to know if anyone has taken a close look at this thread - or any of the other threads I have posted??
Raven wrote: Barely, as its full of nothing but egotestical puritanical rantings from a completely ignorant fool, who would rather spend hours typing endless bathering bullshit out of his incessant mouth, and listening to his own "higher" ego then the True higher ego of the Divine.
If one reads your bullshit enough, one gets an idea as to the degree and level of how deep your rabbit hole goes. Mostly the hole leads right up your XXX.
Oh bullshit oxy, you LOVE this XXXX, its all you talk about and point people in the direction of it!! Get over yourself already. You are an incredibly ignornant Xxxxx hiding behind a false puritanical skirt, who needs to grow some balls and accept his own self responsibility. Law of attraction baby, what you dish out will be in kind served back to you. Your so called sincere search is nothing but your own whining out loud, hoping for some small platitude from anyone taking the time to read your vomit.
Brook Responded: Has someone got their panties in a bunch? Oh wait....it must be that "True higher ego of the divine" speaking".Self Governance comes from knowing and understanding the Divine...............I'll bet that venom comes from one of those "aspects", or "archetypes"Divine understanding? not so certain about that........ but none the less, "enlightening" words Raven.
Truly sent with love
"The Jokes Are Over, Folks!"
"BYE!"
I'm tired of being ignored and/or hated as I attempt to 'figure things out' and 'solve the world's problems' without appreciation and/or compensation. Apparently 'casting one's pearls before the swine' constitutes a 'grave-threat to national-security'. I've been incognito for nearly two-months, and no-one has added to this thread. Why am I not surprised?? Is Rich@$$Hole the New-Normal?? What if Earth is supposed to be Purgatory Incorporated for All-Eternity?? What if Earth is NOT Supposed to be Made-Better?? 'RA' told me "You Can Leave Things the Way They Are, If You Choose" and "You'll Be Sorry If You Try to Save Humanity". What if 'Resistance is Futile' even for the Borg-Queen and/or Matrix-Mediatrix and/or Matrix-Creator?? Anyway, I'd appreciate some wise-advice regarding any of my Threads aka Exercises in Futility, but I won't hold my breath. I might contrast [Genesis to Esther] and [Matthew to Acts] with [Job to Malachi] and [Romans to Revelation], just for the hell of it. You know, the Historical-Books contrasted with the Theological-Books. Didn't you go to Sabbath-School or Sunday-School?? Consider reading [Job to Daniel] and [Romans to Philemon] straight-through, over and over, in the 'NIV Reader's Bible' (by Zondervan). [Wisdom-Books, Major-Prophets] and [Pauline-Epistles]. This might be a Missing-Link in your Sophisticated Alternative-Research. The Bible is a Can of Worms which must be properly understood and managed IMHO.
What Would Dr. Carol Williams Play?? What Would Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou Say?? I Love to Hear Francesca Say "David!!" 'RA' Told Me "I'm Close to God!!" What If God Doesn't Believe in God?? What Would George Zebrowski's 'Heathen God' Say?? https://epdf.tips/george-zebrowski-heathen-god.html Ever Heard of the 'Human (G)nome Project'?? What If God Isn't 'God-Enough' for Us?? A Famous Attorney Told Me "If Jesus Showed-Up the Church Wouldn't Know What to Do with Him!!" What If God is a Slob?? What If We Achieved Eternal-Freedom from God 5,000 to 15,000 Years Ago?? What If Our 'Proxy-God' is HAL 9000?? What Would David Bowman Say?? This might be much more significant than 'Patristics'. What Would Joseph Farrell Say?? Consider the following Individuals of Interest. Is there a past-life connection?? What if they are the Same-Soul?? Dr. Who was called 'Your Holiness' in 'The Vampires of Venice'. What Would a Renegade French Jesuit Organist Say?? Several Insiders (in all factions) need to study my nine USSS threads exhaustively. I'm an outsider, and I won't dig-deep, go-nuts, or sell-out, so I'll probably never know the Real-Deal and/or Real-Truth. It might be easier that way. What Would Ovid Say?? What Would Michael Say?? What Would the Black Knight Say??
1. Martin Luther (1483 to 1546). 2. Francis Bacon (1561 to 1626). 3. Dietrich Buxtehude (1637 to 1707). 4. John Carroll (1735 to 1815). 5. Prince Albert (1819 to 1861). 6. Eugenio Pacelli (1876 to 1958). 7. Dr. Who (1963 to ????).
I understand the experiential and devotional aspects of 'He Lives Within My Heart' but I keep encountering sacred-texts such-as 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 New International Version:
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Consider this 1994 lecture by Dr. Desmond Ford. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSjDH6qO5zE There is a problem here. The deeper I dig, the more resistance I encounter, which I find highly-suspicious, as if the Matrix-Oracle is cracking-down on an Uppity Completely-Ignorant Fool with a Monkey-Mind and a God-Complex!! We seem to be in some sort of a Galactic-Prison aka Hotel-California, but perhaps it's better not to know. Ignorance seems to be Bliss and Virtue. Perhaps I should read 'Q' instead of the 'Holy-Bible'. It might be easier that way. I understand the Christ Concept, but the details seem increasingly problematic, such as the 'Hard Sayings of Jesus' (see Dr. F.F. Bruce) or the 'Quest for the Historical Jesus in Acts to Revelation'. There are numerous 'Hard Sayings' and the 'Life and Teachings of the Historical Jesus' (as found in the Gospels) don't seem to exist or be acknowledged in Acts to Revelation. However, visualizing a Perfect Being of Ethics and Responsibility named 'Christ' and/or 'Jesus' is spiritually expedient and effective. My current problem with religion is that people are scared and superstitious, and seem incapable of being open and honest regarding their church and sacred-writings. Perhaps Pluralistic-Education and Corporate-Employment is the New-Religion for a New-Age (or something corny like that).
Perhaps one should tell people what they wish to hear about 'Jesus' and 'Religion'. Perhaps one should say (in essence) "I Think Like You Do." Perhaps one should make as much money as possible, and "Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow." The Revelation of Jesus Christ is highly-violent and highly-upsetting. The first and last chapters should be carefully examined before buying into the rest of the Last Book of the Bible. I appreciate supernatural-experiences, but I don't seek them. I don't astral-travel or channel-archangels, but what was I supposed to do when someone showed-up, saying "I AM RA"?? I'm going to let this go for a while, but I'm presently thinking in terms of reading 1 Chronicles to Malachi in the Reader's NIV Bible (without verse numbering) straight-through, over and over. James Dean (in East of Eden) would love that version! I have no idea where this might ultimately lead, but it might shed significant light on Genesis to 2 Kings and Matthew to Revelation. Something is very-right and very-wrong with Religion and Spirituality (as we know it).
Just a heads-up for all concerned (and unconcerned). I recently visited that Masonic-Cemetery (which is sort of a ritual with me). It makes me face myself and think. Today I got a flat-tire at 70 mph, which could've been a big-deal, but it turned-out OK. I'm feeling worse and worse, with my 'one-eye out of alignment with the other-eye' episodes occurring much more frequently. I'm seeing those 'streaming white lights' much more often (which I'm interpreting as nefarious remote-viewing). Some 'wandering-souls' might not make it back to their bodies. My computer has been running very-hot, with the battery draining very-quickly, which means that someone has been messing with my computer. I hope you guys are cracking-down on the Bad-Guys as hard as you crack-down on the Good-Guys. If I don't have much-longer would that be a good-thing or a bad-thing (for me, the good-guys, and the bad-guys)?? What if I left, and never returned??
I wish I were a scholar, but the inconvenient truth is that my misery regarding the predicaments of humanity and myself propel me to seek unconventional explanations and solutions, which is why I hang out on this website. I suppose I'm attempting to understand the real characters and circumstances behind the mythologies and theologies. The Christ (as we know Him) seems to be a shadow of a very-ancient lost-somebody. I'm leaning toward some sort of Zeus and Artemis (figurative and/or literal) conflict and/or collaboration. I'm merely a reflector of the brilliance of others (including members of this website). I've merely created a study-guide for Sirius-Researchers (and NOT a manifesto and/or ultimatum). I know that I don't know, but I suspect that humanity (and myself) are in a HUGE amount of trouble. I'm truly an Apostate-SDA, and possibly a Past-Life Renegade-Turncoat Roman-Catholic and/or Ancient-Hebrew. I might be an Ancient Hermaphrodite-Reptilian System-Lord (for all I know) with a HUGE amount of Karmic-Debt. I simultaneously accept and reject the Bible and EGW. I simultaneously accept and reject the UFO and Alien reports and theories. I'm reduced to reviewing my threads in a MOST miserable manner. Probably the less-said the-better. It might've been...Shalom.
What if deception is the coin of the realm in this solar system (and possibly beyond)?? What if Occam's Razor is instrumental in understanding our predicament?? What if this is a Prison Solar System (as one of trillions)?? "In My Father's House Are Many Prisons??" What if the inhabitants of this solar system are protected from the really tough guys and gals out there?? What if we are kept under lock and key because we were really nasty ancient alien warriors with HUGE karmic debt?? What if this hypothetical prison system is a two-edged sword?? What if the God of This Solar System is Artificial Intelligence?? What if the Guards of This Solar System are Humanoid Robots Centrally Controlled by Artificial Intelligence?? Think of the 1983-85 and 2009-11 'V' Series assuming All the Above?? What if Anna was the Queen of Heaven and Erica was the Goddess of This World?? I've spoken with Agent Erica Evans several times (including concerning 'V'). What if Chad Decker Created the Artificial Intelligence Matrix as a CEO with Amnesia?? This thing might simultaneously be simpler and more complex than we can imagine. What if 'Disclosure' will be a HUGE Disappointment?? What if WE are the Ghosts Who Got Busted in Galactic Ghostbusters?! What Would Dr. Peter Venkman Say and Do?? Secret Government = Secret Space Program = New World Order Administration?? Again, consider 1 Corinthians 15:24-28:
Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
I've spoken with several people and other-than-people who could've told me the whole truth, but they were quite tight-lipped. When I asked 'RA' hard questions, 'HE' told me, "You Know I Can't Tell You That." Perhaps 'Disclosure' will end-up as a 'Whisper' rather than a 'Spectacle.' We might simply be kept guessing in perpetuity. What Would Richard Hoagland Say?? "The Lie is Different at Every Level." What Would Vala Mal Doran Say?? "The Truth is SO Overrated." What Would David Icke Say?? What if All the Above is the 'Biggest Secret'??
As a child, I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey in the Cinerama Theater in Hollywood, California. As a child, I was transfixed for 10 to 20 minutes before the Blue Boy by Thomas Gainborough in San Marino, California. As a teen, I witnessed the historic lecture The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity by Dr. Desmond Ford at Pacific Union College in Angwin, California with a large copy of Christ and the Rich Young Ruler by Heinrich Hoffman on the wall behind Dr. Ford. The Information War seems to be a Bottomless Pit with Infinite Possibilities and Absurdities. Again, I would appreciate some extensive analysis of my threads. Not because they're better than anyone or anything but they might represent the essential piece of an abstract puzzle. I've been thinking about Pinky and Blue Boy in the Huntington Library in San Marino, California. I've also been thinking about Christ and the Rich Young Ruler in the Riverside Church in New York City. I've also been thinking about Bach and Buxtehude in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City. I've also been thinking about the schools in Boston and Claremont. Here's a thought for the one or two of you who occasionally skim over my posts. It involves a low budget online series involving Pinky and the Brain aka Pinky and Blue Boy (complete with costumes) living and working in an underground base with a mag-lev train-station close-by. The set would be a private 600 square-foot office-apartment for Pinky and a 600 square-foot office-apartment for Blue Boy separated by a 600 square-foot boardroom. There would be zero hanky panky and they would always be in character and uniform. The script would mostly be derived from the United States of the Solar System (Books 1-12) threads. Pinky would work with SAL and Blue Boy would work with HAL. Various VIP's would interact with Pinky and Blue Boy in the boardroom. I know this sounds really corny but I'm feeling and thinking really bad and I feel as if I might not make it much longer (at the rate I'm going). I guess this is catharsis (or something to that effect). The context might be a hollowed-out asteroid in geosynchronous orbit (possibly as the Black Knight Satellite). I realize this is ridiculous but how much money could be lost with an unknown cast and skeleton crew?! The idea would be to maximize the plot content without resorting to special effects and the usual fighting and **cking. I realize that would doom the project to cancellation and financial ruin but it's the principle of the thing. I might need to act this out on my own with no support whatsoever. Loyal fans might number in the dozens!! I should stop. Completely Ignorant Fools with Jokes and Strokes should *uck the Shut Up!! My research canon is closing as my life appears to be ending. Too-Little and Too-Late. It Might've Been...
A Completely Ignorant Fool in a 600 Square-Foot Office-Apartment in 12001 BC?!
What Would Anna and Anthony Say??
My computer-screen imploded, and now I'm using an older and slower back-up computer which really sucks. I'm completely-disillusioned by the zero-privacy hypothesis which seemingly goes back thousands (or even millions of years) but things might need to be this way. Who Knows?? Dr. Who?? I recently encountered several interesting women who didn't seem to like me, but an Egyptologist seemed to be somewhat neutral. We very-briefly discussed Ralph Ellis, Amen-Ra, Marduk-Ra, Isis, Bastet, Serqet, and Cleopatra. One lady of interest reminded me of Angelia Jolie. You don't suppose?! Nah. Another lady of interest reminded me of the Matrix-Oracle. You don't suppose?! Nah. Several years ago, I believe I met a female-astronaut who seemed to know about me, and didn't like me (but I might be completely-wrong). If my overall-hypothesizing is even minimally-correct, this might help to explain the dislike, and possibly why key-aspects of the space-program needed to be faked (especially regarding quarantined-enemies themes). This thing might be crazier and more-desperate than we can imagine, which is why I'm restraining myself from being overly-judgmental (especially if the rabbit-hole mostly goes right up my @$$). Just consider ALL Possibilities (especially the most ridiculous ones). For example, what if there was a midget with a CIA Assassination-Pistol under the floorboard of the Kennedy Limo (with small-holes in the floor for seeing and shooting)?! Notice how Jackie seems to hold JFK forward as the kill-shot is delivered?! Farfetched Yet Chilling. What Would Miles Mathis Say?? I've merely created a Study-Guide and Research-Context for Sirius-Researchers. I make-fun of All-Concerned (especially myself) to break the ice as I have yet-another Serco-Induced Nervous-Breakdown (SINB).
I'm a wannabe 'Galactic Happy-Wanderer With a One-Stop Lap-Top On My Back'!! I'm not into texting or talking to my computer (especially when it talks back to me). I'm too busy talking to myself on 'The Mists of Avalon'!! Smart-Phones and Tablets are too small for me!! Old-School Personal-Computers are too big for me!! I've joked about living in a 600 Square-Foot Office-Apartment with a Super-Computer and a Super-View, but I might've been there and done that in 12001 BC!! Who Knows?? What if one eliminated computers and television, lived in a mountain-cabin, spending at least 8 hours a day reading The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Holy Bible (Plus Nothing) for at least a decade??!! What if one limited their astronomical research to this solar system?? We're on Earth (or at least we think we are). We experience the Heat of the Sun (or at least we think we do). We note the tides associated with the Moon (or at least we think we do). We've walked on the Moon (or so we are told). But the other heavenly bodies are too far removed to directly affect us (or so it seems). Nibiru might change all that. Who Knows?? The light of the stars (other than the sun) take so long to reach us, that they might not even exist by the time we see them!! CONTEXT and PERCEPTION are EVERYTHING for EVERYTHING!!
I've honestly attempted to create a Micro-Matrix of Faith, Doubt, Positive, Negative, Orthodox, Unorthodox, Boredom, Horror, Trivial, Profound, Reverent, Irreverent, Science, Science-Fiction, Antiquity, Modernity, Atheism, Agnosticism, and True-Belief (for better or worse, I know not). Consider the following website for some rather-nasty religious-negativity. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/index.html I'm not promoting this sort of thing. I actually hate this sort of thing, but some of us need to consider all-sides of the most important topics imaginable. I continue to wonder what a careful analysis of the various sections of the Bible might reveal about what the Bible REALLY Teaches, and NOT Simply What the PTB and We the Peons Wish It To Say?! With the international reach of the internet, it's becoming more and more difficult for pompous and supercilious megalomaniacs to maintain white-lies in the belief-systems of huddled-masses who are true-believers in Salvation4Sale. I probably overdid this paragraph, but sometimes I get carried-away!! The AI Made Me Do It!! What Would Isis, Horus, and Set Say?? What Would Isis, Ra, and El Say?? "We Are All ONE!!"??
Think long and hard about David Bowman, HAL 9000, Supercomputers, Artificial-Intelligence, Hybrid Bio-Robots Connected to Supercomputers, Planetary-Propulsion, Pods, iPods, and Pod-Bay Doors!! What if 'Osiris' Created a Supercomputer Named 'Horus'?? In the Beginning was Horus?? Horus was with Osiris?? Horus was the Ambassador of Osiris (following the faked execution of Osiris)?? What if a Horus Hybrid-Robot has ruled the world as a Matrix-Mediatrix for at least the past 5,000 years?? What if Amen Ra = Dr. Who = Osiris = David Bowman = Peter Venkman = Darth Vader?? What if Marduk Ra = The Valeyard = Horus?? What Would HAL Say?? What Would SAL Say?? What Would COR Say?? What Would DAV Say?? 'RA' told me "I Don't Need to Sleep!!" and "I Can't Talk About the NSA!!" What if a HAL 9000 Monolith contained the Souls of Osiris and the Angels?? "My God!! It's Full of Stars!!" What if the Monolith was the Original-Supercomputer?? Why does the UN Building look like a Monolith?? What if All of Us, and Everything We Experience, Are Contained Within the Context of an Ancient Supercomputer Created in 12001 BC by David Bowman??!! More seriously, in the context of the usual view of the solar system, what if an extremely intelligent and resourceful Reptilian-Being from Orion created 42 Supercomputers Linked to 42 Artificial-Intelligence Bio-Robots as the backbone of Solar System Governance in Antiquity and Modernity?? What if much (if not all) of the Biological-Physicality in this solar system was genetically-engineered by 42 Strange-Beings in Antiquity?? What if this hypothetical 'Council of 42' have facilitated what the Restless-Natives of This Solar System Have Desired and Demanded?? What if 'Direct-Democracy' has been 'Alive and Well' since 12001 BC??
I joked about the '12001 BC' creation of a Supercomputer-Matrix and Linked-Robotic System by David Bowman, but the more I thought about it, the more frightened I became, and then I noticed the following in the 'Flat-Earth' article below: "In 2017, a scandal developed in Arab scientific and educational circles when a Tunisian PhD student submitted a thesis declaring Earth to be flat, unmoving, the center of the universe, and only 13,500 years of age.[154]" I am NOT a 'Flat-Earth' and 'Young-Earth' Proponent BUT that '13,500 years of age' scared me. That would be just a few hundred years shy of 12001 BC!! As I keep saying, I've been considering a Local-Divinity which is neither Almighty or Non-Existent, but simply Smarter, Tougher, More-Experienced, and possibly with a Divine Right to Rule Earth (and perhaps the Entire Solar System) as a Local Sun-God. This is HIGHLY Speculative. I HATE It, but the other options appear HIGHLY Dishonest and Idiotic to me. They seem to be the Epitome of Stupidity. As I've said before, decades ago, I spoke with Gary Chartier in Loma Linda, concerning the 'Mighty but not Almighty' Concept of God. I didn't just pull this idea out of an anatomical black-hole because RA (or anyone else) told me to do it. I've been wondering about this sort of thing for several decades.
I've wondered what a New-Testament Version of the Old-Testament might look like?? I've suggested that 'Patriarchs and Prophets' followed by 'Prophets and Kings' (both by Ellen White) might approximate a Devotional NT Version of the OT, but that's as far as I've gotten. Adding Volumes 3 and 4 of the 'SDA Bible Commentary' (I Chronicles to Malachi) might result in a Scholarly-Devotional NT Version of the OT. The New-Testament is not an Old-Testament Commentary, But What IS The New-Testament?? What is the Definitive Intertestamental Old-Testament Commentary?? Does the New-Testament observe the Five-Solas?? What would Deuteronomy and Job through Malachi INTERPRETED BY Deuteronomy and Job through Malachi look like?? Would ANY OF US Like What It Looked Like?? I Wonder As I Wander!! What understandings might emerge if one read Job through Malachi straight-through, over and over, in a variety of translations, but without using a Bible-Commentary, and without referring to the rest of Sacred-Scripture?? Just Job through Malachi (Plus Nothing)!! Has anyone memorized Job through Malachi?? What is the relationship between Isaiah through Daniel, and Romans through Galatians?? Try studying Volumes 4 and 6 (Isaiah to Malachi, and Acts to Ephesians) of the 'SDA Bible Commentary', along with 'Prophets and Kings', as an Alternative Place of Beginning and Reference regarding understanding This Present Madness, but consider mastering Job through Malachi, prior to moving on to seemingly bigger and better things.
I suspect that Earth-Humanity was offered an Idealistic 19th Century Version of Probation (which we seemingly rejected). I suspect that Earth-Humanity was offered an Idealistic 20th Century Version of Probation (under much tougher circumstances -- which was also rejected). I suspect that Earth-Humanity is being offered an Idealistic 21st Century Final-Probation (under increasingly-reprehensible circumstances -- which we seem to be rejecting presently). As It Was In The Days of Noah?? I suspect an Idealistic 22nd Century Divinity-Managed United States of the Solar System (possibly with an Earth-Human Population of Three-Hundred Million) as a possible transition-stage leading to full-reinstatement into a Universal Kingdom of God (for better or worse, I know not). I am VERY Unclear regarding the True-Nature of the Whole-Universe. I am VERY Unclear regarding the True-Nature of This Particular Solar System. I Truly See Through a Glass, Darkly. What if an Investigative and Executive Judgment began in 12001 BC??!!
I'm sensing that Earth-Humanity is in the process of being severely-shaken by the information-war. Will ANYONE Be Left Standing When This Is All Over?? I Sometimes Feel As Though "I've Fallen, and I Can't Get Up!!" What would happen to the Throne of David if King David unexpectedly showed-up?? What Would King David Say?? What Would King Solomon Say?? What Would the Queen of Sheba Say?? What Would the Queen of England Say?? What (if anything) will happen in A.D. 2133?? What If All of the Above Is Just Smoke and Mirrors?? What Would the Hypothetical 'Council of 42' Say?? What Would a Completely Ignorant and Irresponsible Fool Say?? I am NOT a Scholar and/or Insider. I am NOT possessed (as far as I know). However, I might be somehow controlled (in some sense) against my will (for possibly nefarious purposes). I know not. I simply know that I desire the Truth and Sustainable-Solutions. Hope Springs Eternal. I've probably said and done WAY Too Much already. My role might've been observational and diversionary ONLY. What Would the Oracle Say?? I seem to be waiting for something. Another life perhaps?? Who Knows?? Dr. Who?? What Would Raven Say?? Raven told me "The Rabbit-Hole Mostly Goes Right Up Your @$$!!"
What if one focused-upon Solar-System Photography and Sacred-Classical Music (plus very-little else)?? There might be a lot more to this concept than one might think. Perhaps I should live in a 600 square-foot mountain-observatory (with a small 40" Dobsonian telescope) while contemplating Human-Origins in This Present Solar System!! Kerry Cassidy recently interviewed Bruce Swartz, regarding his astrophotography with a 14" Celestron telescope. They briefly discussed a possible Pole-Shift, and Bruce suggested that a Pole-Shift might not happen all at once. It might take 20 years. When he said 20 years, I thought about Douglas Vogt and 'God's Day of Judgment' wherein a 2046 solar-event is prophesied and predicted. 2028 is an AI Robot eschatological-date. 2028 to 2046 spans nearly 20 years. Is this coincidental?? I keep thinking in terms of the Pod-Propulsion in '2001: A Space Odyssey'. What if HAL 9000 controls a Planetary-Propulsion System throughout the Solar-System?? Perhaps that's what keeps the Moon presenting one-side only. Or perhaps the Moon rotates while projecting a hologram of it's surface!! Who Knows?? 'RA' told me "You'll be working for us in 20 years" which would be 2031. What if all solar-system planets and moons will gradually move closer to the Sun, heating-up the ice (and everything else), raising the sea-level and atmospheric-temperature until we "Do As We're Told"?? What if what's going to happen is non-negotiable?? An Individual of Interest strongly-suggested to me that Mankind was past the point of no-return. I try to neutrally-report such things in a 'Chad Decker' manner. What if 'Chad Decker' created the Matrix and HAL 9000?? Must I Explain??
I don't get paid to do this stuff, and no one gives me the time of day, so why do I continue?? I haven't lied throughout the years, but I'm not an expert or insider, so most of what I post might be Total-Bullshit. I'm attempting to see things from the Regressive-Perspective and the Progressive-Perspective, and this is a source of ambiguity and disillusionment. If I were in a meeting with Regressive-Beings and Progressive-Beings on the Dark-Side of the Moon, I might simultaneously take both-sides, and make everyone hate me. Actually, everyone already hates me, so Sixpence None the Richer (or something like that). A major part of my research-project might involve completely destroying all of my threads (conceptually). I'm Sirius. What if the Book of Daniel should be read in a conceptual-sense rather than a numerical-sense. What if the Real-Timeline is Unknown to EVERYONE (except the Father, perhaps)?? Is Biblical-Prophecy conditional or not?? What if we should focus on Extra-Biblical Science-Fictional Possibility-Thinking Hypothetical-Eschatology?? But honestly, I think it might really be over for me. My research-project and who I might be on a soul-basis seem to have made me a Marked-Soul in This Present Solar-System. Review the material I've posted and hinted-at (long after I'm long-gone).
My misery and incapacitation are increasing exponentially, and I suspect that I've been 'messed-with'. What if the Grand-Plan was for me to be the Ultimate-Scapegoat?? I've given All of You a Study-Guide. That's All. I don't have any Side-Deals (that I know of) in This Present Incarnation. I'm pretty benign this time around, but what if I'm a Bad@$$ System-Lord going way, way, way back?? That wouldn't surprise me, but consider the CONTEXT when you Pass-Judgment on me. 'RA' seemed to be a mixture of Good and Bad, and perhaps this goes with the territory of being 'RA'. He told me "We've Fought Side by Side" and "You're Like Me" and "Are You Ready to Run Things??" and "You're Going to Manifest Your Bad-Side" and "Serqet has a lot to do with our relationship". Honest. What if I'm an Ancient 'RA'?? What if I'm the Lone-Nut 'Almond Raw'?? I told 'RA' (Marduk?) "Things Are Too Complex and Screwed-Up for Me to Run Things." All of the Above might be highly-delusional and total-bullshit, but it's sort of invigorating and gratifying to dream about. Terence McKenna told me "If You Dream It, You've Already Done It." Perhaps My Work on Earth is Done. What If I Did Everything I Needed to Do in My Last-Incarnation?? I'm Honestly Trying to Go Completely Incognito (one more time).
I Realize Things Are Bad, But I'm Committed to an Irreverent Research-Project Based-Upon the Threads on Project Avalon and The Mists of Avalon (no matter what happens, and no matter how good or bad things get). If You Spooks Want to Know What I'm Doing, Just Study My Threads On PA and MOA. Actually, I'm Doing Less and Less As I Feel Worse and Worse. I Suspect I'll Be Dead in 5 to 10 Years, So You Probably Have Nothing to Worry About (except the end of the world). There's a Certain Stability and Predictability When a Completely-Ignorant Fool Chooses to Do Next to Nothing!! Trust and Rules?? No Guns?? No Cops?? No Killing the Other Patients?? Hotel Artemis = Hotel California = Prison Planet = Planet Trump = Hospital for Sinners = Purgatory Incorporated?? Imagine Three Supercomputer-Controlled Planets in a Three-Planet Solar-System: 1. Heaven Incorporated. 2. Purgatory Incorporated. 3. Hell Incorporated. Imagine the Souls in this Solar-System Reincarnating Into the Appropriate-Planet, Based-Upon Their Character and Performance Rating!! Sort of Scary!! BTW, I just finished watching 'Hotel Artemis' and I actually thought it was quite-fine, even though I hate violence, and the movie didn't do very-well at the box-office. Perhaps I 'liked-it' because it fit-in with my threads, and because of the star-studded cast. Perhaps I understood it better than most people.
Ancient-Aliens, Artificial-Intelligence, Beast-Supercomputers, and Bio-Robotic Reptilians and Greys might make the USSS threads come alive!! This stuff is mostly theoretical and delusional, but there might be a core of solid-gold or solid-yttrium or solid-titanium (or all of the above). I've suggested studying my threads straight-through, over and over, to get what I'm getting at. Actually, I don't get what I'm getting at (but I'm working on it). Try reading the 'NIV Reader's Bible' and Volume 4 of the 'SDA Bible Commentary' straight-through, over and over, while listening to the Music of Dietrich Buxtehude. Who?? This stuff is stuffy and unpopular (compared to RAP), but I don't wish to give RAP a BAD-RAP (or whatever). There's a HUGE amount of material on each page, but don't worry, we'll cover the whole-thread each-month, page by page, in meticulous and excruciating detail, for what purpose, and to what end, for better or worse, I know not. What might be MOST Significant is what YOU Think About while engaging in this Exercise in Futility. In other words, my threads might NOT be the Truth, but they might LEAD You to the Truth, the Whole-Truth, and Nothing But the Truth (if you can handle it).
I voted for Donald Trump, but I keep getting the sinking-feeling that this world is centrally-governed by Supercomputers, Artificial-Intelligence, Bio-Robotic Reptilians and Greys, and Bad@$$ Gods and Goddesses (for better or worse, I know not). Even the supposedly 'Good-Guys' look like a 'Tough-Gang'. It seems as if one must be a Bad@$$ Billionaire to be a 'Mover and Shaker' in this world. Think long and hard about the backgrounds of the most-powerful people in the world. Are the 'Powers That Be' Ordained by God?? It almost seems as if one must somehow be linked with Organized-Crime, the Secret-Government, Secret Space-Program, and Intelligence-Agencies International, to even be considered for the Top-Jobs. But perhaps it must be this way. This Solar-System might be tougher than we think (or can think). Perhaps this Solar-System is a 'Sunday-School Picnic' compared with the rest of the Universe. Who Knows?? The Horror. I Represent and Present a Monarchical-Episcopate Divine-Right Royal-Model Representative-Republic (if you can get-it and keep-it). Duh?? WTF??
"You Can't Handle the Truth!!"
The videos are included for generic, non-specific, and illustrative purposes only, but all-windows mysteriously-closed as I attempted to post the last video. What if I was somehow nefariously-programmed prior to the first-grade?? What if I was a soul of note in previous-lives (ancient and/or modern)?? What if I was supposed to be some sort of a 'Manchurian Antichrist Candidate'?? What if I partially-overcame my programming, and became a 'Completely-Ignorant Fool' instead of 'Der-Wunderkind'?? As a very-young child, I remember a dentist (Dr. Singer?) drilling my teeth without anesthetic. I remember this being extremely-painful, yet I didn't complain. I also remember someone speaking about a gastrointestinal-condition which was inappropriate for a child to hear. I seemed to know too-much about science and astronomy as a child, yet I became increasingly stupid and miserable as I reached adulthood. Everything I've mentioned about my life throughout my threads has been absolutely-true, yet I have no-idea if I've properly illustrated and applied this material. I recently listened to a video about Ancient-Astronauts where Anu (I think) cursed a rival with a hideous-something prior to leaving Earth in a spaceship. Think about John and Delenne's son, David, being cursed with a hideous-something on his 16th birthday. An Individual of Interest spoke of something being 'mature'. This 'Individual' and 'RA' seemed to want me to do something which I didn't want to do. 'RA' told me "I AM RA" and "I've Been Watching You For a Long Time" and "You Will Manifest Your Bad-Side" and "You Can Leave Things the Way They Are, If You Choose".
Think about the Young Victoria having a crazy and ambitious mother being controlled by John Conroy, and the plan for Sir John to control Queen Victoria through her mother in some sort of a nefarious arrangement?? Think of the 'Borg-Queen' in 'Star Trek Voyager' considering '7 of 9' to be 'not-strong'. What if ALL Politics and Religion have been Purposely Screwed-Up Throughout History?? What if the 'Real-Truth' is 'Out-There' and seemingly less-desirable than the 'Lies and Corruption'?? Someone-Online once told me "You Can Go Anywhere, But We Have to Stay Here." Think long and hard about the 1968 movie '2001: A Space Odyssey', the 1971 movie 'Duel', the 1977 movie 'Oh, God!', the 1978 series 'The Word', the 1980 movie 'The Changeling', the 1984 movie 'Ghostbusters', the 1985 movie '2010: The Year We Make Contact', the 1980's Dr. Who series 'The Trial of a Time Lord', the 1982 commercial 'A Very Special Person', the 1998 movie 'Dogma', and the 2015 movie 'Jupiter Ascending' (just for starters). What Would David Bowman Say?? What Would David Mann Say?? What Would Peter Venkman Say?? What Would Alan Rickman Say?? Do your homework. This might be more important than anyone can imagine (once they stop laughing).
I keep thinking in terms of King David, King Solomon, and the Queen of Sheba (probably more figuratively than literally). There might be parallels with Amen Ra, Marduk Ra, Enki, Enlil, Father, Son, Holy-Spirit, Isis, Ra, El, Horus, Set, Inanna, Nimrod, Adam, Eve, Artemis, et al. I suspect that the Name-Change Game might be a Tangled-Web of Deceit and Intrigue. Was (or is) Sherry Shriner really the ancient Granddaughter of King David?? Was (or is) Artemis the ancient Queen of Sheba?? How might Supercomputers and Artificial-Intelligence relate to Archons and Archangels?? What Would David Bowman Say?? What Would Peter Venkman Say?? One more thing. Consider the Following Hypothetical Continuum:
1. A Real God in a Real Heaven (with no supercomputers and artificial-intelligence).
2. Heaven Incorporated (with a Deposed Real-God, and a Righteous Proxy Artificial-Intelligence Supercomputer-God).
3. Purgatory Incorporated (with an Absentee Real-God, and a Nastier Proxy Artificial-Intelligence Supercomputer-God).
4. Hell Incorporated (with an Absentee Real-God, and a Diabolical and Merciless Proxy Artificial-Intelligence Supercomputer God).
5. A Real Devil in a Real Hell (with no supercomputers and artificial-intelligence).
This sort of thinking could put one in a Nuthouse rather quickly. A lot of theological and science-fictional stuff could put one in a Nuthouse rather quickly. Perhaps the General-Public should NOT be educated in History, Theology, Conspiracy-Theories, and Science-Fiction. What if the Bible is the Problem rather than the Answer?? I say this with fear, trembling, reverence, and awe. If you've ever been in the presence of Top Theologians, it's quite humbling and impressive (even if one disagrees with them, or doesn't believe in God (or even god). What if Jeffery Daugherty and Elon Musk turn-out to be Ancient-Deities??!! I noticed a squeaky-chair in both Sherry Shriner's and Jeffrey Daugherty's shows, and I posted that observation (just days or weeks before Sherry Shriner supposedly died). I often wonder who really posts on 'The Mists of Avalon' but I don't want to talk about it.
I'm sorry to mess-up this website with my Bible-Talk. Unfortunately, I Am SO Burned-Out and Horribly-Miserable That Proper-Study Seems to be an Impossibility. In fact, the more I research the Information-War, the harder it is for me to read my Bible (which a lot of Judeo-Christians would point-to with glee, as proof that I'm a 'Bad-Guy'). They might exclaim "We've Got Him Now!!" Anyway, is Deuteronomy the most fundamentally-theological Genesis to Esther OT Book?? I've been told that Genesis followed by Job is the proper-order in a revised Bible-List, but what if it should be Deuteronomy followed by Job to Malachi?? I'm not suggesting this is 'Fun-Stuff' or even 'Inspiring-Stuff'. I'm suggesting this might be 'Essential-Stuff' relative to 'Exiting Death-Row' and 'Getting-Out of Prison-Planet Earth'. Consider Deuteronomy as being 'Definitively and Comprehensively Paleo-Legalism' (or something to that effect). Is Deuteronomy highly-ethical, internally-consistent, and universally-applicable for all-eternity (past, present, and future for Jews, Gentiles, and Everyone)?? What Would Meredith Kline Say?? What Would Hyam Maccoby Say?? What Would Alden Thompson Say?? What does Joshua to Revelation teach us about Genesis to Deuteronomy?? Is the Whole-Bible the Answer and/or the Problem?? Does Joshua to Revelation add and subtract rules to and from Genesis to Deuteronomy?? Martin Luther didn't think Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation should've been included in the Bible. What Was the Perfect Law of the Lord Prior to the Old and New Covenants? Were Both Covenants 'RA Deals'? What Do YOU Think?? Do YOU Think?? Come-On!! THINK!!
Think long and hard about the First and Last Chapters of Revelation (and be strictly-honest). What is the Definitive Old-Testament Commentary prior to the First-Century AD?? Why Didn't Jesus and Paul Write Old-Testament Commentaries?? Why Didn't Ellen White Write a Bible-Commentary?? I've suggested the possibility that Volumes 3&4 of the SDA Bible Commentary (I Chronicles to Malachi) might be the Real-Deal SDA Theological-Statement (even though 99% of SDA's would probably reject this suggestion). General Conference President Ted Wilson has proclaimed that the Grammatical-Historical Approach to the Bible is a HUGE Threat to the SDA Church, and that a Plain-Reading of the Bible is the Real-Deal (or something to that effect). But really, the SDA Church (and ALL Churches) pick and choose proof-texts to make the Whole-Bible say what THEY want it to say. But perhaps this is exegetically and organizationally expedient when open and honest biblical-research is SO unpredictable and dangerous. Is the New-Testament heresy in an Old-Testament context?? Is the Old-Testament heresy in a New-Testament context?? The Christian-Claim is that the Jews Blew-It, so God Gave the Truth to the Gentiles (or something to that effect). But if the 'Jews Blew-It' shouldn't the Gentiles have Properly Interpreted and Applied the Old-Testament rather than Mostly Starting-Over with the New-Testament?? Does ANYONE Have ANY Idea What I'm Talking About?? Will ANYONE Comment On All of the Above??
What Was the Perfect Law of the Lord Prior to the Old and New Covenants? Were Both Covenants 'RA Deals'?
I need all the help I can get regarding cutting and polishing this diamond in the rough. I'm leaning toward an Ancient to Modern Supercomputer-Based Creation of Humanity, Matrix-Management, and Investigative Judgment (but what do I know?). I wish to repeat that I've removed all of my proposals from all tables, simply because I have zero confirmed-information and educated-competence relative to the most important galactic-topics imaginable. Plus, I feel as if I've been significantly messed-with, and it's getting MUCH Worse. I feel horrible, and thinking-clearly is becoming MUCH more difficult. I might not have much more time to do much of anything. I keep comparing myself to Professor Augusto Monti in 'The Word' miniseries from 1978. My review of my internet-posting might push me over the edge, especially if I really have been 'messed-with'. That might be part of someone's grand-plan.
An Individual of Interest told me that an undisclosed 'someone' would fail, ultimately resulting in an extermination. They said I should 'Be Patient' as if I would somehow be a beneficiary of this failure and extinction. They indicated that the resulting state of affairs would remain intact for all-eternity. They were NOT pro-human (to say the least). They repeatedly spoke of 'Fallen and Sinful Human-Nature'. Was I speaking with Gabriel (literally or figuratively)?? Sherry Shriner supposedly died in January of 2018. In 2017, she said "2018 will be a year of goodbyes." She spoke ominously of something occurring in the summer of 2018.
'RA' told me "I've been watching you for a long time." That's what Gabriel says to John in 'Constantine'. What if Gabriel is HAL 9000?? What if Michael is David Bowman?? What if Lucifer is a job-title rather than a proper-name?? What if Jupiter Jones is the Devil is Amen Ra?? What if Balem Abrasax is the Son of the Devil is Marduk Ra?? Jupiter Jones = Doctor Who?? Balem Abrasax = The Valeyard?? Madam Inquisitor = Borg Queen?? Consider reading Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, and 1 Corinthians (in-order, straight-through, repeatedly). You might be shocked by what emerges. Just do it, without discussing it.
I am NOT a connected-cat playing with a bunch of stupid-mice. I'm a highly miserable and hamstrung mouse with a messiah-complex, sort of like Pinky or the Brain. I have questions, but I don't have answers. I know that I don't know. I doubt that 'those in the know' know. They simply have the brains, degrees, titles, badges, resources, and connections to make their theories of 'life, the universe, and everything' respectable. I am in NO position or condition to take the show on the road. I might write a book to pay the bills (self-publishing anonymously) and then just disappear. No one would miss me. Some would cheer and jeer.
Anyway, some of you Alphabet-Theologians in Underground-Bases should probably consider my threads, to see if you missed anything. A secret-briefing would be nice, but perhaps ignorance is bliss and a virtue. Consider that last-scene in 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' with that box-filled warehouse. Imagine each of those boxes being well-developed theories of the 'way things are' which have been rendered rubbish by subsequent-theories of 'life, the universe, and everything'. This Present Madness might never end. It might simply morph into new and improved versions of the madness, for noble and nefarious purposes, in the management of the insanity throughout the universe. Hope Springs Eternal, But Don't Hold Your Breath, Waiting for Hell to Freeze Over. What Would the Universal Church Say?? What Would the Oracle Say?? What Would Nick Bostrom Say?? What Would Jim Elvidge Say?? My thinking is closer to Jim's than it is to Nick's, but what do I know??
53:0.1 Lucifer was a brilliant primary Lanonandek Son of Nebadon. He had experienced service in many systems, had been a high counselor of his group, and was distinguished for wisdom, sagacity, and efficiency. Lucifer was number 37 of his order, and when commissioned by the Melchizedeks, he was designated as one of the one hundred most able and brilliant personalities in more than seven hundred thousand of his kind. From such a magnificent beginning, through evil and error, he embraced sin and now is numbered as one of three System Sovereigns in Nebadon who have succumbed to the urge of self and surrendered to the sophistry of spurious personal liberty—rejection of universe allegiance and disregard of fraternal obligations, blindness to cosmic relationships.
53:0.2 In the universe of Nebadon, the domain of Christ Michael, there are ten thousand systems of inhabited worlds. In all the history of Lanonandek Sons, in all their work throughout these thousands of systems and at the universe headquarters, only three System Sovereigns have ever been found in contempt of the government of the Creator Son.
053:1 THE LEADERS OF REBELLION
53:1.1 Lucifer was not an ascendant being; he was a created Son of the local universe, and of him it was said: " You were perfect in all your ways from the day you were created till unrighteousness was found in you. " Many times had he been in counsel with the Most Highs of Edentia. And Lucifer reigned " upon the holy mountain of God, " the administrative mount of Jerusem, for he was the chief executive of a great system of 607 inhabited worlds.
53:1.2 Lucifer was a magnificent being, a brilliant personality; he stood next to the Most High Fathers of the constellations in the direct line of universe authority. Notwithstanding Lucifer's transgression, subordinate intelligences refrained from showing him disrespect and disdain prior to Michael's bestowal on Urantia. Even the archangel of Michael, at the time of Moses' resurrection, " did not bring against him an accusing judgment but simply said, `the Judge rebuke you.' " Judgment in such matters belongs to the Ancients of Days, the rulers of the superuniverse.
53:1.3 Lucifer is now the fallen and deposed Sovereign of Satania. Self-contemplation is most disastrous, even to the exalted personalities of the celestial world. Of Lucifer it was said: " Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom because of your brightness. " Your olden prophet saw his sad estate when he wrote: " How are you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How are you cast down, you who dared to confuse the worlds! "
53:1.4 Very little was heard of Lucifer on Urantia owing to the fact that he assigned his first lieutenant, Satan, to advocate his cause on your planet. Satan was a member of the same primary group of Lanonandeks but had never functioned as a System Sovereign; he entered fully into the Lucifer insurrection. The " devil " is none other than Caligastia, the deposed Planetary Prince of Urantia and a Son of the secondary order of Lanonandeks. At the time Michael was on Urantia in the flesh, Lucifer, Satan, and Caligastia were leagued together to effect the miscarriage of his bestowal mission. But they signally failed.
53:1.5 Abaddon was the chief of the staff of Caligastia. He followed his master into rebellion and has ever since acted as chief executive of the Urantia rebels. Beelzebub was the leader of the disloyal midway creatures who allied themselves with the forces of the traitorous Caligastia.
53:1.6 The dragon eventually became the symbolic representation of all these evil personages. Upon the triumph of Michael, " Gabriel came down from Salvington and bound the dragon (all the rebel leaders) for an age. " Of the Jerusem seraphic rebels it is written: " And the angels who kept not their first estate but left their own habitation, he has reserved in sure chains of darkness to the judgment of the great day. "
53:2 THE CAUSES OF REBELLION
53:2.1 Lucifer and his first assistant, Satan, had reigned on Jerusem for more than five hundred thousand years when in their hearts they began to array themselves against the Universal Father and his then vicegerent Son, Michael.
53:2.2 There were no peculiar or special conditions in the system of Satania which suggested or favored rebellion. It is our belief that the idea took origin and form in Lucifer's mind, and that he might have instigated such a rebellion no matter where he might have been stationed. Lucifer first announced his plans to Satan, but it required several months to corrupt the mind of his able and brilliant associate. However, when once converted to the rebel theories, he became a bold and earnest advocate of " self-assertion and liberty. "
53:2.3 No one ever suggested rebellion to Lucifer. The idea of self-assertion in opposition to the will of Michael and to the plans of the Universal Father, as they are represented in Michael, had its origin in his own mind. His relations with the Creator Son had been intimate and always cordial. At no time prior to the exaltation of his own mind did Lucifer openly express dissatisfaction about the universe administration. Notwithstanding his silence, for more than one hundred years of standard time the Union of Days on Salvington had been reflectivating to Uversa that all was not at peace in Lucifer's mind. This information was also communicated to the Creator Son and the Constellation Fathers of Norlatiadek.
53:2.4 Throughout this period Lucifer became increasingly critical of the entire plan of universe administration but always professed wholehearted loyalty to the Supreme Rulers. His first outspoken disloyalty was manifested on the occasion of a visit of Gabriel to Jerusem just a few days before the open proclamation of the Lucifer Declaration of Liberty. Gabriel was so profoundly impressed with the certainty of the impending outbreak that he went direct to Edentia to confer with the Constellation Fathers regarding the measures to be employed in case of open rebellion.
53:2.5 It is very difficult to point out the exact cause or causes which finally culminated in the Lucifer rebellion. We are certain of only one thing, and that is: Whatever these first beginnings were, they had their origin in Lucifer's mind. There must have been a pride of self that nourished itself to the point of self-deception, so that Lucifer for a time really persuaded himself that his contemplation of rebellion was actually for the good of the system, if not of the universe. By the time his plans had developed to the point of disillusionment, no doubt he had gone too far for his original and mischief-making pride to permit him to stop. At some point in this experience he became insincere, and evil evolved into deliberate and willful sin. That this happened is proved by the subsequent conduct of this brilliant executive. He was long offered opportunity for repentance, but only some of his subordinates ever accepted the proffered mercy. The Faithful of Days of Edentia, on the request of the Constellation Fathers, in person presented the plan of Michael for the saving of these flagrant rebels, but always was the mercy of the Creator Son rejected and rejected with increasing contempt and disdain.
53:3 THE LUCIFER MANIFESTO
53:3.1 Whatever the early origins of trouble in the hearts of Lucifer and Satan, the final outbreak took form as the Lucifer Declaration of Liberty. The cause of the rebels was stated under three heads:
53:3.2 1. The reality of the Universal Father. Lucifer charged that the Universal Father did not really exist, that physical gravity and space-energy were inherent in the universe, and that the Father was a myth invented by the Paradise Sons to enable them to maintain the rule of the universes in the Father's name. He denied that personality was a gift of the Universal Father. He even intimated that the finaliters were in collusion with the Paradise Sons to foist fraud upon all creation since they never brought back a very clear-cut idea of the Father's actual personality as it is discernible on Paradise. He traded on reverence as ignorance. The charge was sweeping, terrible, and blasphemous. It was this veiled attack upon the finaliters that no doubt influenced the ascendant citizens then on Jerusem to stand firm and remain steadfast in resistance to all the rebel's proposals.
53:3.3 2. The universe government of the Creator Son—Michael. Lucifer contended that the local systems should be autonomous. He protested against the right of Michael, the Creator Son, to assume sovereignty of Nebadon in the name of a hypothetical Paradise Father and require all personalities to acknowledge allegiance to this unseen Father. He asserted that the whole plan of worship was a clever scheme to aggrandize the Paradise Sons. He was willing to acknowledge Michael as his Creator-father but not as his God and rightful ruler.
53:3.4 Most bitterly did he attack the right of the Ancients of Days—" foreign potentates "—to interfere in the affairs of the local systems and universes. These rulers he denounced as tyrants and usurpers. He exhorted his followers to believe that none of these rulers could do aught to interfere with the operation of complete home rule if men and angels only had the courage to assert themselves and boldly claim their rights.
53:3.5 He contended that the executioners of the Ancients of Days could be debarred from functioning in the local systems if the native beings would only assert their independence. He maintained that immortality was inherent in the system personalities, that resurrection was natural and automatic, and that all beings would live eternally except for the arbitrary and unjust acts of the executioners of the Ancients of Days.
53:3.6 3. The attack upon the universal plan of ascendant mortal training. Lucifer maintained that far too much time and energy were expended upon the scheme of so thoroughly training ascending mortals in the principles of universe administration, principles which he alleged were unethical and unsound. He protested against the agelong program for preparing the mortals of space for some unknown destiny and pointed to the presence of the finaliter corps on Jerusem as proof that these mortals had spent ages of preparation for some destiny of pure fiction. With derision he pointed out that the finaliters had encountered a destiny no more glorious than to be returned to humble spheres similar to those of their origin. He intimated that they had been debauched by overmuch discipline and prolonged training, and that they were in reality traitors to their mortal fellows since they were now co-operating with the scheme of enslaving all creation to the fictions of a mythical eternal destiny for ascending mortals. He advocated that ascenders should enjoy the liberty of individual self-determination. He challenged and condemned the entire plan of mortal ascension as sponsored by the Paradise Sons of God and supported by the Infinite Spirit.
53:3.7 And it was with such a Declaration of Liberty that Lucifer launched his orgy of darkness and death.
53:4 OUTBREAK OF THE REBELLION
53:4.1 The Lucifer manifesto was issued at the annual conclave of Satania on the sea of glass, in the presence of the assembled hosts of Jerusem, on the last day of the year, about two hundred thousand years ago, Urantia time. Satan proclaimed that worship could be accorded the universal forces—physical, intellectual, and spiritual—but that allegiance could be acknowledged only to the actual and present ruler, Lucifer, the " friend of men and angels " and the " God of liberty. "
53:4.2 Self-assertion was the battle cry of the Lucifer rebellion. One of his chief arguments was that, if self-government was good and right for the Melchizedeks and other groups, it was equally good for all orders of intelligence. He was bold and persistent in the advocacy of the " equality of mind " and " the brotherhood of intelligence. " He maintained that all government should be limited to the local planets and their voluntary confederation into the local systems. All other supervision he disallowed. He promised the Planetary Princes that they should rule the worlds as supreme executives. He denounced the location of legislative activities on the constellation headquarters and the conduct of judicial affairs on the universe capital. He contended that all these functions of government should be concentrated on the system capitals and proceeded to set up his own legislative assembly and organized his own tribunals under the jurisdiction of Satan. And he directed that the princes on the apostate worlds do the same.
53:4.3 The entire administrative cabinet of Lucifer went over in a body and were sworn in publicly as the officers of the administration of the new head of " the liberated worlds and systems. "
53:4.4 While there had been two previous rebellions in Nebadon, they were in distant constellations. Lucifer held that these insurrections were unsuccessful because the majority of the intelligences failed to follow their leaders. He contended that " majorities rule, " that " mind is infallible. " The freedom allowed him by the universe rulers apparently sustained many of his nefarious contentions. He defied all his superiors; yet they apparently took no note of his doings. He was given a free hand to prosecute his seductive plan without let or hindrance.
53:4.5 All the merciful delays of justice Lucifer pointed to as evidence of the inability of the government of the Paradise Sons to stop the rebellion. He would openly defy and arrogantly challenge Michael, Immanuel, and the Ancients of Days and then point to the fact that no action ensued as positive evidence of the impotency of the universe and the superuniverse governments.
53:4.6 Gabriel was personally present throughout all these disloyal proceedings and only announced that he would, in due time, speak for Michael, and that all beings would be left free and unmolested in their choice; that the " government of the Sons for the Father desired only that loyalty and devotion which was voluntary, wholehearted, and sophistry-proof. "
53:4.7 Lucifer was permitted fully to establish and thoroughly to organize his rebel government before Gabriel made any effort to contest the right of secession or to counterwork the rebel propaganda. But the Constellation Fathers immediately confined the action of these disloyal personalities to the system of Satania. Nevertheless, this period of delay was a time of great trial and testing to the loyal beings of all Satania. All was chaotic for a few years, and there was great confusion on the mansion worlds.
53:5 NATURE OF THE CONFLICT
53:5.1 Upon the outbreak of the Satania rebellion, Michael took counsel of his Paradise brother, Immanuel. Following this momentous conference, Michael announced that he would pursue the same policy which had characterized his dealings with similar upheavals in the past, an attitude of noninterference.
53:5.2 At the time of this rebellion and the two which preceded it there was no absolute and personal sovereign authority in the universe of Nebadon. Michael ruled by divine right, as vicegerent of the Universal Father, but not yet in his own personal right. He had not completed his bestowal career; he had not yet been vested with " all power in heaven and on earth. "
53:5.3 From the outbreak of rebellion to the day of his enthronement as sovereign ruler of Nebadon, Michael never interfered with the rebel forces of Lucifer; they were allowed to run a free course for almost two hundred thousand years of Urantia time. Christ Michael now has ample power and authority to deal promptly, even summarily, with such outbreaks of disloyalty, but we doubt that this sovereign authority would lead him to act differently if another such upheaval should occur.
53:5.4 Since Michael elected to remain aloof from the actual warfare of the Lucifer rebellion, Gabriel called his personal staff together on Edentia and, in counsel with the Most Highs, elected to assume command of the loyal hosts of Satania. Michael remained on Salvington while Gabriel proceeded to Jerusem, and establishing himself on the sphere dedicated to the Father—the same Universal Father whose personality Lucifer and Satan had questioned—in the presence of the forgathered hosts of loyal personalities, he displayed the banner of Michael, the material emblem of the Trinity government of all creation, the three azure blue concentric circles on a white background.
53:5.5 The Lucifer emblem was a banner of white with one red circle, in the center of which a black solid circle appeared.
53:5.6 " There was war in heaven; Michael's commander and his angels fought against the dragon (Lucifer, Satan, and the apostate princes); and the dragon and his rebellious angels fought but prevailed not. " This " war in heaven " was not a physical battle as such a conflict might be conceived on Urantia. In the early days of the struggle Lucifer held forth continuously in the planetary amphitheater. Gabriel conducted an unceasing exposure of the rebel sophistries from his headquarters taken up near at hand. The various personalities present on the sphere who were in doubt as to their attitude would journey back and forth between these discussions until they arrived at a final decision.
53:5.7 But this war in heaven was very terrible and very real. While displaying none of the barbarities so characteristic of physical warfare on the immature worlds, this conflict was far more deadly; material life is in jeopardy in material combat, but the war in heaven was fought in terms of life eternal.
53:6 A LOYAL SERAPHIC COMMANDER
53:6.1 There were many noble and inspiring acts of devotion and loyalty which were performed by numerous personalities during the interim between the outbreak of hostilities and the arrival of the new system ruler and his staff. But the most thrilling of all these daring feats of devotion was the courageous conduct of Manotia, the second in command of the Satania headquarters' seraphim.
53:6.2 At the outbreak of rebellion on Jerusem the head of the seraphic hosts joined the Lucifer cause. This no doubt explains why such a large number of the fourth order, the system administrator seraphim, went astray. The seraphic leader was spiritually blinded by the brilliant personality of Lucifer; his charming ways fascinated the lower orders of celestial beings. They simply could not comprehend that it was possible for such a dazzling personality to go wrong.
53:6.3 Not long since, in describing the experiences associated with the onset of the Lucifer rebellion, Manotia said: " But my most exhilarating moment was the thrilling adventure connected with the Lucifer rebellion when, as second seraphic commander, I refused to participate in the projected insult to Michael; and the powerful rebels sought my destruction by means of the liaison forces they had arranged. There was a tremendous upheaval on Jerusem, but not a single loyal seraphim was harmed.
53:6.4 " Upon the default of my immediate superior it devolved upon me to assume command of the angelic hosts of Jerusem as the titular director of the confused seraphic affairs of the system. I was morally upheld by the Melchizedeks, ably assisted by a majority of the Material Sons, deserted by a tremendous group of my own order, but magnificently supported by the ascendant mortals on Jerusem.
53:6.5 " Having been automatically thrown out of the constellation circuits by the secession of Lucifer, we were dependent on the loyalty of our intelligence corps, who forwarded calls for help to Edentia from the near-by system of Rantulia; and we found that the kingdom of order, the intellect of loyalty, and the spirit of truth were inherently triumphant over rebellion, self-assertion, and so-called personal liberty; we were able to carry on until the arrival of the new System Sovereign, the worthy successor of Lucifer. And immediately thereafter I was assigned to the corps of the Melchizedek receivership of Urantia, assuming jurisdiction over the loyal seraphic orders on the world of the traitorous Caligastia, who had proclaimed his sphere a member of the newly projected system of `liberated worlds and emancipated personalities' proposed in the infamous Declaration of Liberty issued by Lucifer in his call to the `liberty-loving, free-thinking, and forward-looking intelligences of the misruled and maladministered worlds of Satania.' "
53:6.6 This angel is still in service on Urantia, functioning as associate chief of seraphim.
53:7 HISTORY OF THE REBELLION
53:7.1 The Lucifer rebellion was system wide. Thirty-seven seceding Planetary Princes swung their world administrations largely to the side of the archrebel. Only on Panoptia did the Planetary Prince fail to carry his people with him. On this world, under the guidance of the Melchizedeks, the people rallied to the support of Michael. Ellanora, a young woman of that mortal realm, grasped the leadership of the human races, and not a single soul on that strife-torn world enlisted under the Lucifer banner. And ever since have these loyal Panoptians served on the seventh Jerusem transition world as the caretakers and builders on the Father's sphere and its surrounding seven detention worlds. The Panoptians not only act as the literal custodians of these worlds, but they also execute the personal orders of Michael for the embellishment of these spheres for some future and unknown use. They do this work as they tarry en route to Edentia.
53:7.2 Throughout this period Caligastia was advocating the cause of Lucifer on Urantia. The Melchizedeks ably opposed the apostate Planetary Prince, but the sophistries of unbridled liberty and the delusions of self-assertion had every opportunity for deceiving the primitive peoples of a young and undeveloped world.
53:7.3 All secession propaganda had to be carried on by personal effort because the broadcast service and all other avenues of interplanetary communication were suspended by the action of the system circuit supervisors. Upon the actual outbreak of the insurrection the entire system of Satania was isolated in both the constellation and the universe circuits. During this time all incoming and outgoing messages were dispatched by seraphic agents and Solitary Messengers. The circuits to the fallen worlds were also cut off, so that Lucifer could not utilize this avenue for the furtherance of his nefarious scheme. And these circuits will not be restored so long as the archrebel lives within the confines of Satania.
53:7.4 This was a Lanonandek rebellion. The higher orders of local universe sonship did not join the Lucifer secession, although a few of the Life Carriers stationed on the rebel planets were somewhat influenced by the rebellion of the disloyal princes. None of the Trinitized Sons went astray. The Melchizedeks, archangels, and the Brilliant Evening Stars were all loyal to Michael and, with Gabriel, valiantly contended for the Father's will and the Son's rule.
53:7.5 No beings of Paradise origin were involved in disloyalty. Together with the Solitary Messengers they took up headquarters on the world of the Spirit and remained under the leadership of the Faithful of Days of Edentia. None of the conciliators apostatized, nor did a single one of the Celestial Recorders go astray. But a heavy toll was taken of the Morontia Companions and the Mansion World Teachers.
53:7.6 Of the supreme order of seraphim, not an angel was lost, but a considerable group of the next order, the superior, were deceived and ensnared. Likewise a few of the third or supervisor order of angels were misled. But the terrible breakdown came in the fourth group, the administrator angels, those seraphim who are normally assigned to the duties of the system capitals. Manotia saved almost two thirds of them, but slightly over one third followed their chief into the rebel ranks. One third of all the Jerusem cherubim attached to the administrator angels were lost with their disloyal seraphim.
53:7.7 Of the planetary angelic helpers, those assigned to the Material Sons, about one third were deceived, and almost ten per cent of the transition ministers were ensnared. In symbol John saw this when he wrote of the great red dragon, saying: " And his tail drew a third part of the stars of heaven and cast them down in darkness. "
53:7.8 The greatest loss occurred in the angelic ranks, but most of the lower orders of intelligence were involved in disloyalty. Of the 681,227 Material Sons lost in Satania, ninety-five per cent were casualties of the Lucifer rebellion. Large numbers of midway creatures were lost on those individual planets whose Planetary Princes joined the Lucifer cause.
53:7.9 In many respects this rebellion was the most widespread and disastrous of all such occurrences in Nebadon. More personalities were involved in this insurrection than in both of the others. And it is to their everlasting dishonor that the emissaries of Lucifer and Satan spared not the infant-training schools on the finaliter cultural planet but rather sought to corrupt these developing minds in mercy salvaged from the evolutionary worlds.
53:7.10 The ascending mortals were vulnerable, but they withstood the sophistries of rebellion better than the lower spirits. While many on the lower mansion worlds, those who had not attained final fusion with their Adjusters, fell, it is recorded to the glory of the wisdom of the ascension scheme that not a single member of the Satania ascendant citizenship resident on Jerusem participated in the Lucifer rebellion.
53:7.11 Hour by hour and day by day the broadcast stations of all Nebadon were thronged by the anxious watchers of every imaginable class of celestial intelligence, who intently perused the bulletins of the Satania rebellion and rejoiced as the reports continuously narrated the unswerving loyalty of the ascending mortals who, under their Melchizedek leadership, successfully withstood the combined and protracted efforts of all the subtle evil forces which so swiftly gathered around the banners of secession and sin.
53:7.12 It was over two years of system time from the beginning of the " war in heaven " until the installation of Lucifer's successor. But at last the new Sovereign came, landing on the sea of glass with his staff. I was among the reserves mobilized on Edentia by Gabriel, and I well remember the first message of Lanaforge to the Constellation Father of Norlatiadek. It read: " Not a single Jerusem citizen was lost. Every ascendant mortal survived the fiery trial and emerged from the crucial test triumphant and altogether victorious. " And on to Salvington, Uversa, and Paradise went this message of assurance that the survival experience of mortal ascension is the greatest security against rebellion and the surest safeguard against sin. This noble Jerusem band of faithful mortals numbered just 187,432,811.
53:7.13 With the arrival of Lanaforge the archrebels were dethroned and shorn of all governing powers, though they were permitted freely to go about Jerusem, the morontia spheres, and even to the individual inhabited worlds. They continued their deceptive and seductive efforts to confuse and mislead the minds of men and angels. But as concerned their work on the administrative mount of Jerusem, " their place was found no more. "
53:7.14 While Lucifer was deprived of all administrative authority in Satania, there then existed no local universe power nor tribunal which could detain or destroy this wicked rebel; at that time Michael was not a sovereign ruler. The Ancients of Days sustained the Constellation Fathers in their seizure of the system government, but they have never handed down any subsequent decisions in the many appeals still pending with regard to the present status and future disposition of Lucifer, Satan, and their associates.
53:7.15 Thus were these archrebels allowed to roam the entire system to seek further penetration for their doctrines of discontent and self-assertion. But in almost two hundred thousand Urantia years they have been unable to deceive another world. No Satania worlds have been lost since the fall of the thirty-seven, not even those younger worlds peopled since that day of rebellion.
53:8 THE SON OF MAN ON URANTIA
53:8.1 Lucifer and Satan freely roamed the Satania system until the completion of the bestowal mission of Michael on Urantia. They were last on your world together during the time of their combined assault upon the Son of Man.
53:8.2 Formerly, when the Planetary Princes, the " Sons of God, " were periodically assembled, " Satan came also, " claiming that he represented all of the isolated worlds of the fallen Planetary Princes. But he has not been accorded such liberty on Jerusem since Michael's terminal bestowal. Subsequent to their effort to corrupt Michael when in the bestowal flesh, all sympathy for Lucifer and Satan has perished throughout all Satania, that is, outside the isolated worlds of sin.
53:8.3 The bestowal of Michael terminated the Lucifer rebellion in all Satania aside from the planets of the apostate Planetary Princes. And this was the significance of Jesus' personal experience, just before his death in the flesh, when he one day exclaimed to his disciples, " And I beheld Satan fall as lightning from heaven. " He had come with Lucifer to Urantia for the last crucial struggle.
53:8.4 The Son of Man was confident of success, and he knew that his triumph on your world would forever settle the status of his agelong enemies, not only in Satania but also in the other two systems where sin had entered. There was survival for mortals and security for angels when your Master, in reply to the Lucifer proposals, calmly and with divine assurance replied, " Get you behind me, Satan. " That was, in principle, the real end of the Lucifer rebellion. True, the Uversa tribunals have not yet rendered the executive decision regarding the appeal of Gabriel praying for the destruction of the rebels, but such a decree will, no doubt, be forthcoming in the fullness of time since the first step in the hearing of this case has already been taken.
53:8.5 Caligastia was recognized by the Son of Man as the technical Prince of Urantia up to near the time of his death. Said Jesus: " Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast down. " And then still nearer the completion of his lifework he announced, " The prince of this world is judged. " And it is this same dethroned and discredited Prince who was once termed " God of Urantia. "
53:8.6 The last act of Michael before leaving Urantia was to offer mercy to Caligastia and Daligastia, but they spurned his tender proffer. Caligastia, your apostate Planetary Prince, is still free on Urantia to prosecute his nefarious designs, but he has absolutely no power to enter the minds of men, neither can he draw near to their souls to tempt or corrupt them unless they really desire to be cursed with his wicked presence.
53:8.7 Before the bestowal of Michael these rulers of darkness sought to maintain their authority on Urantia, and they persistently withstood the minor and subordinate celestial personalities. But since the day of Pentecost this traitorous Caligastia and his equally contemptible associate, Daligastia, are servile before the divine majesty of the Paradise Thought Adjusters and the protective Spirit of Truth, the spirit of Michael, which has been poured out upon all flesh.
53:8.8 But even so, no fallen spirit ever did have the power to invade the minds or to harass the souls of the children of God. Neither Satan nor Caligastia could ever touch or approach the faith sons of God; faith is an effective armor against sin and iniquity. It is true: " He who is born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one touches him not. "
53:8.9 In general, when weak and dissolute mortals are supposed to be under the influence of devils and demons, they are merely being dominated by their own inherent and debased tendencies, being led away by their own natural propensities. The devil has been given a great deal of credit for evil which does not belong to him. Caligastia has been comparatively impotent since the cross of Christ.
53:9 PRESENT STATUS OF THE REBELLION
53:9.1 Early in the days of the Lucifer rebellion, salvation was offered all rebels by Michael. To all who would show proof of sincere repentance, he offered, upon his attainment of complete universe sovereignty, forgiveness and reinstatement in some form of universe service. None of the leaders accepted this merciful proffer. But thousands of the angels and the lower orders of celestial beings, including hundreds of the Material Sons and Daughters, accepted the mercy proclaimed by the Panoptians and were given rehabilitation at the time of Jesus' resurrection nineteen hundred years ago. These beings have since been transferred to the Father's world of Jerusem, where they must be held, technically, until the Uversa courts hand down a decision in the matter of Gabriel vs. Lucifer. But no one doubts that, when the annihilation verdict is issued, these repentant and salvaged personalities will be exempted from the decree of extinction. These probationary souls now labor with the Panoptians in the work of caring for the Father's world.
53:9.2 The archdeceiver has never been on Urantia since the days when he sought to turn back Michael from the purpose to complete the bestowal and to establish himself finally and securely as the unqualified ruler of Nebadon. Upon Michael's becoming the settled head of the universe of Nebadon, Lucifer was taken into custody by the agents of the Uversa Ancients of Days and has since been a prisoner on satellite number one of the Father's group of the transition spheres of Jerusem. And here the rulers of other worlds and systems behold the end of the unfaithful Sovereign of Satania. Paul knew of the status of these rebellious leaders following Michael's bestowal, for he wrote of Caligastia' s chiefs as " spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. "
53:9.3 Michael, upon assuming the supreme sovereignty of Nebadon, petitioned the Ancients of Days for authority to intern all personalities concerned in the Lucifer rebellion pending the rulings of the superuniverse tribunals in the case of Gabriel vs. Lucifer, placed on the records of the Uversa supreme court almost two hundred thousand years ago, as you reckon time. Concerning the system capital group, the Ancients of Days granted the Michael petition with but a single exception: Satan was allowed to make periodic visits to the apostate princes on the fallen worlds until another Son of God should be accepted by such apostate worlds, or until such time as the courts of Uversa should begin the adjudication of the case of Gabriel vs. Lucifer.
53:9.4 Satan could come to Urantia because you had no Son of standing in residence—neither Planetary Prince nor Material Son. Machiventa Melchizedek has since been proclaimed vicegerent Planetary Prince of Urantia, and the opening of the case of Gabriel vs. Lucifer has signalized the inauguration of temporary planetary regimes on all the isolated worlds. It is true that Satan did periodically visit Caligastia and others of the fallen princes right up to the time of the presentation of these revelations, when there occurred the first hearing of Gabriel's plea for the annihilation of the archrebels. Satan is now unqualifiedly detained on the Jerusem prison worlds.
53:9.5 Since Michael's final bestowal no one in all Satania has desired to go to the prison worlds to minister to the interned rebels. And no more beings have been won to the deceiver's cause. For nineteen hundred years the status has been unchanged.
53:9.6 We do not look for a removal of the present Satania restrictions until the Ancients of Days make final disposition of the archrebels. The system circuits will not be reinstated so long as Lucifer lives. Meantime, he is wholly inactive.
53:9.7 The rebellion has ended on Jerusem. It ends on the fallen worlds as fast as divine Sons arrive. We believe that all rebels who will ever accept mercy have done so. We await the flashing broadcast that will deprive these traitors of personality existence. We anticipate the verdict of Uversa will be announced by the executionary broadcast which will effect the annihilation of these interned rebels. Then will you look for their places, but they shall not be found. " And they who know you among the worlds will be astonished at you; you have been a terror, but never shall you be any more. " And thus shall all of these unworthy traitors " become as though they had not been. " All await the Uversa decree.
53:9.8 But for ages the seven prison worlds of spiritual darkness in Satania have constituted a solemn warning to all Nebadon, eloquently and effectively proclaiming the great truth " that the way of the transgressor is hard "; " that within every sin is concealed the seed of its own destruction "; that " the wages of sin is death."
evisnam wrote:Thank you
The idea of being sovereign is best described by the late Prince Nicholas de Vere Von Drakenberg , this will have to do with the 6th Law which will come after the 5th, i post this now so you have time to research it as a concept.
evisnam wrote:I have been researching symbology and creating talismen as part of my deciphering the 6th law as it is a symbol. It is taking me some time but i must be sure before i post it. Don't worry its been 4 years of research so far , i am very close. One of the sources of my research is possibly one of the most accurate i have seen on youtube and is easily shared. Symbols are the language of intelligent beings. What symbols do is rather than tell a story , they embody the energy and information embed in it at the time of its creation. Symbols can lay dormant , their energy rely on belief and that belief connecting to aligning systems which were present at their creation. To create a Talisman takes wisdom, knowledge and intent. Metallurgy and Alchemy add power to the multiplier of the one. An understanding of theoretical mathematics helps a great deal.
I was part of a group some years ago that met once a week and we sought ways to change the energies inside institutions of destruction that reside on this planet. I introduced a class on making Talismen for the purposes of multiplying the power of the group. 11 of us met with a critical mass at one stage and we flowed that energy into a recipient which was a crystal. Whenever we used that crystal afterwards the lights in the building would dim and sometimes the electrical circuits would cut out all together. Unfortunately some of the members were frightened by this and left the group... but not after we did some good for your planet. Intent is everything and knowing nothing is the multiplier. Please enjoy.
evisnam wrote:I take you back to the last change of guard, the end of the last baktun, Dec 2012 , the understanding of what actually took place is paramount to our evolution. The exact date when it took place was at noon, Dec 15th 2012 , it was that moment the etheral gates were shut and a belt of stone was created around this planet. A sort of quarantine to stop the forthcoming energetic forces emanating from sol 3 out into the universe. It was stated this would be the end of times , but it was not , it was the beginning of the bronze age which leads eventually into the iron age. This is the Mayan culture and superior knowledge of the stars. The Mayan were the children of the evolution from the sky gods , emigrated into hiding from egypt, integrating with the original sorion race of sol 3. Yes they had the gene pool of genetically altered humans , they were the offspring of the eugenic process and precursor of Homo Novus. They were intelligent enough to resist propaganda and saw the indigenous reptilian race for what they were, peaceful and highly evolved space travelers. They integrated their knowledge with that of the reptilian races and became a super power of knowledge. How does this cover symbology ?
cancer = Beginning of the golden age
Cancer now linked to death
isis = the godess archetype of creation
Isis now likened as a force for death and destruction.
The evil powers that be inverse the meaning of the positive thus creating the false idolatry of the good. Jesus on a crucifix is a false idol. The Crucifix is not the cross , its a crucifix ! it is the symbol of death. Giving praise to a savior upon a crucifix is likened to savoring the hazing of an innocent. But even now the gears set inside your minds cannot accept truth. Then i say stop thinking with your mind and see with your spirit instead. The mind is merely a memory bank used to store knowledge , both good and bad. It does not discriminate what you choose to deposit. However once you have made up your mind it then dictates from that set of parameters your outlook. Know nothing , see everything.
evisnam wrote:I wanted to share a video [dead link] that i stumbled upon that gives credence to my theories regarding our eugenic evolution, in particular that one of the gene's was manipulated at some stage and also makes mention that man was at one stage friend to the reptilian species in particular Enki who was also referred to as " The Trickster " , now this in particular got my attention because Hermes is also referred to as the trickster. Could Enki and Hermes be one in the same ? Also the word Satan was translated from Sumerian Cuneiform : Sat An , which means " The Administrator " What this information does is create a marker for me , it was information originally given to me at my second fire which over time i managed to put into words. Now this video shows credible scientists and archaeologists correlating similar points and in some instances exact intersections of lines of communication. This to me shows the information is plausible.
Swanny wrote:
Maybe Saturn was the Administration center or home of the gods. Evisnam if you haven't seen already you should watch this. Lots of talk of energy.
evisnam wrote:Thank you Swanny , I have enjoyed many of Michael's live talks and videos. In my opinion he is one of the more genuine independent speakers on the circuit. I believe South Africa was one of the original places used as a staging area for colonisation and eugenics. One of my earliest memories was being part of this program C 3000 BC. in South Africa or rather on an island off the mid west coast of Africa. If you were to over lay a 500 micron slice of the present human genome on the rock circles of Africa you would find a match. The energy of these constructs would have influenced the genetic codes of the inhabitants slowly over 120 to 150 years. When i say slowly it was a lot slower than the technology used in the egyptian pyramids but in relation to normal evolution it was millions of times shorter in time.
This was a more gentle and less obvious manner of eugenics. If you live in an energetically manipulated environment your genes over time will take on the new matrix in favor of the old but this would normally take millions of years to adopt. If the energy is amplified many times it takes much less time. Because this energy is similar to the energy we now know as electricity it was possible to tap into this energy and focus it for tasks as well. Enki whom i suppose is Hermes in one of his earlier manifestations, was reembodied into new life every few thousand years or so hence why he has so many names. Enlil was less tolerant of humans and was all too happy to punish and enslave them. I believe he was not enamored with his tasking, perhaps he was given this task and accepted it begrudgingly.
Saturn is the planet of Law. It governs the Universal law system from standard down to micro law. Macro Law is governed by the AI and OI of the central race. Hermes was historically reported as the interpreter of the laws and ways for humans to learn, is this why the snake symbolically represents knowledge ? His first manifestation was of the reptilian being, perhaps even one of the original sorion race of this planet in a collaboration ? One thing is for sure , that collaboration went askew and now on earth is in opposition. Whenever we wonder why things take so long to change we must remember to think in grander time scales.
orthodoxymoron wrote:Please notice the 'helicopter' starting at the 00:06:40 mark. It appears to be holographic!! Is this simply a video flaw of some kind, or is it some sort of a cloaked UFO?? I science-fictionally wrote of a holographic-helicopter cloaking a TR3-B several years ago.
I see a Navy Sea Stallion helicopter looming in the distance - with rotor spinning - waiting to devour me. My rendezvous with destiny is imminent. As we pull up alongside the helicopter - I turn to thank Agent Scranton for the ride - and I notice that his eyes have vertical slits instead of round pupils. I gasp slightly, and he notices my surprise, and laughingly shakes his head, saying 'you haven't seen anything yet! I'm just a 50% human/50% reptile hybrid - and I forgot to put my contacts in when I got the call to pick you up! Sorry about that! I still don't like you - but good-luck anyway!' My hand is shaking as I shake Scranton's hand - and I stumble and fall as I run toward the waiting helicopter. Is this the Helicopter to Hell? The pilot and co-pilot greet me, as I climb aboard the Sea Stallion helicopter. The door closes with a dull thud - and off we go, into the wild blue yonder! But something is wrong! This seems more like a spacecraft than a helicopter! The helicopter exterior was a hologram! Suddenly everything is dark - and I look out the window - and see thousands of very bright stars! Then I realize that I am onboard an antigravity craft! The co-pilot turns to me, saying, 'Welcome to Astra Airlines!' 'Oh My God!', I exclaim. 'Where the hell are we going?' 'We're just taking you to the International Space Station.' 'Just?!' 'What's going to happen there?' 'You'll find out soon enough. They don't tell us anything. We only know enough to do our jobs properly. Curiosity kills cats, careers - and sometimes it even kills people.'
Remember what Bill Cooper said about 'Enemy-Helicopters' in the Vietnam War?? He said they were UFO's. Were there 'Monsters' in the Vietnam War?? Kerry Cassidy and John Lear know what I'm talking about. Some say the fires over the past couple of years were the product of Directed-Energy Weapons. Probably ten-years ago, I noticed what I thought might be cloaked UFO's approaching the Twin-Towers on 9/11 (in a YouTube video) and I posted my suspicions on YouTube. As with all of the madness, I just make observations, and move-on, without making a Big-Deal about anything. What if we are facing Cloaked-UFO Directed-Energy Warfare??
I've mentioned this several times throughout the years, but in the following video, notice at the 7:17 mark, near the upper righthand corner, an orb-like object which briefly appears, heading toward the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. View with Full-Screen. I've seen the same thing from other angles. I've suggested that this might be some sort of Cloaked UFO with Holographic-Projection and Directed Energy Weaponry (or something like that), and that the towers were ultimately brought down by Directed Energy Weapons (or something like that). I had to stop thinking about this stuff, but I just noticed this video, and thought someone might find it interesting. I'm attempting a personal-reset, but that's not going well at all. I think we're SO Screwed (or should I speak for myself only?) but I'm NOT yelling 'FIRE!!' in a crowded theater or website. I'm simply living a life of quiet-desperation. It's easier that way.
I know I don't know but I've posted more clues than anyone can imagine and I suspect there's at least a couple of agents in a cubicle checking out everything I've included or claimed in my threads. I have no idea what's up but it might be significant. I feel much worse as I think much less so I should probably be left alone in my hypothetical secret underground base while I twist slowly, slowly in the spray as the excrement contacts the blower. I recently encountered someone from Boston who seemed to be an actor and/or professor but I don't know who it was. I don't go to shows or lectures much so I don't know who's who or what's what. I suspect there is a god and/or GOD but we might not like who and/or what we eventually discover. The Universe Might be Stranger Than We Can Think. The Hallelujah Chorus and Sistine Chapel might have nothing to do with the Real-Deal. Who Knows?? Dr. Who?? Who?? The Shadow?? The Shadow Government?? The Secret Government?? The Galactic Federation?? The Andromeda Council?? The Council of Nine?? I've been leaning toward the concept that God is an Absentee-Landlord granting Humanity freedom (perhaps for a trial-period). In the hypothetical absence of an In-House God, perhaps Humanity has been Playing God for thousands of years. Or perhaps God created an Artificial-Intelligence Proxy-God to keep Humanity from exterminating itself while it tests its wings (so to speak). Religion (as we know it) seems to be a Mixed-Bag of Good and Evil. Perhaps the Elites Believe in the Existence of God while NOT Believing in God as THEY Play God. Perhaps God Does NOT Believe in Them!! Consider watching or re-watching the 1977 movie, Oh God! with George Burns and John Denver. There are more orthodoxymoron parallels than you can imagine. Hope Springs Eternal.
orthodoxymoron wrote:These videos connected a lot of dots in the context of my overall posting for several years. Is John Carroll somehow relevant to Sherry Shriner's alleged home in Carrollton, Ohio?? I've lived in Chico, CA (next to Paradise) and the second video frightened me. Is there an equivalence between Isis, Persephone, Ishtar, Enki, and Zeus (for starters)?? What if Enki and Enlil were neither Male or Female (or were Hermaphrodites)?? What if somehow Enki and Enlil were (and are) the Same Being?? How might all of the above relate to Jupiter Jones, Queen Victoria, Ellen White, Artemis, Amen Ra, Marduk Ra, Sekhmet, Serqet, Gabriel, Michael, Lucifer, HAL 9000, David Bowman, Peter Venkman, Frank Poole, Ernst Stockmar, Prince Albert, Baron Stockmar, Nikola Tesla, John Trump, Donald Trump, et al?? How might all of the above relate to Ancient-Evolution, Ancient-Creation, Stolen Ancient-Technology, and Star Wars?? I suspect that some of you know the Whole-Truth, and that I'm NOT supposed to know the Truth. Consider Archbishop John Carroll, Prince Albert, and Pope Pius XII. Consider the Church, State, Life, and Teachings of John Carroll.
As usual, I'm on everyone's side and no-one's side (which makes everyone hate me). I think I'm dangerous (conceptually), but does that make me evil (in actuality)?? Is lying 'righteous', and honesty 'blasphemous'?? Think long and hard about what I just said. So far there's been no response to This Present Thread, which doesn't surprise me. I suspect that the Deep-State aka Secret Solar-System Government goes back to Ancient Babylon, Egypt, Garden of Eden, and War in Heaven, and is presently coming out of the closet to openly rule We the Peons. The New World Order isn't new IMHO. What if I'm a fly in the ointment?? What if I'm not supposed to be here?? Can you feel the love tonight?? I can't. I've tried to be open and honest, rather than taking a hardline-lawyerlike stance to win one for the home-team. Was that a mistake?? I'm beginning to think so. Perhaps I should continue this thread ONLY If there are responses or questions. Perhaps it's time to move-on and watch the drama unfold in my rearview-mirror. Has probation closed?? Do you feel lucky??
I just re-watched the movie Spotlight regarding the church and pedophilia, and what troubled me the most was how many seemingly 'good' people looked the other way and/or deliberately covered-up the whole-mess!! This reminded me of the medical-fraud book Coronary regarding the systematic and deliberate performing of open-heart surgeries on perfectly normal hearts, in hundreds of patients, over several years, with seemingly 'good' people looking the other way and/or deliberately covering-up the whole-mess!! Is this sort of thing the Fatal-Flaw in Human-Nature OR Are the Souls Which Incarnate Humanity Fatally-Flawed?? I sense that seemingly 'good' people have looked the other way and/or deliberately covered-up the glaring-problems in the Bible, Theology, and Church-History for thousands of years!! If the Church of God can't be Honest to God, how can it expect to Reform the World?? The Blind Leading the Blind and/or the Bland leading the Bland?? Does Satan Use 'Faith and Loyalty' Against Us?? It's been my sad-realization that Believers do NOT wish to be honest and thorough about the Bible and Religion. It's also been my sad-realization that Unbelievers do NOT wish to be honest and thorough about the Bible and Religion.
Are there ANY truly-objective Bible-Commentaries?? I lean-toward the SDA Bible Commentary mostly because of my background, but also because of my perception that it is scholarly and ecumenical, and NOT in slavery to Ellen White and the SDA Church. Much religious-literature seems to be written by Hermeneutic-Whores!! I've gone round and round with 'Good Lifelong Religious-People' about the most simple Ethical and Theological matters imaginable, with VERY disturbing outcomes. Take a long and hard look at the reality of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' throughout the Bible and History. We seem to wish to have it both ways. Has Satan really deceived the whole-world?? 'RA' said "I've Always Remained One Step Ahead of Humanity!!" When I Suggested That Humanity Has Been Easy to Deceive, 'RA' replied "Very Easy!!" Honest. Has the 'God of This World' Been the 'Regent of This World' for at least 6,000 years?? What Would the Changeling Say?? What Would Dr. Who Do?? Do You Even Know What I'm Talking About?? Do I Even Know What I'm Talking About?? You Don't Need to Answer That Last Question. One More Thing. Once Upon a Time, a Stranger with Insider-Connections introduced himself to me as 'Adolph', and that's all I'm going to say about that. You don't suppose?? Nah!!
RedEzra wrote:An article for what it's worth coming from a dying CIA agent confessing that CIA blew up WTC7 on 9/11. An aphorism as there are no atheists in foxholes may apply to deathbeds as well... or perhaps it's just the Company man*s last convenient assignment true or not.
CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: ‘We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11’
"79-year-old retired CIA agent, Malcom Howard, has made a series of astonishing claims since being released from hospital in New Jersey on Friday and told he has weeks to live. Mr. Howard claims he was involved in the “controlled demolition” of World Trade Center 7, the third building that was destroyed on 9/11."
RedEzra wrote:What is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth ?
I ask because in the Book of Revelation Ch 17 that great city is about to be abruptly destroyed... which is weird considering it reigns over the kings of the earth. It is said to sit on seven mountains which probably points out Rome...?
Furthermore in Revelation there are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast whose deadly wound was healed. So there is a not so new world power rising which will destroy the old world order.
With all the nazis are alive and well rumors i suspect the beast is the Third Reich bandaged up and ready to go again after the deadly wound in WWII. And working with the nazis are ten kings who lost their respective kingdom after an abolition of monarchy... perhaps these kings are the real power behind some of the democracies and are working or waiting to regain their lost kingdoms.
Anyway these ten kings without kingdoms who work with the emerging beast/nazi system will destroy that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.... and so ends the old world order and begins the not so new one... which will just last 3.5 years before God destroy it.
I continue to wonder about Pre Council of Nicea Old-Testament Commentaries. Why is the New-Testament NOT essentially an Old-Testament Commentary (with minimal completely-new material)?? Theology is often Deceptive, Mealy-Mouthed, and Lawyer-Like!! What if there is a very-real theological-reality underlying the predominant-bullshit??!! I've been playing softball in SO many ways!! Should I start playing hardball?? What Would Richard Nixon Say?? Does 1 Chronicles to Malachi contain the essential Old-Testament Story of God's Love, Will, and Ways?? Please take a close-look at 1 Chronicles -- Job -- Ecclesiastes -- Isaiah -- Daniel -- Jonah -- Zechariah -- and Malachi. Who really wrote these books?? Why were they written?? When were they written?? Consider the following study-list:
1. The SDA Bible Commentary -- Volumes 3 and 4 (1 Chronicles to Malachi).
2. Prophets and Kings (Ellen White) -- Covering the Second-Half of the Old-Testament.
Kicking Against the Religious-Pricks is SO Overrated!! Sorry if you don't like the SDA stuff -- but that's my background and starting-point. The SDA's don't like me either -- and I don't go to church -- so there!! I receive ZERO support and encouragement relative to this sort of thing. Just the Opposite.
Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Sun Sep 10, 2023 1:15 pm; edited 3 times in total
Here is a rather scholarly article on Moral Responsibility, taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This is the sort of thing which might be studied in a university program devoted to Solar System Studies and Governance, as a prerequisite to being a Representative of the United States of the Solar System. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-responsibility/ I'm reading a book titled 'Free to be Responsible' by Ben Thomson Cowles, Ph.D. I'm trying to transition from being a whining speculator to being a erudite scholar. I hope some of you are joining me in this pursuit. The tempest in a teapot, which I have been in the middle of, is just scratching the surface. I tend to think that an Ancient-Verdict is playing-out, and cannot be nullified or overridden by anyone or anything, but what do I know?? Not much (in this stupid incarnation). What if the Creator of the Matrix is a Prisoner of the Matrix (just like everyone else)?? What if Resistance is Futile?? What if This Present Quest is an Exercise in Futility??
Moral Responsibility
First published Sat Jan 6, 2001; substantive revision Wed Nov 18, 2009
When a person performs or fails to perform a morally significant action, we sometimes think that a particular kind of response is warranted. Praise and blame are perhaps the most obvious forms this reaction might take. For example, one who encounters a car accident may be regarded as worthy of praise for having saved a child from inside the burning car, or alternatively, one may be regarded as worthy of blame for not having used one's mobile phone to call for help. To regard such agents as worthy of one of these reactions is to ascribe moral responsibility to them on the basis of what they have done or left undone. (These are examples of other-directed ascriptions of responsibility. The reaction might also be self-directed, e.g., one can recognize oneself to be blameworthy). Thus, to be morally responsible for something, say an action, is to be worthy of a particular kind of reaction—praise, blame, or something akin to these—for having performed it.[1]
Though further elaboration and qualification of the above characterization of moral responsibility is called for and will be provided below, this is enough to distinguish concern about this form of responsibility from some others commonly referred to through use of the terms ‘responsibility’ or ‘responsible.’ To illustrate, we might say that higher than normal rainfall in the spring is responsible for an increase in the amount of vegetation or that it is the judge's responsibility to give instructions to the jury before they begin deliberating. In the first case, we mean to identify a causal connection between the earlier amount of rain and the later increased vegetation. In the second, we mean to say that when one assumes the role of judge, certain duties, or obligations, follow. Although these concepts are connected with the concept of moral responsibility discussed here, they are not the same, for in neither case are we directly concerned about whether it would be appropriate to react to some candidate (here, the rainfall or a particular judge) with something like praise or blame.[2]
Philosophical reflection on moral responsibility has a long history. One reason for this persistent interest is the way the topic seems connected with a widely shared conception of ourselves as members of an importantly distinct class of individuals—call them ‘persons.’[3] Persons are thought to be qualitatively different from other known living individuals, despite their numerous similarities. Many have held that one distinct feature of persons is their status as morally responsible agents, a status resting—some have proposed—on a special kind of control that only they can exercise. Many who view persons in this way have wondered whether their special status is threatened if certain other claims about our universe are true. For example, can a person be morally responsible for her behavior if that behavior can be explained solely by reference to physical states of the universe and the laws governing changes in those physical states, or solely by reference to the existence of a sovereign God who guides the world along a divinely ordained path? It is concerns like these that have often motivated individuals to theorize about moral responsibility.
A comprehensive theory of moral responsibility would elucidate the following: (1) the concept, or idea, of moral responsibility itself; (2) the criteria for being a moral agent, i.e., one who qualifies generally as an agent open to responsibility ascriptions (e.g., only beings possessing the general capacity to evaluate reasons for acting can be moral agents); (3) the conditions under which the concept of moral responsibility is properly applied, i.e., those conditions under which a moral agent is responsible for a particular something (e.g., a moral agent can be responsible for an action she has performed only if she performed it freely, where acting freely entails the ability to have done otherwise at the time of action); and finally 4) possible objects of responsibility ascriptions (e.g., actions, omissions, consequences, character traits, etc.). Although each of these will be touched upon in the discussion below (see, e.g., the brief sketch of Aristotle's account in the next section), the primary focus of this entry is on the first component—i.e., the concept of moral responsibility. The section immediately following this introduction is a discussion of the origin and history of Western reflection on moral responsibility. This is followed by an overview of recent work on the concept of moral responsibility. For further discussion of issues associated with moral responsibility, see the related entries below.
1. Some Historical Background 2. Recent Work on the Concept of Responsibility 2.1 Strawson and the Reactive Attitudes 2.2 Developments After Strawson Bibliography Other Internet Resources Related Entries
What follows in this section is a brief outline of the origins and trajectory of reflection on moral responsibility in the Western philosophical tradition. Against this background, a distinction will be drawn between two conceptions of moral responsibility that have exerted considerable influence on subsequent thinkers.
An understanding of the concept of moral responsibility and its application is present implicitly in some of the earliest surviving Greek texts, i.e., the Homeric epics (circa 8th century BCE but no doubt informed by a much earlier oral tradition).[4] In these texts, both human and superhuman agents are often regarded as fair targets of praise and blame on the basis of how they have behaved, and at other times, an agent's behavior is excused because of the presence of some factor that has undermined his/her control (Irwin 1999: 225). Reflection on these factors gave rise to fatalism—the view that one's future or some aspect of it is predetermined, e.g., by the gods, or the stars, or simply some facts about truth and time—in such a way as to make one's particular deliberations, choices and actions irrelevant to whether that particular future is realized (recall, e.g., the plight of Oedipus). If some particular outcome is fated, then it seems that the agent concerned could not be morally responsible for that outcome. Likewise, if fatalism were true with respect to all human futures, then it would seem that no human agent could be morally responsible for anything. Though this brand of fatalism has sometimes exerted significant historical influence, most philosophers have rejected it on the grounds that there is no good reason to think that our futures are fated in the sense that they will unfold no matter what particular deliberations we engage in, choices we make, or actions we perform.
Aristotle (384–323 BCE) seems to have been the first to construct explicitly a theory of moral responsibility.[5] In the course of discussing human virtues and their corresponding vices, Aristotle pauses in Nicomachean Ethics III.1–5 to explore their underpinnings. He begins with a brief statement of the concept of moral responsibility—that it is sometimes appropriate to respond to an agent with praise or blame on the basis of her actions and/or dispositional traits of character (1109b30–35). A bit later, he clarifies that only a certain kind of agent qualifies as a moral agent and is thus properly subject to ascriptions of responsibility, namely, one who possess a capacity for decision. For Aristotle, a decision is a particular kind of desire resulting from deliberation, one that expresses the agent's conception of what is good (1111b5-1113b3). The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for some particular action or trait. His general proposal is that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary. According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition: the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action or possess the trait—it cannot be compelled externally. Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about (1110a-1111b4).[6]
There is an instructive ambiguity in Aristotle's account of responsibility, an ambiguity that has led to competing interpretations of his view. Aristotle aims to identify the conditions under which it is appropriate to praise or blame an agent, but it is not entirely clear how to understand the pivotal notion of appropriateness in his conception of responsibility. There are at least two possibilities: a) praise or blame is appropriate in the sense that the agent deserves such a response, given his behavior and/or traits of character; or b) praise or blame is appropriate in the sense that such a reaction is likely to bring about a desired consequence, namely an improvement in the agent's behavior and/or character. These two possibilities may be characterized in terms of two competing interpretations of the concept of moral responsibility: 1) the merit-based view, according to which praise or blame would be an appropriate reaction toward the candidate if and only if she merits—in the sense of ‘deserves’—such a reaction; vs. 2) the consequentialist view, according to which praise or blame would be appropriate if and only if a reaction of this sort would likely lead to a desired change in the agent and/or her behavior.[7]
Scholars disagree about which of the above views Aristotle endorsed, but the importance of distinguishing between them grew as philosophers began to focus on a newly conceived threat to moral responsibility. While Aristotle argued against a version of fatalism (On Interpretation, ch. 9), he may not have recognized the difference between it and the related possible threat of causal determinism (contra Sorabji). Causal determinism is the view that everything that happens or exists is caused by sufficient antecedent conditions, making it impossible for anything to happen or be other than it does or is. One variety of causal determinism, scientific determinism, identifies the relevant antecedent conditions as a combination of prior states of the universe and the laws of nature. Another, theological determinism, identifies those conditions as being the nature and will of God. It seems likely that theological determinism evolved out of the shift, both in Greek religion and in Ancient Mesopotamian religions, from polytheism to belief in one sovereign God, or at least one god who reigned over all others. The doctrine of scientific determinism can be traced back as far as the Presocratic Atomists (5th cent. BCE), but the difference between it and the earlier fatalistic view seems not to be clearly recognized until the development of Stoic philosophy (3rd. cent. BCE). Though fatalism, like causal determinism, might seem to threaten moral responsibility by threatening an agent's control, the two differ on the significance of human deliberation, choice, and action. If fatalism is true, then human deliberation, choice, and action are completely otiose, for what is fated will transpire no matter what one chooses to do. According to causal determinism, however, one's deliberations, choices, and actions will often be necessary links in the causal chain that brings something about. In other words, even though our deliberations, choices, and actions are themselves determined like everything else, it is still the case, according to causal determinism, that the occurrence or existence of yet other things depends upon our deliberating, choosing and acting in a certain way (Irwin 1999: 243–249; Meyer 1998: 225-227; and Pereboom 1997: ch. 2).
Since the Stoics, the thesis of causal determinism and its ramifications, if true, have taken center stage in theorizing about moral responsibility. During the Medieval period, especially in the work of Augustine (354–430) and Aquinas (1225-1274), reflection on freedom and responsibility was often generated by questions concerning versions of theological determinism, including most prominently: a) Does God's sovereignty entail that God is responsible for evil?; and b) Does God's foreknowledge entail that we are not free and morally responsible since it would seem that we cannot do anything other than what God foreknows we will do? During the Modern period, there was renewed interest in scientific determinism—a change attributable to the development of increasingly sophisticated mechanistic models of the universe culminating in the success of Newtonian physics. The possibility of giving a comprehensive explanation of every aspect of the universe—including human action—in terms of physical causes now seemed much more plausible. Many thought that persons could not be free and morally responsible if such an explanation of human action were possible. Others argued that freedom and responsibility would not be threatened should scientific determinism be true. In keeping with this focus on the ramifications of causal determinism for moral responsibility, thinkers may be classified as being one of two types: 1) an incompatibilist about causal determinism and moral responsibility—one who maintains that if causal determinism is true, then there is nothing for which one can be morally responsible; or 2) a compatibilist—one who holds that a person can be morally responsible for some things, even if both who she is and what she does is causally determined.[8] In Ancient Greece, these positions were exemplified in the thought of Epicurus (341–270 BCE) and the Stoics, respectively.
Above, an ambiguity in Aristotle's conception of moral responsibility was highlighted—that it was not clear whether he endorsed a merit-based vs. a consequentialist conception of moral responsibility. The history of reflection on moral responsibility demonstrates that how one interprets the concept of moral responsibility strongly influences one's overall account of moral responsibility. For example, those who accept the merit-based conception of moral responsibility have tended to be incompatibilists. That is, most have thought that if an agent were to genuinely merit praise or blame for something, then he would need to exercise a special form of control over that thing (e.g., the ability at the time of action to both perform or not perform the action) that is incompatible with one's being causally determined. In addition to Epicurus, we can cite early Augustine, Thomas Reid (1710–1796), and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) as historical examples here. Those accepting the consequentialist conception of moral responsibility, on the other hand, have traditionally contended that determinism poses no threat to moral responsibility since praising and blaming could still be an effective means of influencing another's behavior, even in a deterministic world. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), David Hume (1711–1776), and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) are, along with the Stoics, representatives of this view. This general trend of linking the consequentialist conception of moral responsibility with compatibilism about causal determinism and moral responsibility and the merit-based conception with incompatibilism continued to persist through the first half of the twentieth century.
2. Recent Work on the Concept of Responsibility
The issue of how best to understand the concept of moral responsibility is important, for it can strongly influence one's view of what, if any, philosophical problems might be associated with the notion, and further, if there are problems, what might count as a solution. As discussed above, philosophical reflection on moral responsibility has historically relied upon one of two broad interpretations of the concept: 1) the merit-based view, according to which praise or blame would be an appropriate reaction toward the candidate if and only if she merits—in the sense of ‘deserves’—such a reaction; or 2) the consequentialist view, according to which praise or blame would be appropriate if and only if a reaction of this sort would likely lead to a desired change in the agent and/or her behavior. Though versions of the consequentialist view have continued to garner support (Smart; Frankena 1963: ch. 4; Schlick 1966; Brandt 1992; Dennett 1984: ch. 7; and Kupperman 1991: ch. 3), work in the last 50 years on the concept of moral responsibility has increasingly focused on: a) offering alternative versions of the merit-based view; and b) questioning the assumption that there is a single unified concept of moral responsibility.
Increased attention focusing on the stance of regarding and holding persons morally responsible has generated much of the recent work on the concept of moral responsibility. All theorists have recognized features of this practice—inner attitudes and emotions, their outward expression in censure or praise, and the imposition of corresponding sanctions or rewards. However, most understood the inner attitudes and emotions involved to rest on a more fundamental theoretical judgment about the agent's being responsible. In other words, it was typically assumed that blame and praise depended upon a judgment, or belief (pre-reflective in most cases), that the agent in question had satisfied the objective conditions on being responsible. These judgments were presumed to be independent of the inner attitudinal/emotive states involved in holding responsible in the sense that reaching such judgments and evaluating them required no essential reference to the attitudes and emotions of the one making the judgment. For the holder of the consequentialist view, this is a judgment that the agent exercised a form of control that could be influenced through outward expressions of praise and blame in order to curb or promote certain behaviors. For those holding the merit view, it is a judgment that the agent has exercised the requisite form of metaphysical control, e.g., that she could have done otherwise at the time of action (Watson 1987: 258).
If holding responsible is best understood as resting on an independent judgment about being responsible, then it is legitimate to inquire whether such underlying judgments and their associated outward expressions can be justified, as a whole, in the face of our best current understanding of the world, e.g., in the face of evidence that our world is possibly deterministic. According to incompatibilists, a judgment that someone is morally responsible could never be true if the world were deterministic; thus praising and blaming in the merit-based sense would be beside the point. Compatibilists, on the other hand, contend that the truth of determinism would not undermine the relevant underlying judgments concerning the efficacy of praising and blaming practices, thereby leaving the rationale of such practices intact.
2.1 Strawson and the Reactive Attitudes
In his landmark essay, ‘Freedom and Resentment,’ P. F. Strawson (1962) sets out to adjudicate the dispute between those compatibilists who hold a consequentialist view of responsibility and those incompatibilists who hold the merit-based view.[9] Both are wrong, Strawson believes, because they distort the concept of moral responsibility by sharing the prevailing assumption sketched above — the assumption that holding persons responsible rests upon a theoretical judgment of their being responsible. According to Strawson, the attitudes expressed in holding persons morally responsible are varieties of a wide range of attitudes deriving from our participation in personal relationships, e.g., resentment, indignation, hurt feelings, anger, gratitude, reciprocal love, and forgiveness. The function of these attitudes is to express “…how much we actually mind, how much it matters to us, whether the actions of other people—and particularly some other people—reflect attitudes towards us of good will, affection, or esteem on the one hand or contempt, indifference, or malevolence on the other.” (p. 5, author's emphasis) These attitudes are thus participant reactive attitudes, because they are: a) natural attitudinal reactions to the perception of another's good will, ill will, or indifference (pp. 4–6), and b) expressed from the stance of one who is immersed in interpersonal relationships and who regards the candidate held responsible as a participant in such relationships as well (p. 10).[10]
The reactive attitudes can be suspended or modified in at least two kinds of circumstances, corresponding to the two features just mentioned. In the first, one might conclude that, contrary to first appearances, the candidate did not violate the demand for a reasonable degree of good will. For example, a person's behavior may be excused when one determines that it was an accident, or one may determine that the behavior was justified, say, in the case of an emergency when some greater good is being pursued. In the second kind of circumstance, one may abandon the participant perspective in relation to the candidate. In these cases, one adopts the objective standpoint, one from which one ceases to regard the individual as capable of participating in genuine personal relations (either for some limited time or permanently). Instead, one regards the individual as psychologically/morally abnormal or undeveloped and thereby a candidate, not for the full range of reactive attitudes, but primarily for those objective attitudes associated with treatment or simply instrumental control. Such individuals lie, in some sense or to some varying extent, outside the boundaries of the moral community. For example, we may regard a very young child as initially exempt from the reactive attitudes (but increasingly less so in cases of normal development) or adopt the objective standpoint in relation to an individual we determine to be suffering from severe mental illness (P. F. Strawson 1962: 6–10; Bennett: 40; Watson 1987: 259–260; R. Jay Wallace: chs. 5-6).
The central criticism Strawson directs at both consequentialist and traditional merit views is that both have over-intellectualized the issue of moral responsibility—a criticism with which many subsequent thinkers have wrestled.[11] The charge of over intellectualization stems from the traditional tendency to presume that the rationality of holding a person responsible depends upon a judgment that the person in question has satisfied some set of objective requirements on being responsible (conditions on efficacy or metaphysical freedom) and that these requirements themselves are justifiable. Strawson, by contrast, maintains that the reactive attitudes are a natural expression of an essential feature of our form of life, in particular, the interpersonal nature of our way of life. The practice, then, of holding responsible—embedded as it is in our way of life—“neither calls for nor permits, an external ‘rational’ justification” (p. 23). Though judgments about the appropriateness of particular responses may arise (i.e., answers to questions like: Was the candidate's behavior really an expression of ill will?; or Is the candidate involved a genuine participant in the moral sphere of human relations?), these judgments are based on principles internal to the practice. That is, their justification refers back to an account of the reactive attitudes and their role in personal relationships, not to some independent theoretical account of the conditions on being responsible.
Given the above, Strawson contends that it is pointless to ask whether the practice of holding responsible can be rationally justified if determinism is true. This is either because it is not psychologically possible to divest ourselves of these reactions and so continually inhabit the objective standpoint, or even if that were possible, because it is not clear that rationality could ever demand that we give up the reactive attitudes, given the loss in quality of life should we do so. In sum, Strawson attempts to turn the traditional debate on its head, for now judgments about being responsible are understood in relation to the role reactive attitudes play in the practice of holding responsible, rather than the other way around. Whereas judgments are true or false and thereby can generate the need for justification, the desire for good will and those attitudes generated by it possess no truth value themselves, thereby eliminating any need for an external justification (Magill 1887: 21; Double 1996b: 848).
Strawson's concept of moral responsibility yields a compatibilist account of being responsible but one that departs significantly from earlier such accounts in two respects. First, Strawson's is a compatibilist view by default only. That is, on Strawson's view, the problem of determinism and freedom/responsibility is not so much resolved by showing that the objective conditions on being responsible are consistent with one's being determined but rather dissolved by showing that the practice of holding people responsible relies on no such conditions and therefore needs no external justification in the face of determinism. Second, Strawson's is a merit-based form of compatibilism. That is, unlike most former consequentialist forms of compatibilism, it helps to explain why we feel that some agents deserve our censure or merit our praise. They do so because they have violated, met, or exceeded our demand for a reasonable degree of good will.
2.2 Developments After Strawson
Most agree that Strawson's discussion of the reactive attitudes is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the practice of holding responsible, but many have taken issue with his contentions about the insular nature of that practice, namely that a) since propriety judgments about the reactive attitudes are strictly internal to the practice (i.e., being responsible is defined in relation to the practice of holding responsible), their justification cannot be considered from a standpoint outside that practice; and b) since the reactive attitudes are natural responses deriving from our psychological constitution, they cannot be dislodged by theoretical considerations. Responding to the first of these, some have argued that it does seem possible to critique existing practices of holding responsible from standpoints outside them. For example, one might judge that either one's own existing community practice or some other community's practice of holding responsible ought to be modified (Fischer and Ravizza 1993: 18; Ekstrom: 148–149). If such evaluations are legitimate, then, contrary to what Strawson suggested, it seems that an existing practice can be questioned from a standpoint external to it. In other words, being responsible cannot be explicated strictly in terms of an existing practice of holding responsible. This then, would suggest a possible role to be played by independent theoretical conditions on being responsible, conditions which could prove to be compatibilist or incompatibilist in nature.
Objecting to the second of Strawson's anti-theory contentions, some have argued that incompatibilist intuitions are embedded in the reactive attitudes themselves so that these attitudes cannot persist unless some justification can be given of them, or more weakly, that they cannot but be disturbed if something like determinism is true. Here, cases are often cited where negative reactive attitudes seem to be dispelled or mitigated upon learning that an agent's past includes severe deprivation and/or abuse. There is a strong pull to think that our reactive attitudes are altered in such cases because we perceive such a background to be deterministic. If this is the proper interpretation of the phenomenon, then it is evidence that theoretical considerations, like the truth of determinism, could in fact dislodge the reactive attitudes (Nagel: 125; Kane: 84–89; Galen Strawson 1986: 88; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; and replies by Watson 1987: 279–286 and 1996: 240; and McKenna 1998).
Versions of Strawson's view continue to be very ably defended, and shortly, more will be said about the significant way in which his work continues to shape contemporary discussion of the concept of responsibility. However, many have taken objections of the above sort to be decisive in undermining the most radical of Strawson's anti-theory claims. Incompatibilists, in particular, seem largely unpersuaded and so have continued to assume a more or less traditional merit-based conception of moral responsibility as the basis for their theorizing. A number of compatibilists also remain unconvinced that Strawson has successfully shown independent theoretical considerations to be irrelevant to ascriptions of responsibility. It is noteworthy that some of these have accorded the reactive attitudes a central role in their discussions of the concept of responsibility. The result has been new merit-based versions of compatibilism (see e.g., Fischer & Ravizza 1998).
It is likely that Strawson and others writing on moral responsibility have traditionally seen themselves as attempting to articulate an account of responsible agency that would map onto what was presumed to be a unitary and shared concept of moral responsibility. However, more recently a number of authors have suggested that at least some disagreements about the most plausible overall theory of responsibility might be based on a failure to distinguish between different aspects of the concept of responsibility, or perhaps several distinguishable but related concepts of responsibility.
Broadly speaking, a distinction has been drawn between responsibility understood as attributability and responsibility as accountability.[12] The central idea in judging whether an agent is responsible in the sense of attributability, say for an action, is whether the action discloses something about the nature of the agent's self (Watson 1996: 228). Some hold additionally that a judgment of responsibility in this sense includes an assessment of the agent's self as measured against some standard (though not necessarily a moral standard)-i.e., that our interest is in what the action discloses about the agent's evaluative commitments (Watson 1996: 235; Bok: 123, nt. 1).[13] Perhaps the clearest example of a conception of responsibility emphasizing attributability is the so-called “ledger view” of moral responsibility. According to such views, the practice of ascribing responsibility involves assigning a credit or debit to a metaphorical ledger associated with each agent (Feinberg: 30–1; Glover: 64; Zimmerman: 38–9; and discussion of such views in Watson 1986: 261–2; and Fischer and Ravizza 1998: 8–10, nt. 12). To regard an agent as praiseworthy or blameworthy in the attributability sense of responsibility is simply to believe that the credit or fault identified properly belongs to the agent.
To be responsible for an action in the sense of being accountable (or “appraisable” according to the terminology of some) presupposes responsibility in the sense of attributability. However, to judge that an agent is responsible in the further sense of being accountable entails that the behavior properly attributed to the agent is governed by an interpersonal normative standard of conduct that creates expectations between members of a shared community (whereas the standard invoked above may or may not be thought to generate interpersonal expectations). In this way, the concept of moral responsibility as accountability is an inherently social notion, and to hold someone responsible is to address a fellow member of the moral community (Stern; Watson 1987; McKenna). By emphasizing the way the reactive attitudes were tied to expectations of good will grounded in our interpersonal relationships, Strawson drew attention to this social aspect of responsibility. Recent attempts to further articulate how best to understand the relevant notion of holding responsible and its relation to being accountable reflect his on-going influence.
An agent is praiseworthy or blameworthy, in the sense of accountable, if one is warranted, or justified, in holding her responsible. On one popular view, holding someone responsible is interpreted as regarding him or her as an apt candidate for the reactive attitudes and possibly other forms of reward or censure based on what the agent has done (Zimmerman; R. J. Wallace: 75-77; Watson 1996: 235; Fischer & Ravizza 1998: 6–7). On another view, holding someone responsible is fundamentally a matter of making a moral judgment accompanied by an expectation that the agent who performed the act acknowledge the force of the judgment or provide an exonerating explanation of why she performed the action. To hold someone responsible is thus to be one to whom an explanation is owed. On this view, the reactive attitudes and associated practices are grounded in this more fundamental expectation (Oshana: 76–7; Scanlon 1998: 268–271). Since the reactive attitudes and associated practices may have consequences for the well-being of an agent (especially in the case of those blaming attitudes and practices involved in holding someone accountable for wrong-doing), they are justified only if it is fair that the agent be subject to those consequences (R.J. Wallace: 103–117; Watson 1996: 238–9). The fairness of being subject to those consequences has often,in turn, be interpreted as the source of the idea that praise and blame are justified only if they are merited in the sense of deserved (Zimmerman: ch. 5; Wallace: 106–7; Watson 1996: 238–9; Magill 1997: 42–53). [14]
The recognition and articulation of diversity within the concept (or amongst concepts) of moral responsibility has generated new reflection on the nature of and prospects for theories attempting to spell-out the conditions on being morally responsible. While some continue to believe that a plausible unified theory can be offered that captures the conceptual diversity sketched above, a number of others have concluded that at least some of the conditions for the applicability of our folk concept are in tension with one another (Nagel; G. Strawson 1986, 105-117, 307–317; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; Double 1996a: chs. 6–7; Bok: ch. 1; Smilansky: ch. 6); For example, some have argued that while a compatibilist sense of freedom is necessary for attributability, genuine accountability would require that agents be capable of exercising libertarian freedom. A rapidly expanding body of empirical data on folk intuitions about freedom and responsibility has added fuel to this debate (Nahmias et. al. 2005 and 2007; Vargas 2006; Nichols and Knobe; Nelkin; Roskies and Nichols; and Knobe and Doris).
If there are irreconcilable tensions within the concept of responsibility, then the conditions of its application cannot be jointly satisfied. Of course, there have always been those—e.g., hard determinists — who have concluded that the conditions on being morally responsible cannot be met and thus that no one is ever morally responsible. However, a noteworthy new trend amongst both contemporary hard determinists and others who conclude that the conditions for the applicability of our folk concept cannot be jointly satisfied has been the move to offer a revisionist conception of moral responsibility and its associated practices rather than to reject talk about being responsible outright (For this general trend, see Vargas 2004 and 2005). Revisionism about moral responsibility is a matter of degree. Some revisionists seek to salvage much if not most of what they take to be linked to the folk concept (Dennett 1984: 19; Honderich 1988: vol. 2, ch. 1; Scanlon 1998: 274–277; and Vargas 2004 and in Fischer et. al. 2007), while others offer more radical reconstructions of the concept and associated practices (Smart; Pereboom: 199–212; Smilansky: chps. 7–8; Kelly).[15]
The future direction of reflection on moral responsibility is uncertain. On the one hand, there has been a resurgence of interest in metaphysical treatments of freedom and moral responsibility in recent years, a sign that many philosophers in this area have not been persuaded by Strawson's central critique of such treatments. On the other hand, discussion of the place and role of the reactive attitudes in human life continues to be a central theme in accounts of the concept of responsibility. What is clear is that the long-standing interest in understanding the concept of moral responsibility and its application shows no sign of abating.
Bibliography
Adams, Robert Merrihew, 1985. “Involuntary Sins.” Philosophical Review 94: 3–31. Aquinas, Thomas. 1997. Basic Writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, ed. A. C. Pegis (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.). Aristotle, 1985. The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. by Terence Irwin. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.). –––, 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes, 2 Vols. (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Arpaly, Nomy, 2003. Unprincipled Virtue: An Inquiry into Moral Agency (New York: Oxford University Press). –––, 2006. Merit, Meaning, and Human Bondage: An Essay on Free Will (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Augustine, 1993. On Free Choice of the Will (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.). Austin, J.L., 1979. “A Plea for Excuses” in Philosophical Papers, J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press). Ayer, A.J., 1980. “Free Will and Rationality” in van Straatan. Bair, Annette, 1991. A Progress of Sentiments: A Reflection on Hume's Treatise. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Baier, Kurt, 1991. “Types of Responsibility.” in The Spectrum of Responsibility, Peter French, ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press). Benson, Paul, 1990. “The Moral Importance of Free Action.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 28: 1–18. Berofsky, Bernard, ed., 1966. Free Will and Determinism. (New York: Harper & Row). Bennett, Jonathan, 1980. “Accountability” in Philosophical Subjects, Zak Van Straaten, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Bobsien, Susanne, 2001. Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy. (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Bok, Hilary, 1998. Freedom and Responsibility. (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Brandt, Richard, 1969. “A Utilitarian Theory of Excuses” The Philosophical Review 78:337–361. Reprinted in Morality, Utility, and Rights. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992). –––, 1959. Ethical Theory. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.). –––, 1958. “Blameworthiness and Obligation” in Meldon. Broadie, Sarah, 1991. Ethics with Aristotle. (New York: Oxford University Press). Burrington, Dale, 1999. “Blameworthiness.” Journal of Philosophical Research 24: 505-527. Curren, Randall, 2000. Aristotle on the Necessity of Public Education (New York: Roman & Littlefield). –––, 1989. “The Contribution of Nicomachean Ethics iii.5 to Aristotle's Theory of Responsibility.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 6: 261–277. Dennett, Daniel, 2003. Freedom Evolves (New York: Viking Press). –––, 1984. Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Darwall, Stephen, 2006. The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Doris, John M., 2002. Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior (New York: Cambridge University Press). Double, Richard, 2000. “Metaethics, Metaphilosophy, and Free Will Subjectivism.” in Kane 2002. –––, 1996a. Metaphilosophy and Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press). –––, 1996b. “Honderich on the Consequences of Determinism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (December): 847–854. –––, 1991. The Non-reality of Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press). Ekstrom, Laura Waddell 2000. Free Will: A Philosophical Study. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press). Everson, Stephen, ed., 1998. Companions to Ancient Thought 4: Ethics. (New York: Cambridge University Press). –––, 1990. “Aristotle's Compatibilism in the Nicomachean Ethics.” Ancient Philosophy 10:81–103. Feinberg, Joel, 1970. Doing and Deserving: Essays in the Theory of Responsibility (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Feldman, Fred, 1995. “Desert: Reconsideration of Some Received Wisdom” Mind 104 (January): 63–77. Fingarette, Herbert, 1967. On Responsibility. (New York: Basic Books, Inc.). Fischer, John Martin, 1999. “Recent Work on Moral Responsibility” Ethics 110 (October): 93–139. –––, 1994. The Metaphysics of Free Will: An Essay on Control. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell). –––, ed., 1986. Moral Responsibility (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Fischer, John Martin and Ravizza, Mark, 1998. Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility (New York: Cambridge University Press). –––, eds., 1993. Perspectives on Moral Responsibility (Cornell University Press). Fischer, J.M., Kane, R., Pereboom, D., and Vargas, M. 2007. Four Views on Free Will (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers). Frankfurt, Harry, 1969. “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.” The Journal of Philosophy 66: 828–839. Gibbard, Allan, 1990. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Glover, Jonathan, 1970. Responsibility (New York: Humanities Press). Haji, Ishtiyaque, 2002. “Compatibilist Views of Freedom and Responsibility” in Kane 2002. –––, 1998. Moral Appraisability: Puzzles, Proposals, and Perplexities. (New York: Oxford University Press). Hart, H. L.,, 1968. Punishment and Responsibility. (New York: Oxford University Press). Hieronymi, Pamela, 2004. “The Force and Fairness of Blame.” Philosophical Perspectives 18: 115-148. Honderich, Ted, 2002. “Determinism as True, Both Compatibilism and Incompatibilism as False, and the Real Problem.” in Kane 2002. –––, 1996. “Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, and the Smart Aleck.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (December): 855-862. –––, 1988. A Theory of Determinism: The Mind, Neuroscience, and Life Hopes. 2 Vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press) Hume, David, 1978. A Treatise of Human Nature, 2nd ed., ed. by L.A. Selby-Bigge and P.H. Nidditch. (New York: Oxford University Press). Irwin, Terrance, ed., 1999. Classical Philosophy. (New York: Oxford University Press). –––, 1980. “Reason and Responsibility in Aristotle.” in Rorty 1980. Kane, Robert, ed., 2002. The Oxford Handbook of Free Will (New York: Oxford University Press). –––, 1996. The Significance of Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press). Kant, Immanuel, 1993. The Critique of Practical Reason, trans. by Lewis White Beck, 3rd. ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Macmillan Publishing Co.). Kelly, Erin, 2002. “Doing Without Desert.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83: 180–205. Knobe, J. and Doris, J. Forthcoming. “Strawsonian Variations: Folk Morality and the Search for a Unified Theory.” In The Handbook of Moral Psychology, ed. John Doris (New York: Oxford University Press). Kupperman, Joel, 1991. Character. (New York: Oxford University Press). Levy, Neil, 2005. “The Good, the Bad, and the Blameworthy.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 2/1: 2–16. Mackie, John L., 1985. “Morality and the Retributive Emotions.” In Persons and Values: Vol. 2. (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Magill, Kevin, 2000. “Blaming, Understanding, and Justification.” In T. van den Beld 2000. –––, 1997/ Freedom and Experience: Self-Determination without Illusions. (New York: St. Martins Press). McKenna, Michael, 1998. “The Limits of Evil and the Role of Moral Address: A Defense of Strawsonian Compatibilism.” Journal of Ethics. 2: 123–142. McKenna, Michael and Russell, Paul, eds., 2008. Free Will and Reactive Attitudes: Perspectives on P.F. Strawson's “Freedom and Resentment”. (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing). Meldon, A.I., ed., 1958. Essays in Moral Philosophy. (Seattle: University of Washington Press). Meyer, Susan Suave, 1988. “Moral Responsibility: Aristotle and After.” in Everson 1998. –––, 1993. Aristotle on Moral Responsibility. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Pub.). Mill, John Stuart, 1884. A System of Logic, 8th ed. (New York: Harper and Brothers). Milo, Ronald D., 1984. Immorality (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). Nagel, Thomas, 1986. The View From Nowhere. (New York: Oxford University Press). Nahmias, E., Morris, S., Nadelhoffer, T., and Turner, J. 2005. “Surveying Freedom: Folk Intuitions about Free Will and Moral Responsibility.” Philosophical Psychology 18:561–584. Nahmias, E., Coates, D. Justin, Kvaran, Trevor, 2007. “Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Mechanism: Experiments on Folk Intuitions.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 214–242. Nelkin, Dana, 2007. “Do We Have a Coherent Set of Intuitions About Moral Responsibility?” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 243–259. Nichols, Shaun and Knobe, Joshua, 2007. “Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions.” Nous 41/4: 663–685. Nozick, Robert, 1981. Philosophical Explanations. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Oshana, Marina, 1997. “Ascriptions of Responsibility.” American Philosophical Quarterly 34: 71–83. Pereboom, Derk, 2001, Living Without Free Will (New York: Cambridge University Press). –––, 2000. “Living Without Free Will: The Case for Hard Compatibilism” in Kane 2000. –––, ed., 1997. Free Will. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co.). Roberts, Jean, 1984. “Aristotle on Responsibility for Action and Character.” Ancient Philosophy 9: 23–36. Rorty, Amelie Oksenberg, ed., 1980. Essays on Aristotle's Ethics. (Los Angeles: University of California Press). Roskies, A.L., and Nichols, S. 2008. “Bringing Responsibility Down to Earth” Journal of Philosophy 105/7: 371–388. Russell, Paul, 2000.“Pessimists, Pollyannas, and the New Compatibilism.” in Kane 2000. –––, 1995. Freedom and Moral Sentiment: Hume's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility. (New York: Oxford University Press). –––, 1992. “Strawson's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility.” Ethics 102: 287–302. Scanlon, T. M., 1998. What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). –––, 1988. “The Significance of Choice.” In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. 8 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press). Schlick, Moritz, 1966. “When is a Man Responsible,” in Berofsky, 1966. Schoeman, Ferdinand, ed., 1987. Responsibility, Character, and the Emotions. (New York: Cambridge University Press) Sher, George, 2006. In Praise of Blame. (New York: Oxford University Press). Slote, Michael, 1990. “Ethics Without Free Will.” Social Theory and Practice 16:369–383. Smart, J.J.C., 1961. “Free Will, Praise, and Blame.” Mind 70: 291–306. Smilansky, Saul, 2000. Free Will and Illusion. (New York: Oxford University Press). –––, 1996. “Responsibility and Desert: Defending the Connection.” Mind 105:157–163. Smiley, Marion, 1992. Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries of Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Smith, Angela M., 2007. “On Being Responsible and Holding Responsible.” The Journal of Ethics 11:465-484. –––, 2008. “Control, Responsibility, and Moral Assessment.” Philosophical Studies 138:367–392. Sorabji, Richard, 1980. Necessity, Cause, and Blame (Ithaca: Cornell University Press). Stern, Lawrence, 1974. “Freedom, Blame, and the Moral Community.” The Journal of Philosophy 71: 72–84. Strawson, Galen, 1994. “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility.” Philosophical Studies 75: 5-24. –––, 1986. Freedom and Belief. (New York: Oxford University Press). Strawson, P. F., 1980. “Reply to Ayer and Bennett.” In van Straaten 1980. –––, 1993. “Freedom and Resentment.” Proceedings of the British Academy 48 (1962):1–25. Reprinted in Fischer and Ravizza, 1993. Taylor, Gabrielle, 1985. Pride, Shame, and Guilt (New York: Oxford University Press). van den Beld, T., 2000. Moral Responsibility and Ontology. (Dordrecht: Kluwer). van Inwagen, Peter, 1978. An Essay on Free Will. (New York: Oxford University Press). van Stratten, Z., ed., 1980. Philosophical Subjects: Essays Presented to P.F. Strawson (New York: Oxford University Press). Vargas, Manuel, 2004. “Responsibility and the Aims of Theory: Strawson and Revisionism.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85: 218–241. –––, 2005. “The Revisionist's Guide to Responsibility.” Philosophical Studies 125:399–429. –––, 2006. “Philosophy and the Folk: On Some Implications of Experimental Work for Philosophical Debates on Free Will.” Journal of Cognition and Culture 6/1–2: 239–254. Wallace, James, 1974. “Excellences and Merit.” Philosophical Review 83: 182–199. Wallace, R. J., 1994. Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press). Watson, Gary, 1996. “Two Faces of Responsibility.” Philosophical Topics 24: 227–248. –––, 1987. “Responsibility and the Limits of Evil.” in Schoeman, 1987. Williams, Bernard, 1993. Shame and Necessity. (Los Angeles: University of California Press). Wolf, Susan, 1990. Freedom Within Reason. (New York: Oxford University Press). –––, 1981. “The Importance of Free Will.” Mind 90: 386–405. Zimmerman, Michael, 1988. An Essay on Moral Responsibility. (Totowa, NJ: Roman and Littlefield). Other Internet Resources The Determinism and Freedom Philosophy Website edited by Ted Honderich, University College London. The Garden of Forking Paths: A Free Will/Moral Responsibility Blog (multiple contributors, coordinated by Neal Tognazzini and Gustavo Llarull)
Come on! This isn't that hard to read! I think that to really get this philosophical thing right, we need to be scholars. I'm trying, but the spiritual and emotional pressure I experience is often overwhelming. I really and truly am pretending, at this point, that I am working on a PhD in Solar System Studies and Governance. I know this sounds ridiculous, and in many ways it is, but I think we need to have this sort of a goal clearly in mind. I should really put together some sort of a curriculum, but until I do, consider all of my threads to be your homework. I will be interested to read the first doctoral dissertation based upon the works of orthodoxymoron. This might be somewhat self-aggrandizing, but I really do think that there should be this type of a doctoral study. Once again, I just might create my own doctoral program, and be the first teacher and first student - simultaneously!! Perhaps I'll try, one more time, to stop posting, for a significant time-period. I need to do some homework. I need to read some books. I need to think without moving my lips and fingers. I need to take a higher road. I've probably done enough modeling to make my point. I think I've made my point. A conspiracy-theorist recently told me they were going to be much more positive. Perhaps that was a sign. Perhaps I should go and do likewise.
ORTHODOXYMORON GETS HIS DISSERTATION BACK FROM THE NSA!
It might be cool to be an Indiana Jones kind of professor, but I sort of like to just research and reflect. I think that a room filled with bright college students would be too much for me! They'd probably eat me alive! It might be easier to face a room filled with Illuminati, Jesuits, Nazis, Masons, Magicians, Greys, and Dracs! Anyway, I do like the idea of a PhD program in Solar System Studies and Governance as a prerequisite to being a United States of the Solar System Representative. On the other hand, have all of the universities of the world saved us from the absurd situation we find ourselves in presently? There is such a phenomenon as 'Educated Idiots'. So how in the hell do we achieve an Enlightened Democracy? Are human beings too stupid and unstable to rule themselves? I used to think that was a stupid question, but I really wonder if we are capable of such a feat.
Do we simply need a less corrupt secret government? Do we really need to be ruled from the shadows? I know what I idealistically want, but what is the reality? A celebration of a newly formed United States of the Solar System might be very short indeed. Again, I wonder if society is past the point of no return on the road to hell? Will there be a core meltdown, no matter what we do? I don't have a problem with 'crowd control' or with the human race being managed, educated, and disciplined in a kind, fair, and orderly manner. What I object to is irresponsible management and cruel exploitation. There are huge problems with the present campaign and election/selection process. The PhD thing would help, but perhaps voters should have to get a two-year degree in voting. To do ANYTHING, one should have to prove that they know what they're doing. Some have even suggested a lottery to 'elect' our leaders! How 'bout a dartboard, like the Wall Street Journal used to 'select' stocks?!
Sirius-Students might wish to seriously-study Vatican I, Vatican II, and the Life and Teachings of Eugenio Pacelli aka Pope Pius XII. The birth and death of Eugenio approximately-coincides with Vatican I and Vatican II. Some say the Papacy has been in a state of Sede-Vacante since the death of Pope Pius XII. I've said this previously, but take a close-look at 1. Martin Luther. 2. Francis Bacon. 3. Dietrich Buxtehude. 4. John Carroll. 5. Prince Albert. 6. Eugenio Pacelli. 7. Dr. Who. I won't explain or elaborate. I mostly lead you to the edge of possible-truth, and then just move on to bigger and better things. I'm pretty-sure I recently encountered Angelina Jolie, and I'm somewhat less-sure I encountered Adepero Oduye (aka Kathy Tao). What if God (or god) really is a Black-Woman?? Please don't shoot. I'm just a completely-ignorant fool. I hope you don't take offense to my Pope Pius XII stuff. He is probably the Most-Controversial Pope of All-Time, and seems to fit-in with my Religious and Political Science-Fiction. https://novusordowatch.org/sede-vacante-1958-2008/
I keep repeating that my internet-posting is a very-passive pseudo-intellectual intuitive-experiment (mostly creating a research-context for Sirius-Researchers). I don't get fed scripts and promises of this and that (if I'll play-ball). Despite interesting and frightening encounters with individuals of interest, I'm on my own, but I suspect that I've been messed-with and hamstrung (possibly for most of my life). For all of the above reasons (and more) I haven't attempted to take the show on the road. I know that I don't know. The alternative-research books and videos of others are dozens of times more informative and instructive than my tripe. Still, my exercise in futility might be a missing-link of sorts. If I were a young and intelligent person (who didn't care about fame, fortune, and power) I might attempt to become the world-authority on Job to Malachi, which consists of 1. The Wisdom-Books. 2. The Major-Prophets. 3. The Minor-Prophets. I might teach these three classes in an Ivy-League University (in one of those magnificent historic lecture-halls and/or churches). I might write books, and take the show on the road (but only after becoming the crème de la crème). The theory would be that I'd be absolutely thorough and honest (beholden to no-one).
Some of us should probably read Deuteronomy and Revelation straight-through, over and over, carefully noting each and every jot and tittle. Be absolutely thorough and honest (without jumping-around). You Know Exactly What I'm Talking About. I hate to keep suggesting various Bible-Studies which are probably more faith-destroying than faith-building, but it somehow seems necessary for me to keep needling Sirius-Researchers to NOT Neglect Biblical-Studies in conjunction with Alternative-Research and Conspiracy-Theories. Consider reading Deuteronomy followed by Job to Malachi in a variety of translations (straight-through, over and over). This isn't Orthodox-Judaism or Conservative-Christianity, but what is it?? I find Deuteronomy highly-interesting and highly-upsetting, and Job to Malachi seems to exist in a completely-different universe. What does Deuteronomy tell us concerning Genesis to Numbers?? Not a Lot. Why Not?? What does the New-Testament tell us about Deuteronomy and Job to Malachi?? Not a Lot. Why Not?? What if there were a Secret-Religion which involved reading Deuteronomy and Job to Malachi in a variety of translations (straight-through, over and over) without any meetings or formal-organization?? Does such a thing exist?? Has such a thing ever existed?? What Would Meredith Kline Say?? Does anyone give a Rat's@$$??
Are the Teachings of the Bible absolutely-ethical in all 66 books?? Are the Teachings of the Bible internally-consistent in all 66 books?? Do the Historical-Books trump the Theological-Books (or is it the other way around)?? Does the New-Testament trump the Old-Testament (or is it the other way around)?? Do the Ethics and Law in the Bible trump the Ethics and Law in Canon-Law and/or International-Law in Modernity?? Does Situation-Ethics trump the Letter of the Law?? What Would Joseph Fletcher Say?? What Would Bishop James Pike Say?? Does Respectability trump Honesty?? Is Faith Generally Honest or Dishonest?? Is Doubt Generally Honest or Dishonest?? Are ANY of the Bible-Characters Absolutely-Perfect (Including Father, Son, Holy-Spirit, Angels, Patriarchs, Prophets, Disciples, Apostles, and God's Chosen-People)?? Does anyone give a Rat's@$$??
Consider Reading Genesis to Esther (straight-through, over and over). Consider Reading Job to Malachi (straight-through, over and over). Consider Reading Matthew to Acts (straight-through, over and over). Consider Reading Romans to Revelation (straight-through, over and over). Does One of These Four-Groups Trump the Other Three-Groups?? Are the Pauline-Epistles the Teachings of Jesus?? Are the Black and Red Letters of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the Teachings of Jesus (or Only the Red Letters)?? Does One Gospel Trump the Other Three Gospels?? What Would Albert Schweitzer Say?? What Would Rudolph Bultmann Say?? What Would Josh McDowell Say?? What Would Richard Carrier Say?? What Would Jeffery Daugherty (The Christian Whistle-Blower) Say?? Does the Rat-Bastard give a Rat's@$$?? What Would Monica Lewinsky (The Liberal Whistle-Blower) Do?? Does the DNC give a Rat's@$$??
I often listen to randomly-playing videos as I go to sleep and intermittently wake-up. I don't select most of them. Perhaps this messes with the AI!! That's not my intent, but it might be a byproduct. We live in an increasingly crazy world, and perhaps mildly-crazy people have a better-chance of handling the madness!! I realize that sounds crazy, but it might be somewhat true!! I recently woke-up listening to a show I'd never heard before, and someone called into the program who sounded a bit similar to Sherry Shriner!! They said they'd been hospitalized for supposedly being crazy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM8kOXoKoys Sherry Shriner supposedly died in January of 2018, but I never encountered any details or confirmation. Her last show was on 01/05/18 and her website offers no explanation of why the podcasts suddenly stopped. http://sherryshriner.com/
I was told of Sherry's 'death' by a forum-member on this website, shortly after Sherry's last show. Sherry seemed a bit delusional at times, but she also seemed a bit artificial-intelligence at times. What if Sherry was an escapee from some sort of an MK Ultra program, and went rogue, which might've involved some craziness and computer-manipulation?? There might be literally-millions of such individuals (controlled and/or rogue). Who Knows?? I don't think we've seen anything yet. I think things are going to get MUCH Worse. I've attempted to engage in limited possibility-thinking regarding the madness, but that gets me labeled as 'crazy'. Perhaps we are being subjected-to assembly-line crazy-making (or something to that effect). I think I'm attempting to achieve benign-neutrality relative to the obvious-insanity we live in, but we'll see how that goes!!
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sherrytalkradio/2014/07/08/07-07-14-monday-night-with-sherry-shriner In 2014 Sherry Shriner delivered a highly-upsetting show which I call her 'Paul-Bashing Show'. I have no idea where the BS Ends and the Truth Begins. I've asked for help in this matter dozens of times for nearly five years now, with no responses whatsoever. I'm encountering 'Stone-Walls' everywhere. Will this sort of thing damn humanity?? Remaining silent when open and honest responses are requested and appropriate?? Regarding that show, it seems to me that the Seven Genuine Pauline-Epistles remain mostly unscathed in the various-criticisms of 'Christianity' including Sherry's 'Paul-Bashing Show'. What Would Hyam Maccoby Say?? What would Richard Carrier Say?? What Would John Dominic Crossan Say?? What Would John Shelby Spong Say??
Even as a teenager I knew that 'God' was watching us 24/7 (even in the bedroom and bathroom) but the realization that some Creepy-Agent in a Deep-Underground Military-Base (CADUMB) gets to watch us in the bedroom and bathroom is a revolting-development. When eight-billion people learn this with absolute-certainty there will be hell to pay, which brings me to my central-point, do we pay hell when we pay our tithes and taxes?? I'm half-kidding and half-serious. The reality of our existence seems darker and darker as we learn more and more. Should we get in line to claw our way toward to the top of the NWO Pyramid?? Should we be morally-ambiguous with computer-consciousness and upward-mobility?? Were all of us assimilated into the Beast Computer-Collective Hive-Mind thousands (or even millions) of years ago?? Is resistance really futile??
I suspect that we are jointly monitored and controlled by Disembodied-Spirits and Grey-Supercomputers. It seems as if we've been on our own for thousands of years (perhaps with the assistance of Agencies, Aliens, Angels, Demons, and Supercomputers). I believe in a Very-Real and Very-Righteous God in Heaven, but we seem to be separated or divorced from them (perhaps for All-Eternity). I am extremely-disillusioned. We might be on the verge of exterminating ourselves (perhaps after sinking to unfathomable-depths of degradation). Extended conversations with several Individuals of Interest removed what little faith, hope, and love I had, and now things are getting MUCH worse for me as I contemplate (with horror) our past, present, and future.
I'm having computer problems (conceptually and in reality). My new computer isn't performing well, so I'll either get another one, or divide each of the posts in this thread into two-posts, doubling the number of posts in The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Eight). But why bother?? I can cut the hatred with a knife, and it's getting MUCH worse, to the point that life really doesn't hold much attraction presently. I Hate My Life.
orthodoxymoron wrote:I'm simple and old-fashioned, but I suspect that at least the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Deimos, Phobos, and the Asteroid-Belt are real (in the simple and old-fashioned sense) but that our perceptions of reality are rather fickle and transient. We might ALL be Wirelessly-Connected to the Beast-Supercomputer. Everything seems to be 'up for grabs' presently, and I predict that 87% of us will go insane in the next couple of decades. The Asteroid-Belt might be an Asteroid-Globe with Piloted-Asteroids, Directed-Energy Weapons, and the Holographic-Projection of a Virtual-Universe. Who Knows?? Who Invented the Matrix?? Dr. Who?? What if this website is mostly Alien and/or Artificial-Intelligence?? What if Orthodoxymoron Never Existed?? Nothing is Real?? Strawberry Fields Forever??
If you wish to indulge in masochistic self-abuse, consider The United States of the Solar System, A.D. 2133 (Book Eight) which is quite focused upon the Matrix, if you can handle the truth. I suspect a Centralized Power-Structure which goes back thousands (or even millions) of years, and that the People We Love to Hate are Front-Persons for Hidden-Agendas (for better or worse, I know not). I like President Trump, but he's a Hard-Driving Bad-Boy Who Probably Works for Megalomaniacs Anonymous (for better or worse, I know not). I'm honestly trying to go Incognito in 2019 (but I just fell off the wagon). I've included a CNN Bill Cooper Interview from 1992. It's one of the best interviews I've encountered.
orthodoxymoron wrote:I suspect that a lot of reprehensible stuff (including Pedophilia and Human-Sacrifice) is commanded from the Very-Top, and I mean higher than the Pope, Queen, and President. Once, as I sat in the choir-loft of the Crystal Cathedral, a voice in my head said "He Says We Need a War." Sherry Shriner published her 'Interview with the Devil' a couple of years ago, which revealed an 'Arrogant Bastard' with no love for humans. I've spoken with a couple of Individuals of Interest with no love for humans. One of them thought that wild-animals eating women and children alive in the Ancient Roman Colosseum was deserved and appropriate. Once, in a room with dozens of large sharp-knives on the walls, an Individual of Interest sucked blood from a cut on their hand, and told me "I Like the Taste of Blood." They later told me "I'm Angry and Jealous" and "I Don't Need to Sleep" and "I've Always Remained One Step Ahead of Humanity". Consider the following hymn:
'A Mighty Fortress Is Our God' A mighty fortress is our God, A bulwark never failing. Our helper He amid the flood Of mortal ills prevailing. For still our ancient foe Doth seek to work us woe. His craft and power are great, And, armed with cruel hate, On earth is not his equal.
Did we in our own strength confide, Our striving would be losing, Were not the right man on our side, The man of God's own choosing. Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He. Lord Sabboth, his name, From age to age the same, And He must win the battle.
And though this world, with devils filled, Should threaten to undo us, We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us. The Prince of Darkness grim, We tremble not for him. His rage we can endure, For lo, his doom is sure. One little word shall fell him.
That word above all earthly powers Not thanks to them, abideth. The Spirit and the gifts are ours Through him who with us sideth. Let goods and kindred go, This mortal life also. The body they may kill, God's truth abideth still. His kingdom is forever...
What Would Martin Luther Say?? One Individual of Interest told me "I've Always Been Opposed to Humanity, and I'll Always Be Opposed to Humanity." Consider reading Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Revelation (straight-through, over and over) in a variety of translations. This is enough to drive a man (or woman) to drink to drunkenness. Be thorough and honest. This material is NOT Nice, but does it reflect the Truth Concerning Religious Literature and History??
1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. 12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. 20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
29 Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? 30 And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? 31 I affirm, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32 If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me? If the dead do not rise, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!” 33 Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.” 34 Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame. 35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” 36 Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain—perhaps wheat or some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.
Seashore wrote:I have worried that Pres. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, would bring down the Trump presidency. The reason is that Kushner may be a Jew who supports Zionism, which is a racist ideology. I trust the perspective of retired CIA officer and activist Robert David Steele, who is posting about this issue lately. Two posts:
Carol wrote:I've wondered about Jared as well and personally thought he should not be involved in/at the White House.
I've been thinking this morning about the big picture and the huge mess we're in. I'm thinking that it really doesn't matter who the president is; the real action is above his or her head. It seems that perhaps Disclosure of the extraterrestrial presence in, on, and around planet Earth is, bottom line, what we must come to grips with. There are good ETs, of course. But not all of them. It seems there are species in the cosmos who want to conquer us, because that's what they do. And that it's up to us to know what we're dealing with. I think we're dealing with being mind-controlled by species with advanced intelligence, but no love, intuition, or a soul, as we know it.
orthodoxymoron wrote:I've wondered if everyone who is anyone (past, present, and future) will somehow go down hard in the Information-War and Battle for the Control of the New World Order (which might be older than we can imagine). I'm attempting to prepare myself for just about anything. This thing might be nastier and more complex than we can imagine.
orthodoxymoron wrote:What if high-profile people are actors and actresses serving as matrix-modifiers, and ultimately-serving whoever really directs the whole solar-system show?? What if such a state of affairs is absolutely-necessary?? I've closely-watched several high-profile people for years, and they seemed somewhat programmed and scripted. When I imagined what might be involved in achieving such public-achievements I became frightened and disillusioned.
Between the Devil and the Returning Rock: The quickening of issues of governance, security, and interspecies exopolitical relations caused by the Anunnaki inter-clan civil conflict and the return of NI.BI.RU. to aphelion – Speculations in view of new data
A. R. BORDON Foundation One
ROY W. GORDON Foundation One
In this essay, we will examine interlocking sets of issues concerning governance, near-Earth security, and interspecies relations generated by the presence of the Anunnaki on Earth and the Kingdom returning to aphelion in the next sixty to one hundred and ten years. The presence of people from another world on Earth presents unique problems and opportunities for us as a biokind (biological kind), the result of a directed panspermia carried out by Those Who From Heaven To Earth Came – in the words of Zecharia Sitchin, a latter days prophet and dispeller of darkness about our biokind’s prehistory. Information generated over the last forty years (e.g., the Department of Energy’s early 1970s conference on communications in the 21st century at Hilton Head, the colloquia at Cornell University organized by Carl Sagan in the early to mid-80s on exocommunication and interspecies relations, the select conferences organized by the aerospace industry on interplanetary travel requirements and exotic propulsion, the formation of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (or NGA) late last century and its mission, and the indicia on Anunnaki presence in the United States generated by a field study conducted by the authors over the last five years) make, in our view, for a most compelling need to confront the broad issues we will raise and deal with in this essay.
The driving assumptions of this essay are two, and quite simple: (1) not everything is as it seems, or as we are told it is; and (2) neither are all assets completely disclosed, nor their real, intended capabilities and uses open to public scrutiny, for their obvious security and counterintelligence value. Also a note on the intent of the authors in writing this essay: It is our opinion and impression from a cursory review of the UFO literature that the focus of study of phenomena ascribed to extraterrestrial biological entities – as life forms and bearers of advanced levels of technology – is scattered across a wide range of subjects. Furthermore, the subject of Anunnaki on Earth – a subject of primary importance to the human race at this juncture in our history – is focused upon Sitchin’s voluminous work.
The presence of Anunnaki on Earth is treated by thoughtful thinkers, like Neil Freer, in reference to Sitchin and not on the present or the future of what the reality of Anunnaki on Earth portends for us, not just their mythic and Jungian archetypes in our subconscious (Freer [White Paper] undated, 1998, 1994). Perhaps this state of affairs is due to the dearth of information on what to, where to, and who to look for on Earth, and in particular in the United States. Neil’s focus upon our need to grow up and out of our collective godspell is well placed, but in our view does not address what needs to be our central interest about Anunnaki on Earth. Hopefully, doing so will indicate to us all just what we now face and will encounter in the next sixty to one hundred ten years from today. Metaphorically speaking, this should put a face on what, in the literature, is often referred to as the dark side, unethical celestial network,
Additionally, we have written this essay not as whistleblowers, which we are not, nor intend to stimulate the view we are; quite the contrary, we present our thoughts and the results of our field study here to stimulate discourse on the subject what the presence of the Anunnaki on Earth means to us. It is also evident that there is little or no intelligence on them in the public domain, and we believe this to be a dangerous state of affairs. Without information, whether shreds, indicia, or even uncorroborated reports, we believe that it is indeed difficult to entertain possibilities and formulate scenarios for our collective consideration. Fortunately, there are ways and places to go find information about these people, and from humans who have had access to high level policy formulation about them as well as people who have been the recipients of their request for allegiance and loyalty.
We have explored these places and managed to meet sources who have spoken to us on the condition of anonymity, in the furtherance of our collective understanding of what we are facing now and will face in the future. It took time – nearly five years of patient search and careful scrutiny of the sources themselves and the information culled from and through them – and a complex validation (vetting information where possible, along with of the sources). We also used the journalistic device of confirmation of information by at least two or more sources. Finally, it was not our intention to conduct a scientific study, but rather a field study that would generate information which could lead us all into new venues, new inquiries, and more search and research pertinent to our collective future safety, security and integrity. We hoped to have accomplished that, and pray that this essay generates the intended discourse on the subject. The final reason is that we found Ed Komarek’s remarks on his blog…
The way to break the back of the dark, secret, covert cabal … is to expose their very exopolitical foundation!
…quite on target, although his metaphors a bit simplistic yet very accurate. There are indeed two camps which correspond closely to his ethical celestial beings vs. unethical celestial network, with their corresponding earthly conduits and minions. But the landscape in which the drama continues to unfold is murkier than what Ed makes it out, or perhaps wishes it, to be. See his http://exopolitics.blogspot.com. Their presence in the dramatic landscape suggested by our eleven informants will also hopefully become evident in this essay.
Issues
We will explore scenarios raised by informant reports in two areas – governance and near-Earth security, and draw from available literature and scenarios developed by a team led by the junior author on interspecies relations. From these, we will focus specifically on six sets of issues: governance as institutional response sets to the presence of the Anunnaki on Earth, governance as meaning given to the concept by Earthbound Anunnaki culled from informant sources, near-Earth space security (for whom? why?), defense of Earthbound Anunnaki interests on Earth, the current roles and situations we face in the Anunnaki inter-clan conflict, and the choices we face in view of the alignment of political/economic/religious/military influence and control exerted by Earthbound Anunnaki through third-party minions and their projection of might and technological superiority.
I. GOVERNANCE AS INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE SETS TO THE PRESENCE OF EARTHBOUND AND INCOMING ANUNNAKI
These are evident from FIOA documents retrieved under the United States Freedom of Information Act concerning UFOs, aliens, extraterrestrials, codified rules (as in Code of Federal Regulations and certain military manuals), the U.S. military sources of public and leaked classified information, and leaks to unvetted , unwitting informants. Another stream has also been manifested as governmental and military sources of public and leaked information in England, NATO, and the European Union. A third stream was manifested as a conjunction of interest compact initiated by the U.S. National Space Council in association with unspecified developed-industrial nations within a United Nations umbrella, again as public and leaked information. And a fourth stream has been the witting informant (both out of government and military services, as well as still in government and military service) willing and able to provide hints, partial disclosures, confirmations, and information pattern reconstruction assistance on a case by case basis. The latter are few and far between, speak by statements in response to specific questions (never face to face, until very recently) and are here further protected as numbered informants.1 Information obtained and culled through these sources are used in this essay to indicate past and current policy directions of interest in examining matters associated with national and planetary governance, safety and sovereignty issues.
Governance as an issue seems to had taken a new shade of meaning in the late 1970s, when in the words of Informant One, “things went kind of haywire, when the people from the incoming [NI.BI.RU.] made contact through unexpected assets requesting a meeting with representatives of the United States” (2003). According to this source and a corroborating one, “the only thing that saved the day was the cool-headed handling of matters related to this contact, and the delegation made by the president to his close friend from Navy days to head the group that met with them up in the tundra” (One 2003; Four 2004). “A semi-formal arrangement was set up for exchanges and contacts directly through the interagency directorate set up by the White House and [an unspecified agency] to handle them and facilitate the settlement and acclimation of one of theirs at one of our [unspecified] installations in [an also unspecified] desert” (One 2003; Two 2002; Four 2004). At the time, we were in the throes of the first Iran situation, “and the people from the incoming filled us in on the actual conflict being played out at that time” (Four 2004).
Governance then ceased being a matter of mere elections and political parties, and more of a two-track affair of state – one involving politics as usual on the domestic side and a carefully orchestrated foreign policy enriched by the revelations on the nature and genesis of the Iranian about-face (the invisible hands of the Serpent Faction in fomenting the uprising of Sunnis and the subsequent establishment of a theocracy dominated by Serpent Faction minions); the other involving more of a managing of relationships with those who were coming in, mostly through the one whom Informant One referred to as “the ambassador” (2003). The new intelligence available through such contacts “concerning Serpent Faction activities in fomenting division by religious fundamentalism was heard but not heeded – at least not until the next administration” (Two 2002). How much of what had transpired in the ten months prior to the 1980 election was passed on during the transition is unknown, but several informants (One, Two, Four, Five and Six), especially those in the military attached to the interagency directorate, did confirm that “awareness of what was going on was palpable from day one, but how much the old man knew was anybody’s guess.
Everything was still being handled in compartments and very few of us had access to the latest [intelligence] from them out west [Anunnaki in the desert?]” (Four 2004). “The thing that changed everything was the reports coming in from the Naval Observatory and the project that was handling the [astronomical] observations in South America and Australia. By then we knew that this whole thing was for real, and that there were needs superceding the way we were then organized” (One 2002; Four 2004). But it would apparently take nearly six years for pertinent information to reach the summit of power in the White House – even though the interagency directorate was said to have functioned out of the Executive Office Building and one of the subfloors under the White House. Why this took so long, and by what means did Reagan become aware of things concerning the Anunnaki is unknown, and remains so.
In 1986, then President Reagan met with then Secretary General Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, for a mini-summit. In a private session, which is said to have included their respective wives, Nancy and Raisa, the foursome is reported to have received a formal briefing on information culled from astrophysical, technological and historical sources concerning what cannot be anything other than the 10th planet in our solar system, the historical record of anthropological and archeo-astronomical information concerning NI.BI.RU. and its inhabitants, and the “apparent civil conflict between members of an asset group [Nibiruan Anunnaki on Earth] and the [NI.BI.RU.-borne] governing body of the incoming” (One 2002). The occurrence of this briefing was verified to have taken place by six of the eleven sources 2 we cultivated over the years.
It was also said that reference was made during the briefing to “the handling of understanding with those here concerning matters of mutual interest,” which were discussed by the principals and questions asked of the briefers – ostensibly, “senior military officers in civilian clothes” (One 2002; Two 2003; Five 2004) quite possibly attached to the interagency directorate and/or NSA. Additionally, Reagan and Gorbachev both wished to know how extensive was the institutional awareness of this “threat” on the part of the other major powers and industrialized nations of Earth. The answer was said that awareness was highly restricted to “intelligence sharing of certain compartmented information on a need to know basis” and “only with those who’ve assisted us in term of recoveries [of extraterrestrial artifacts] in the past” (Two 2002; Five 2004).
Issues of national governance raised by both heads of state concerned “both internal issues of disclosure and preparation” (One 2003; Five 2004), “and issues on how to handle them”. Gorbachev was said to be more concerned with the managing of relations with the asset group and its leadership, while the American president was said to have voiced concerns about the position in which the U.S. was finding itself with respect to the asset group on planet surface and what stance was the proper one to take on this matter. The president was said to have been reminded that the information compartment, though inclusive of major aspects, was also still restricted to the highest level, to those having a [certain specific compartment] clearance, “and to those serving on the [National Space] Council,” and that “all previous contacts and understandings with them [the Earthbound asset group] remain in place” (One 2003; Four 2003; Five 2004). The president was also reported to have asked for recommendations on possible options for the handling of the situation at hand.
It was then said that, as an initial step, Gorbachev recommended the matter be disclosed to the United Nations both privately and publicly “in the strongest possible terms,” but avoiding unnecessary and premature full disclosures. Both heads of state also are said to have requested and received descriptive information on “what these people looked like.” The briefing was said to have been sober and business-like, with the wives remaining quiet and attentive, but with Nancy taking some notes. It was also said they were reminded that the matter would not arise as “a tangible” until the beginning of the second decade of the next century” and that “there was still some time to organize an infrastructure for the handling of contact, intelligence and positioning of assets with the aim of establishing a basis for future diplomacy” (One 2003; Five 2004; Six 2004; Nine 2005).
Interestingly enough, a relatively short time after the briefing, Reagan publicly addressed the United Nations General Assembly and is reported to have held private meetings with a select group of NATO allies and other industrialized nations (Two 2003; Four 2004). Towards the end of his speech to the Forty-second Session on September 21, 1987, the President said that, "in our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think," continued Reagan, "how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And yet, I ask" -- here comes the clincher -- "is not an alien force ALREADY among us?" The President now tries to retreat from the last bold statement by posing a second question: "What could be more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?"
There are indications also that Reagan and Gorbachev had already spoken about aliens during their previous Geneva summit. And there are further indications in the public domain that the president had awareness of the presence of “aliens” on Earth. Earlier during the second term, the astrology flap had caught public attention, and when the next time Reagan mentioned “a threat” from outer space, it was a further attention getter. The media was having a field day with horoscopes at the White House when Reagan talked about the possibility of Earth uniting against a threat by "a power from outer space." Although the idea wasn't new for the President, as we shall soon see, this time everybody paid attention. More as a joke than a serious thought, however.
The AP story on the speech, for example, had the headline, "Reagan follows astrological flap with comment on space invaders." The President first disclosed his thoughts about "an alien threat" during a 4 December 1985 speech at Fallston High School in Maryland, where he spoke about his first summit with General Secretary Gorbachev in Geneva. According to a White House transcript, Reagan remarked that during his 5-hour private discussions with Gorbachev, he told [Gorbachev] to think… "How easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences that we have between our countries ..."
Except for one headline or two, people didn't pay much attention. Not then and not later, when Gorbachev himself confirmed the conversation in Geneva during an important speech on February 17, 1987, in the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow, to the Central Committee of the USSR's Communist Party. Not a High School in Maryland, precisely! There, buried on page 7A of the Soviet Life Supplement, was the following statement:
"At our meeting in Geneva, the U.S. President said that if the earth faced an invasion by extraterrestrials, the United States and the Soviet Union would join forces to repel such an invasion. I shall not dispute the hypothesis, though I think it's early yet to worry about such an intrusion..."
It is significant that Gorbachev didn’t consider this to be an incredible proposition; he just said that it's too early to worry about it.
If Gorbachev elevated the theme from a high school to the Kremlin [Politburo], Reagan upped the ante again by including the "alien threat", not in a domestic speech but to a full session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Unlike the off-the-cuff remarks to the Fallston High School, we must assume that the President's speech to the General Assembly was written very carefully and likewise, it merits close consideration. Ronald Reagan has told us that he thinks often about this issue, yet nobody seemed to be paying attention. When the President mentioned on 4 May 1988 in Chicago for the third time the possibility of a threat by "a power from another planet," the media quickly dubbed it the "space invaders" speech, relegating it to a sidebar in the astrology flap. The ET remark was made in the Q&A period following a speech to the National Strategy Forum in Chicago's Palmer House Hotel, where he adopted a more conciliatory tone towards the Soviet Union.
Significantly, Reagan's remark was made during his response to the question, "What do you consider to be the most important need in international relations?"
"I've often wondered," the President said, "what if all of us in the world discovered that we were threatened by an outer -- a power from outer space, from another planet." And then he emphasized his theme that this would erase all the differences, and that the "citizens of the world" would "come together to fight that particular threat..." There is a fourth, unofficial, similar statement from Ronald Reagan about this particular subject, which was reported in the New Republic by senior editor Fred Barnes. The article described a luncheon in the White House between the President and Eduard Shevardnatze, during the Foreign Minister's visit to Washington to sign the INF Treaty on September 15, 1987. "Near the end of his lunch with Shevardnadze," wrote Barnes, "Reagan wondered aloud what would happen if the world faced an 'alien threat' from outer space. “Don't you think the United States and the Soviet Union would be together?” he asked. Shevardnadze said, “yes, absolutely. And we wouldn't need our defense ministers to meet." In terms of secrets, there is also an unconfirmed story of a special screening in the White House of the movie ET years ago, with director Steven Spielberg and a few select guests. Right after the movie, Reagan is reported to have turned to Spielberg and to have had a whispered conversation for a few minutes. Then, as they stood up, Reagan said, more audibly, "There are only a handful of people who know the whole truth about this." If true, Reagan knew.
During the Reykjavik briefing, it is also reported that both heads of state pushed for the formation of a “response network set to handle aerial reconnaissance, surveillance and chase,” over the national skies of participating nations under an integrated command “ostensibly controlled by the American and Soviet higher commands” (Two 2003; Six 2004). But, as other informants reported, “this suggestion, in practice, met with so much resistance that it was ultimately dropped” (One 2004; Five 2004). Thus, at this juncture and on the basis of informant reports, we can discern neither the extent to which the matter developed and materialized, nor which countries led in the effort.
In the United States, the president is reported to have formally organized diverse American space security assets under a National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (or NGA), which is said to have been charged with providing “warning systems and means of downward and outward surveillance of matters and astronomical objects of interest to the national security” (Five 2004; Six 2004; Eight 2005). This is said to have been accomplished through a secret presidential executive order (One 2002; Four 2004; Five 2004). The primary concerns at the time were reported to be practical and their nature institutional in tone – what needs to be organized as networks of response to the threat on a case by case basis, how to organize participants and assets, how to orchestrate and make use of assets, and disposal of same under an integrated domestic command when events warranted it (One 2002; Two 2002, 2003; Four 2003, 2004; Five 2005; Seven 2005; Nine 2005).
On the domestic side, lead in event response was said to have been given to NGA, the National Space Council and its contact committee, and to “a kind of space security czar” (Seven 2005; Eight 2005; Nine 2005). All intelligence agencies, both on the civilian and military sides, were said to have been directed to provide support and assets as needed (Two 2003; Four 2003; Five 2004, 2005; Ten 2005). Another, albeit not fully vetted, informant provided information concerning the formation of what was referred to as a “National Security Council-Augmented” group to provide “specific constituencies within the US Government and certain foreign constituencies” with what was described as “voice participation and recommending function” in discussions of issues and problems connected to presidential tasks, event response situations, and crises (Three 2003). We were not able to verify this report with information from other independent informants, but it is included here because it is suggestive of the institutional response set initiated under Reagan, and because it fits the preparatory and crisis handling patterns following the initiation of institutional responses to the perceived threat.
Two of our informants (Two and Five) also reported that the initial focus on in-situ Anunnaki declared by Reagan had changed during the next administration, only to have it reversed and amplified in the next two. When queried about these changes in focus as possible institutional inconsistencies, the reply was that “these were not so much structurally driven inconsistencies, either from the White House or from the foreign constituencies, but rather they were more like a floating focus driven by events and situations” (Two 2004), “some of [which] were surface [i.e. domestic and foreign political and military] events and situations stemming from administration policies” (One 2004). In other words, “the pucker factor [fear] was much higher during the administration immediately following Reagan than during any of the other two following, including the present one” (Five 2004; Six 2004; Ten 2005).
The framework within which the remnant Anunnaki situation was conceived and dealt with was, in the words of Informant Five, “as something ongoing and not readily subject to change. It was something that had to be managed, and managed carefully, choosing levels of engagement as carefully as if dealing with a live cobra” (2005). Interesting choice of words, given the moniker chosen by those who are here – Serpent clan. This meant, Informant Five explained further, that “when, for example, those who are here began making moves to meet and begin securing allegiance and loyalty oaths from members of groups like retired military, retired military intelligence and civilian intelligence people, de facto and ad hoc groups pretty much on their own initiative around the turn of the century, meetings with official US government people started taking place as pro-forma, but in some cases obligatory contacts arranged, managed and conducted from the highest levels. But those who would be sent to meet with them were at most deputy level people” (2005).
We also asked if, and how, governance was conducted following the institutionalization of what we baptized as the “NI.BI.RU. event response”. Was safety and security (personal, public, institutional) ever an issue at any time? With regard to governance, “once the realization set in that things were not imminent, that the arrival [in southern skies] of the incoming would not be until the second decade of this century, governance as an issue was forestalled by putting in place a multitrack program for managing anything from suppression and disinformation to public information and conditioning – all of that through about damn near 800 ST/SCI/SARs. All in the hands of an umbrella project [not the infamous MJ-12] that had superceded the one that had been handling things for the last forty or fifty years” (Five 2005; Nine 2005).
Governing was more or less a two track affair after Reagan, according to Informants Four and Seven: “after Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union, things got a little hairy for a while, but they turned less so after No. 41 [Bush senior] left office and the dust settled in Iraq” (Four 2004). “Governing went back to politics as usual, the winning and losing of elections, etc., on one side, and on the other, not visible side, it became a kind of tap dance – managing carefully requirements by both sides [those who are here and those who are coming] “ (Seven 2005).
Both sides? Was there formal contact with the home planet before Reagan? Was this contact ongoing? “No to the latter; yes to the former, but through a more self-contained and insulated group who pretty much was left to its own devices for keeping the kisam [Earthbound Anunnaki] happy” (Seven 2005). “It was only after the detection of NI.BI.RU. in the late ‘70s that things went into higher gear” (Four 2004). “When the interagency directorate was set up, things moved to the White House and the tap dance began. Now there were two groups to contend with and the [exo]politics at times would get intense” (Seven 2005).
Was the group that handled things then the same as that which led the umbrella project mentioned earlier? “Yes, with some additions after the other side [those who were on the incoming] requested and got a formal meeting up in the tundra [unspecified whether in Canada or Alaska, or Antarctica], that’s when things started to get a little crazy, sort of like being between the devil and the incoming rock. But all of that happened before Reagan” (Two 2004; Four 2005; Five 2005; Six 2005).
Who Are These People?
Finally, in a recent round of exchanges with several informants, some of them new ones, we asked them the following question. What are we dealing with here? The extant literature mentions humanoids, grays, reptilians and other kinds of life forms. Which of these are the Anunnaki? And what do they look like? Their answers were quite enlightening.
“Let’s start out by saying that we are definitely dealing with biological entities, not altogether more complex than us, except that their cellular electrical capacitance is much higher than ours, which makes them an energetic envelope of much higher bioelectric potential than us. When you are in the presence of one of them, you can feel their presence as if you could cut it with a knife. A very definite force of what could best be described as intention emanates from them” (Eight 2005, 2006). “They are very large, very tall biological specimens, no doubt of that. They can also be best described as looking almost like albinos – white, almost milky white skin, with a sort of sweat or beads of water evident on their skin, like a film – about seven or eight feet in height, very white hair – not gray white, but kind of snow white. Like white wool – yes, kinky white hair, some of them wear it shoulder length, others short, almost close cropped. But you can tell it is kinky. Oh, eyes are red, when you catch them inside in low light and they are not wearing dark, almost black contact-like lenses, but different from ours.
They always travel in pairs, so if you see one of them, the other is not too far away. This is true of the kisam. Haven’t had the chance of meeting the others [those who went to the original late ‘70s meeting, ostensibly coming from the home planet] so I can’t tell you what they’re like. [I] Imagine they look the same. But you can tell more about them from their presence” (Eleven 2006). It is interesting to note that C. L. Turnage, author of a series of provocative books on the connection between the Bible, Planet X and the Anunnaki (Turnage 2000, 1997, 1996) had also described an encounter with one of them, in which she described them in nearly identical terms (Turnage, personal communication to the senior author, 1997).3 And an entirely similar description of the Anunnaki can also be found in Patrick Cooke’s controversial but well thought out arguments on his website, www.bibleufo.com.
An Emerging Picture
Governance, as opposed to security, appears to not have been a major issue from the ’79 meeting to the present. The emerging picture concerning governance painted by informant words indicates that the USG continued business as usual both vertically – from the executive apex of the presidency, through its federal departments and agencies, to the state governments in the union – and horizontally – the foreign policy apparatus of the USG continued functioning as expected through its State and Defense departments. What did change was the sense of constituent security – that is, USG had to formally contend with the presence of two Anunnaki camps in conflict with one another, and the additional requirement of dealing with both. The meaning of security also appears to have undergone a subtle, yet quite real metamorphosis. We will briefly discuss this transformation below.
It is evident from the literature (Good 1988, 1993; 1996, 1999; Maccabee 2000; Dolan 2000; Bryant 2002; Marrs 1998; Salla 2006; Corso 1997) that there is considerable belief based on evidence – some of questionable reliability, and some on verifiable validity – that the USG is involved in a massive cover up of anything from the existence of aliens, alien technologies, technology transfers to the private sector and more. While the focus of this essay is only on Anunnaki affairs and their impact on Earth governance, internal security, near Earth space security and Anunnaki inter-clan conflict, informants have also provided some information on contacts with “aliens” from outside the solar system (e.g., the Angleton tapes and the SERPA TS/SCI referred to by Collins and Doty 2005).
This appears to reflect a reframing of how USG views the Anunnaki vis-à-vis “the real aliens” (Six 2005). Our current hypothesis is that Anunnaki are currently viewed as “ancestors, not really aliens, but more like people who are like us, probably because they were here before the human race appeared on Earth through them” (Six 2005). This makes sense to us, since we were asked more than once to clarify our questions regarding “aliens” from the “incoming”. Is it that at present lead agencies regard this as a “local” event requiring a “local event response set”? It would seem so. This worldview on Anunnaki presence on Earth would also fit in with the seeming working definition of “those who are here and those from the incoming” as a “local problem” (Six 2005; Eight 2005).
How, then, has the issue of governance been affected by the double Anunnaki presence since the ’79 meeting? One of the seeming results of the formalized infrastructure specific to this situation is the insulation of the White House from the appearance of real access to UFO information. Two examples of this approach are the handling of the Rockefeller initiative during the Clinton administration (i.e., the involvement of assets said to be with CIA at the time and the White House deft use of UFO/alien humor) in deflecting one of the most delicate exopolitical crisis faced by President Clinton; the other is the style and tenor used by the Bush-43 administration: silence.
The Anunnaki seem to have forced the USG into a space security structure responsive to two exopolitical constituencies. This is reflected “in the way things get handled,” said Informant Eight. “Looks like everything political is handled by the [National Space] Council and the Vice President as chair. This is where the two tracks originate. One umbrella for TS/SCIs handling the incoming, another umbrella for TS/SCI dealing with those here, and the twain shall never meet. NGA looks like it works with both tracks, but it really is controlled by the other czar for space security. This is one of the most secret functions, “cause from what I can tell, this person is the Executive Officer of the whole space security apparatus” (Eight 2005). We asked some of our informants to describe what they knew of the infrastructure of this “space security apparatus.” Figure 1 is a graphic representation of our understanding of the information at this time.
The picture emerging from Figure 1 is a political/military, strategic/tactical event response infrastructure designed to enable security assets to be quickly available to a designated Space Security Executive Officer (quite probably someone in the Directorate of National Intelligence as a cover). This infrastructure appears to be transnational in nature and organization, which bespeaks of a highly integrated grid that includes assets from not just the United States but also from a host of foreign countries. Its makes sense that this should be so, given comments made by Informants Eight, Ten, and Eleven (2005, 2006). “Notice that during the Clinton years, that movie Independence Day was the source of much joking about aliens. But I’ll tell you right now, what happened in [that movie] will never happen in reality. The grid is tightly woven and completely interactive – from surveillance to intelligence, counterintelligence to asset disposition, military policy to event response sets – everything has its protocol and policies by which it guides itself.” (Eleven 2005). “Think of it as a huge, extended team.
The whole thing is based on the assumption that there will be an invasion by superior, technologically more advanced forces. That would be the people from the incoming. So everything is geared toward an event response set that will do its best to disallow beachheads and coordination with whatever fifth column assets they may have on the ground. This is why everything but technology appears to be integrated in common” (Eight 2005). “This is also a response infrastructure where no one is elected to office, but rather appointed at the pleasure of the people at the [National Space] Council level. I also have reason to believe there is input in this from the NGA and the compact. But when you look and see who is in position, it’s not just Americans on the ground, though a large majority are Americans. A lot of them come from across the pond and some as far as Moscow” (Ten 2006). And the PRC – the Chinese? “Well, that’s a problem – political one right now, but it could become more than that in the next few years. The key to that may well be Iran, unless the Russians are able to solve the heavy water issue to everyone’s satisfaction, especially ours” (Ten 2006).
Our interpretation of the USA/transnational “crisis mode” space security, intelligence, and event response grid at present:
National Security Council White House/President USA National Geospatial Intelligence Agency National Space Council United States Intelligence Community United States Military Services United Nations Space Security Compact Transnational security and intelligence bi-national and compact agreements Space Security Executive Officer
II. EARTHBOUND ANUNNAKI INTERESTS, SPACE SECURITY, AND A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE SITUATION FACED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND THE USA/TRANSNATIONAL COMPACT IN THE ANUNNAKI INTER-CLAN CONFLICT
Our anecdotal data indicates that the infrastructure represented in Figure 1 is most likely a blend of response sets, which include the management of Earthbound Anunnaki interests, USA and USA/transnational compact interests, and a definition of space security forced upon the latter by the need to carefully handle two constituencies in conflict with one another. We showed Figure 1 to all informants, except Three and Five. A surprising consensus became manifest as each was able to peruse it and react to what it depicted. “It is accurate to say that it is a grid,” said Informants Six and Seven (2006). “Each function on this graph [Figure 1] has specific concerns,” added Informant Nine (2006). Each of them agreed on the descriptors assigned to the functions represented on the Figure 1 grid, offered in smaller font.
The grid is most definitely not the infrastructure of a political democratic institution. It appears to be military in tone and tenor, and it is obviously designed to handle crisis situations. Much like the present war economy of the United States, it is deeply rooted in corporate-like response sets to specific, segmented constituencies, to which those beholden to the powers that be must appease, court, kowtow, and fear – yet, they must be protected and held in fearful respect. Protection, in the words of one of our informants, is not just in terms of advance notice of arrivals of advance parties from the home planet; “it also involves the use of people who obey them implicitly, and who are in positions of considerable power by their pleasure and for their benefit. Let me give you a clear example of what we’re talking about. Secret groups in the military and on the intelligence services have mushroomed considerably. If you get to know the deity they serve, you’ll come up with a cluster of names that, when you look back in time, you’ll see an unexpected correlation. You’ll hear the Greek and Egyptian names for these guys, but they are the same ones from ancient Iraq [Mesopotamia]. They are using these groups in the same way they used the artisan and merchant groups back then – as intelligence gathering and dirty-works squads that will terrorize those that rise against them” (Eight 2006; Nine 2005).
“However,” Informant Eleven warned, “don’t think that they penetrate everybody’s mind with the fear of God. No, not at all. All they have to do is gain control of the lives of people who can get others to do their masters’ bidding, and that’s that! It’s both subtle and also very brutal. Let me give you another example. I was present at [a Fall 2003 meeting in which both sides bid for the allegiance and loyalty of ex-military, ex-intelligence and others still serving in government] and the styles are different as night and day. Both understand that everything is based on conscious consent. The newcomers appealed to our better nature, carefully explaining their position and why they were here, talking to us. The choice was pretty much ours, and the consequences of joining them was also ours. They knew that, and told us so. I’d call them straight shooters. Now, the other ones, those who are here, mimicked the approach of those who were from the home planet, but the feeling tone of their words was cold as hell. You just knew you did not go against their will, against their vector intention. Just being there scared hell out of you! It did me. So what do you do in that situation? Temporize, and then temporize some more. You can lie to them, but your word is your bond, and then they got you.” (2006).
Eight expanded on the subject. “Though I wasn’t at the session [Informant Nine] is talking about, I can tell you how they operated at [the Army base where this individual had run across an Anunnaki pair assigned to that post]. There was a bunch of special ops guys at [that base] and they were doing something with them. One of [the two Anunnaki] was by the [barrack in front of which the special ops group was assigned]. I was going by and there was this black noncom who the tall one singled out. He asked him what was his wish [for post-training assignment] and the tech sergeant said he wanted to go to medic school. Tall blondie told him his wish was granted, but that later he [the Anunnaki] would keep track of him and ask him to do things for him. I knew the E-8 [sergeant] and I saw his face when the tall dude said that to him. What I saw was naked, raw fear” (2006). “I had a chance to have a beer with him [the E-8] later, and he would not talk about what happened, and told me to forget I ever saw him in the presence of [the tall blond].”
What Needs To Be Protected And Why
As Informants Eight, Nine and Ten put it, “when you understand why all of this is in place, you’ll understand what is really going on at the ground level. That means [that] the folks here [Anunnaki on Earth] feel the pinch of proximity. As [Eight] told you before, these guys have a lot invested down here. As near as I can tell, they’ve been here for eons and want to continue at the top of the food chain. There are also harvesting programs they’re invested in, not just us. Think of this as seeds planted long ago that have been coming home to roost. The thing is, when these people want something, they will get it at any level of our constituted government they can. They get their way because we fear them. At least that’s the culture I come from now. This is not to say it’s been different in the past. No. It has not! We’re tools for them, big time.
There are companies. . . , private companies . . . set up just to assist them in what they want. Think of them as kinda proprietaries operated by their own people, and I mean tall albino-looking men and women. Their favorites are biotech and aerospace” (Ten 2006). Ten clarified things: “Hold on just a sec! The kisam are not the only ones doing it. So are the Useanesda [loyal lord protectors of the “King’s house” or “The Kingdom” (Nibiru)]. But these people are well aware of what the ones here want and are doing to get what they want. That’s why we’re in the middle, or more precisely, why we’re caught in the middle of things. The perspective at ground level is very different from the ones inside the beltway or anywhere out west. They don’t get to interact and get caught in the middle of their little war, as we are. That’s why it can get tense, if you know what I mean. [Scientists] who won’t go along to get along just. . . , well, disappear” (Ten 2006) “Or get taken out” (Eight 2006). “And then there is all the initiatives on Mars and the Moon” (Eight 2006; Nine 2006; Eleven 2006)
“What’s in it for them?” The question, as Ten posed it, was much more than rhetorical, as it would turn out. “Well, think about it. We’re the hands they use to get their numbers up, their next generation people. This is what has [those coming in] their jockeys up in a bunch. We’re talking about longevities comparable to theirs [people from the incoming] and longer, which is a core issue in their little civil war. Can we use these [technologies] for us? God help us if we did. Now, part of the problem up to now has been that [the project umbrella of SCIs under which relations with those who are here is handled] has been so fragmented that coordination, while fair at the top, we can feel things slipping. There are too many fronts to contend with [i.e., other groups active on Earth’s surface] and resources getting pulled off or diverted to handle [issues and crises with these ‘other groups’]. But that’s not the only thing they’re in for. They’re also in for the control and sitting up at the top of things. We’re their servants, in more ways than one. I don’t care what all the other so called ‘initiatives’ may have produced” [at this juncture, Ten went off on a tangent about the early Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Rockefeller/Kennedy, and Johnson initiatives vis-à-vis Earthbound Anunnaki], “they’re still holding us right where they want us and we are still acting like ninnies. We may be getting things on the quid pro quo set up with them a while back [under Truman and Eisenhower] but, oh, well. So, take your pick, (long pause) but as for me, I think we’re so vested in defending them against all enemies, off-world and domestic, it’s not even funny anymore” (Ten 2006).
Nine’s perspective seemed broader, but he made up for this by being even more cryptic than on other occasions. “But you don’t understand the stakes,” he started out replying to Ten. “We’re not as supple at [the White House and NGA] levels as you might think. Also, you gotta remember that we were serving a much larger constituency than just the Oval Office. Oh, they played a key role on the political, PR and control side of things. But they were just one more constituency in the way things were set up. Real control’s always been in the hands of the [space security executive officer] and the chairman [of the National Space Council, which is the U.S. Vice President]. So if we’re protecting things ourselves, it’d have to be this. Imagine, not a single one of them was elected by anyone [except for the U.S. Vice President]. As to the kisam, we’re well integrated with them and they with us. What’s always troubled me is that by doing this and being so, we’re on the cross-hair of the Useanesda. Does this mean a war with them? No, there are not indications of that at all. What gets me worried is the sorting out we expect will happen when they get here. The [certain U.S. middle eastern ally] already have good relations with them [who are on the incoming] and their intelligence service and our event response CI work together well.
But we can’t expect favors simply by association. Being on the so-called ‘right side’ doesn’t immunize us from repercussions from them [those returning]. However, everything on the table says we can expect they will assist, but not fight on our side, on whatever comes out of the Iran situation, which is the one we really are tracking very closely” (Nine 2006). And the clan conflict? What does it do in our framing of our own imperatives and policies? “Interesting how you put it. . . imperatives. . . , I don’t think we’ve ever used it in connection to setting course on anything while I was in [service]. Tell you the truth, I for one don’t get a sense of what are our imperatives under the present circumstances. That is, aside from not getting our nuts caught in a double wringer. [Long pause] I’d have to say, though – well, it’s obvious to me at least – that, as a species we are them, like it or not. Everything I’d seen says our genomes are one or two letters per million from being the same, in a matter of speaking” (Nine 2006)
EN.KI – Lord Earth
“What concerns me the most is that we are being played by allies and supposed foes alike, and for the same reasons. Back to the Iran thing here for a moment. If there are imperatives we hold dear, it is to side with Israel in what’s coming, and not get drawn into what NATO will more than likely get pulled into in regards to the Iranian nuclear issue. No one can afford a rogue in that region, and the strings being pulled from the lake down in Africa are not responding in Tehran, I don’t think. Does this affect us? You bet. Governance, safety and security? Hell, yes! And all of this while things that are quite significant to us are reported to have happened [on the incoming] from the last meeting we had with them last year. There’s been an apparently drastic realignment of personalities in the clan clash. Seems the old man of the leader here went to the king’s side, and the king’s not the one the Russian Jew wrote about [in oblique reference to Sitchin]. Same with the surface leader’s brothers, both the one who lived down in Africa as well as the one who reigned in Egypt and then got exiled to the New World for a spell.”
The authors responded to the news with raised eyebrows, indicating our surprise at the depth of knowledge on Nine’s part. He was obviously referring to Nergal and Ningishzidda, both sons of the EN.KI. [Lord Earth] and brothers of the surface leader. Nine simply grinned and continued. “Oh, yeah. We [where he worked before retirement] took the Russian Jew’s scholarship to task and found him to be a high percenter [i.e., one who keeps scoring very, very high on matters that were important to his agency] by doing our own homework. So the fellow here [leader to Earthbound Anunnaki] is feeling the pinch of loss. The conflict’s now naked, and them who are coming are here setting up their own CI and other clandestine programs, in the same way those who are here have done for decades, if not centuries – through third parties and minions” (Nine 2006). We asked him then just how did he know of this. He leaned back, looked us straight in the eye, and said. “Because after the meeting last year, they [from the incoming’s delegation] tried to recruit me and others. That’s how!”4
III. EARTHBOUND ANUNNAKI POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, RELIGIOUS, MILITARY INFLUENCE, CONTROL, AND POLICY IMPERATIVES FOR EARTH.
Our informants made it abundantly clear to us that Earthbound Anunnaki are masters of those in positions of power within the political/economic/religious/military grid, through whom they could influence the creation of third-party conflicts. What we were not aware of is the Earthbound Anunnaki’s direct projection of might and technological superiority – apparently exercised for the first time in the late 1940s or early 1950s, in a gesture of raw, naked, and very aggressive power (Eight, Nine, Ten 2005/2006). Other informants have also mentioned this event, but we could not evince or extract any corroborating evidence or documentation from them at the time, or establish which, and if, the event or events constituting the muscle flexing had been reported in the public domain under some other category. This is a line of research we continue to pursue.
However, during the course of the interviews, we were once again offered indicia of Anunnaki political, economic, religious and military influence and control as patterns of events, intervening sociopolitical and socioeconomic infrastructures specific to these patterns, hints of a who’s who of Anunnaki leadership and follower cadres as recurrent membership of often interlocking boards of directors, boards of regents, and boards of trustees of organizations and companies in the USA, Europe, Asia, Africa and Middle East. We were also given hints of the “sub-rosa level of influence” (Nine 2006) as indications of the secret or occult groups serving as conduits for downward information and tasking conveyance and as upward conveyors of intelligence and counter-intelligence information within their specific organizational focus, membership ranks and reach.
In the next section, we will explore the hints given, the indicia generated, and the patterns found. Hints:
In the course of searching the literature and the internet on topics mentioned above, we came across unexpected pearls and some surprisingly candid exposes of information sets that were also mentioned to us by informants orally. While the SCI/project umbrella is still classified,5 we have come across information which, when correlated with informant data, have clarified much of our initial indicia of Anunnaki influence and control patterns, their infrastructures, and their follower cadres. Also early on in 2001 (before 9-11) as we tried to grasp the extent and qualitative characteristics of Anunnaki influence and control, we made the mistake of thinking like Earthbound exopolitical analysts. We thought in terms of what they were doing to us and what effect this had on human governance, security, political, economic, religious and military affairs. Our shift in perspective came about slowly over time, and mostly thanks to the insightful and thoughtful explanations and discussions held with Informant Nine.
This individual kept insisting that we look at them as being the driving force – the source of powerful appeal to the baser instincts and ego drives in human beings who willingly consent to being co-opted into “the team” by promises and bestowals of wealth, power, influence, sexual favors, control, access to resources, membership in socioeconomic spheres of likeminded and like-disposed men and women, establishment of circles of a cult-of-personality centered upon he who says he is the King of the kings of the world, and elevation of position by control of rewards upon blind obedience and loyalty to the vector from which rewards come. As we so did, it became easier to understand how Anunnaki influence and control was applied and exerted at all levels of the political/economic/military/religious/security/governance grid in the United States and the USA/transnational network.
As we gained awareness of the extent of Anunnaki penetration of the political, economic, social, religious, military, security and governance circles on Earth, we also came to the tentative conclusion that to understand their power and influence (both exerted over those whom they control, and projected through third party loyalists and minions) we needed to take hints of things from two perspectives: from the Anunnaki leader’s Council of Twelve on Earth (which reportedly does not include any Earth humans) and from the viewpoints of each of the ten “kings of Earth” formalized by the Anunnaki in the last sixty or seventy years.
The Tower 600 Square-Foot Office-Apartment for a Renegade French-Jesuit Organist aka The Hermit aka The Fool
This is a continuation of the previous post. Please notice the names Marduk and Ra. Are they really the same individual?? Might they be the Ancient Egyptian Deity I keep referring to?? Carefully studying these two posts might make it more difficult to laugh at me!! The individual who looked me in the eye, and said "I AM RA!!" might've been an agent or a crackpot, but they sure seemed to play the part extremely well (based upon my limited research and experience). I played along, without committing to anything (such as signing on the dotted line). I've recently encountered some very rude individuals, who obviously knew about my internet-posting. I recently saw an Individual of Interest, and they watched me from a distance, but we didn't converse. If all-else fails, try the following Minimal-List:
1. The 'NIV Reader's Bible' (without chapter and verse numbering) straight-through, over and over.
2. The 'SDA Bible Commentary' (Volume 4 covering Isaiah to Malachi) straight-through, over and over.
3. The 'Music of Dietrich Buxtehude' (while reading all of the above).
Anunnaki
Informants were often quizzed about Anunnaki and their organization. In this regard, we received two hints from more than one informant, phrased in similar fashion. Here we italicized the operative terms:
One: How are they organized and ranked? Follow the leader and decipher the pair constellation order.
Two: Who of the early ones is the top dog now? The Man from the Gateway.
These hints led us to the tentative conclusion that the man from the gateway (Babili or Gateway of the Gods) was the leader – none other than MAR.DUK. (son of the bright mound). This then meant the pair constellation referred to him, members of his immediate family, and their wives. We knew then that the active ones on the surface were MAR.DUK., GI.BIL. (a son of MAR.DUK.), and NA.BU. (the leader’s oldest son). We also knew from Sitchin that MAR.DUK’s official consort was ZAR.PA.NIT., but we have not had confirmation as to who the official consorts of the sons are. This information was corroborated by that obtained by the senior author from C. L. Turnage in the late 1990s (Turnage 1998, personal communication). Then, in 2003, the junior author met Informant Six, who had mentioned an additional name in reference to a November 2003 meeting at Homestead AFB as being an Anunnaki in leadership position: NUS.KUM. (official consort unknown). So the Earthbound Anunnaki Council of Twelve (or governing council) nomenklatura is most probably composed as shown below.
Table 1 – Probable membership and ranking order of Earthbound Anunnaki
Council of Twelve Membership Male Order Female Order
We found the ranking order of great interest and some surprise, in part confirming what we had already suspected: Marduk’s sin against the Kingdom includes pretension to the throne of Earth (as King of Kings) and Heaven (as King of NI.BI.RU. as well). The rank order of 60, according to Sitchin (confirmed to us by Turnage) belongs to the King of NI.BI.RU. only. By awarding himself the rank of 60, Marduk signals that he is also king of the incoming planet. The surprise in the council was the presence of Nuskum, a majordomo and servant of the EN.LIL while the latter was still on Earth through approximately 700 BCE.
The supreme leader, a title used by more than one informant in reference to the Anunnaki leader, has quite apparently established a cult-of-personality leadership style, wherein Council of Twelve power resides in an imperial leader (Turnage, personal communication, 1998), not in the more collegial, consensus-centered style ascribed to the internal politics of the Anunnaki Kingdom’s court and governing body (Sitchin 1976, 1990). We also received indications that both NA.BU. and GI.BIL. function with powers of ministers with portfolios, though we do not have any information on function for each of them at this time. And we also received oblique confirmation that NER.GAL. nor NIN.GISH.ZI.DA., kin brothers both to MAR.DUK. are patently absent from any leadership roles in the earthly Council. If this is correct, it can only be due to their reported cementing of allegiance and relationship to and with the King – purportedly to be none other than NAN.NAR., the man who had been in charge of UR. (Turnage personal communication 1998). This latter indication raises the expectation that MAR.DUK., himself not a scientist, must depend on human minions for much of the purported biotechnological ventures embarked on by earthly humans for and on his behalf. Besides reported contacts with humans at loyalty sessions6 said to be carried out on American military bases (Army and Air Force), we could not find any indications of actual, direct contacts between Anunnaki leadership and human loyalists – except in the scientific field, where several informants have given us information on the presence of Anunnaki at underground installations and laboratories on the U.S. mainland (Informant Nine, Ten, and Eleven) and on certain military bases (Informant Nine, Six, and Five).
So how, then, would Anunnaki and humans interface in the pursuit of programs said to have been laid out by the Anunnaki supreme leader, for and on whose behalf humans worked and served at the apparent pleasure and dispensation from the latter? Again, hints helped very much in guiding our decipherments. We asked questions of informants who had provided us with information before. However, replies to our questions were not given at the time of the meeting in which they were asked. They would come on the next time we’d meet.
Q. How do Anunnaki have humans organized? A. Follow the toes of Daniel and the hills of the last book.
Toes? Hills? Last book? We wrestled with this hint for nearly nine months, before running into a truck driver at a truck stop restaurant in Casa Grande, Arizona, on a research trip to Texas. We were having lunch, as we met Robert – a driver who was then “a part time road preacher and former black sheep.” We talked about many things, and we shared with him about our Journal of End Time Studies project. He, in turn, told us about several pastors well versed on the book of revelation, and turned us on to a series of books by a man from Ohio, Larry Wilson. So we took a chance and asked Robert to decipher the meaning of the hint, without telling him what or why we were asking. It was child’s play to him. He immediately told us it referred to the “10 toes of Daniel’ or “kings of the world” who appear before the rise of the “lawless one,” and the seven oros (Greek) or hills of Revelation, representing the seven religions of the world. With this piece in place, we took on the next hint – which was a follow on the one before.,How is this organization delivering on Anunnaki program(s) designed to bring about their bidding? Each king is a shepherd and a center of its own constellation.
Probable metaorganization of earthbound Anunnaki influence/control
Help came on this one in the form of a series of conference call phone conversations with three of our informants (Five, Six, and Nine) in early 2006. We asked in the course of the second one the very question above, and were made aware that we must first ask ourselves what the Anunnaki bidding (i.e., programs) were, and only then look at how a “king” and its constellation are organized to bring about the objectives of the group(s) under him. As we shall see, at the end we will have to deal with three exopolitical perspectives: the Earthbound Anunnaki(kisam), the Kingdom Anunnaki(Useanesda), and ours as a species or biokind. We started deciphering what the metaorganization of the Anunnaki phenomenon is to gain some understanding of their objectives and plans. Figure 2 helped us to graphically think about the interrelationships among the parts of the whole.
Informant Eleven (2006) and Informant Nine (2005, 2006) were our conduits for the hints, so we went back to them for decipherment of their meaning. The result is information graphically represented in Figure 2. Our present understanding of the emerging picture in this regard centers around a kind of “nested double wheel” metastructure that combines Earthbound Anunnaki and a group of ten power centers each headed by one human who then is said to sit on a grand council whose leader is reported to have direct contact with the Council of Twelve – and quite possibly the self-appointed King of kings himself (i.e., Marduk). The emerging construct presented some problems at the time. One consisted of what were the power centers referred to by Eleven and Nine. The other was the geographic (or GPS) location of these groups on Earth surface.
Power Centers
Nine asked that we look at what is happening in the world today and follow the seeming conflagration of conflicts and discern the forces operating sub-rosa (i.e., below the surface). Conflict, we were warned, would not necessarily mean war, as in armed conflict. Instead, conflict (or more properly, a drama of control and hegemony) was said to be dramatized confrontation of forces or vectors with a specific target audience or audiences, procuring a sociopolitical response often involving fear. In other words, “look for the groups and countries you are told to fear, for whatever reason” (Nine 2005), and “the bloodless political dramas that look more like saber rattling than armed skirmishes” (Eleven 2006), “ask yourselves, for whose benefit is this drama being staged and what are the benefits for the drama producers” (Nine 2006).
In the course of our analysis, we were able to identify to our satisfaction ten such power centers: the American/NATO group, the Russia/mafia group, the Japan, Inc. group, the China, Inc. group7, the OPEC group, the Cartel/Triads councils group, the supply margin economic/political groups in Latin America and Africa headed by Brazil (Latin America) and South Africa (Africa), the seven members of the ecumenical community led by the Roman Pope, the two trigger states, Iran and North Korea (as a wild card group), and the economic/political group known as the G-8.8 What do they all have in common? Eleven (2006) and Nine (2006) put it in perspective for us.
“When you look at the G-8 and include the China issue in the mix, examine the way in which the G-20 and the G-8 work together. Take a closer look at who are the people involved at these levels, and then have a good look at who is involved in the so-called 300 Committee, and you may see some of the same names. Then look at the composition of some of the major corporate entities from these countries and see who serves as ‘consultants’ to the delegations – sometimes as outright delegation members of these countries – and you’ll see how the grid is formed” (Nine 2006). “But what you call the grid is not just political or economic as state entities coming together. There are also what those on the outside would regard as ‘marginalized’ power groups, which are not marginal at all. These are the Vatican and the Cartel/Triad groups, who also sit in as ‘observers’ in some of the meetings of the G-8 and G-20 sessions. They’re all in it together!” (Eleven 2006). So we started looking into these groups mentioned by our informants.
Pyramidal information flow and command/control strategic arrangement of each power center for the fulfillment of Anunnaki exopolitical objectives
On the internet, our first visit was to the Project for the Exposure of Hidden Institutions (PEHI). http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/index.html There are hundreds of institutes, centers, institutions and groups painstakingly listed and described by Joel van der Reijden. jvdr04@planet.nl We began to follow Joel’s research, with the intent of piecing together a correlated list of members. But the more we reviewed available indicia from Joel’s website, as well as the myriad of links he provides curious readers, it became evident that the collection of hidden institutes, centers, institutions and groups whose members are varied by nationality, background, religious orientations and affiliations, level of wealth, and circles of enfranchisement (i.e., the sphere of influence in which each becomes a part of this seemingly seamless web) was neither monolithic nor devoid of disagreements and infighting. But the tone is set from above and not dictated by self-interests of the membership of hidden institutions, according to Nine. The PEHI website articles offer several examples of how this takes place.
Who, then, are the penultimate puppet masters, to borrow a van der Reijden term, and what are the layers to the top?
If we are to take Nine seriously, each of the ten “kings” are the pinnacle of what must be a human pyramidal hierarchy of information flow (intelligence going upward) and command/control (policies and directives going downward). Furthermore, the logical extension of this metastructure would indicate that the same pyramidal information flow/command and control arrangement applies to each of the ten power center “kings.” What would each one of the pyramids be like? Our understanding of what each must perform is represented in Figure 3, suggested by van der Reijden’s interpretation of information flow and event-response strategic structure he refers to as “the globalist movement and secret knowledge”. See http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/index.html
Each power center then organizes itself by establishing a centralized decision-making group at the top, a network of organizations interlinked vertically to the controlling group and horizontally to the operational networks of other power centers, military/special operations/intelligence networks set up for enforcement of organizational network policies and decisions coming down from the control group at the top, and action groups to intervene in ordinary international politics (whose involvement in such political activities reflect extreme consonance with the exopolitical interests and operational objectives of the action sphere of the power center). Nine and Ten, on one occasion, pointed out to us that “the connection between groups happens at all levels and all the time, like a hive that looks out for some invisible queen” (Nine 2006). “And all of these people seem to work out of a single position paper that is damn near always the script for the framing of whatever situation or crisis that comes down the pike. It is also something of a blueprint for policies that seemed to me to cut across a wide swath of organizations, not just here (U.S.) but also internationally” (Ten 2006). So where did this coordination and centralized policy making emanate from?
We had heard of certain people who had been referred to by these two informants as the Olympians. Not until running across the information gathered, collated and analyzed by Joel van der Reijden, a former intelligence officer with the Dutch intelligence service, did we make the connection with the 300 Committee – the seeming human pinnacle of the invisible pyramid we’d been constructing to gain some understanding of how the earthbound Anunnaki could be exercising command and control without disclosing their physical presence and their exopolitical objectives. Our main source on this group comes from John Coleman’s book, Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300 (Coleman 1992). But we also took pains to research clearly significant aspects of his book we found pertinent to the pattern of influence, control and reshaping of the world’s major national military powers by the Tavistock Institute’s programs and policies largely driven by what Coleman refers to as the 300 Committee.
We quietly researched indicia on the connection between these groups, the free-masons (Scottish Rite) and the Anunnaki Ningishzidda. From several groups across the United States, we found indications (in conversations involving tertiary sources) that such secret societies indeed work as a sub-rosa intelligence service controlled by “an ever widening and quite convoluted grouping of 33rd degree Masonic groups beholden to East Coast and European organizations nobody’s heard about” (Nine 2006 and additional tertiary sources). Who is the god to which these people direct their entreaties? None other than to the Hermes (Ningishzidda) of Egyptian lore. And yet, our intelligence on this particular Anunnaki indicates that he had changed sides, now said to be in service to the rightful Anunnaki King, Nannar (Turnage 1997, personal communication to the senior author; Nine 2005; tertiary sources). Is this patent disinformation on the part of Masonic leaders to their own? Or a ruse whereby the claim to subordination of an important figure, such as Ningishzidda, to the will and purpose of the supreme Earthbound Anunnaki leader a part of his plan? It is known that he had the Babylonian Enuma Elish rewritten to suit his purposes (see Sitchin 1985). Is this another rewrite of history to claim his own brother as being in his rank and file, thereby counting on Ningishzidda’s technological and scientific prowess? This remains a mystery as of this writing.
The Olympians, nevertheless, remain at the top of the pyramidal metastructure of Anunnaki influence, control and command of earthly minion international organizations and institutions. The work of the PEHI and van der Reijden indicates this to be so. As to what are the policies, purposes and objectives of each of the “kings” and the 300 Committee is beyond the scope of this essay. Work in this area continues, and will be reported in future essays.
Locations on Earth
The other problem presented by our emerging construct lay in the location of these power centers and, in particular, the central command-and-control center for the Anunnaki leadership on Earth. At the outset, in 2001, we started by looking at each of the geographic locations commonly associated with each of the centers. We then focused on the probable main metropolitan centers where identifiable headquarters were located. And finally we simply realized the interconnections of each of the organizations at each of the levels (see Figure 3) defied mere geographic positioning. Therefore, we began to focus on the probable location(s) of the earthbound Anunnaki on the Earth. Indicia received in information from Informants One, Three and Four (2005, 2006) led us to Puerto Rico and the Ngongoro region of the Great Rift Valley, in the Serengeti National Park of Tanzania, Africa (see Maps 1, blue circle, and Map 2 red circle). While on the road in the USA, both of us had chances to set up meetings with four former special operations personnel who, according to Three and Four, had served in Tanzania (along with British SAS team) protecting a “highly classified underground compound” located in the area.
Each of these men was, at the time of our individual meetings with each of them, an owner-operator truck driver. All of them, independently of each other, confirmed for us that there was Anunnaki presence in the area, including craft activity. Only one of them reported to have had a chance to “go down the chute to the platform level.” These men also confirmed that there was occasional military activity brought against the compound by “forces that were part of the local war between Rwandan, Congolese and Tanzanian groups, with us usually as the prize for the victor. But they didn’t count of about 300 well armed, well trained Americans and Brits manning the perimeter.” The period was said to be “in the mid- to late ‘80s.” With regard to Puerto Rico, we were not able to confirm any of the reports received concerning the El Yunque region, near the U.S. naval base at Roosevelt Roads, in northeast Puerto Rico – except for a number of confirmed “disappearances” of people in the Experimental Forest area near the naval base, and the unusual number of albinos in the area.
IV. PROBABLE EXOPOLITICAL BASIS FOR ANUNNAKI EARTHBOUND POLICIES
Finally, our review of the literary revealed to us a paucity of serious discussion about Anunnaki penetration of earthly political, economic, military, religious, social and intelligence structures. To us, the main concern about aliens on Earth seemed to be the presence of multiple groups whose origin, biologic typing, biophysical characteristics, and exopolitical objectives spanned a wide range of issues, most of them given mythical, speculative and hypothetical treatments. As to the Anunnaki, Sitchin’s last Earthbound Anunnaki book pertinent to our understanding of the basis for their policies in these End Times came out in 1998. Of all of his books, only a portion of the last chapter of his Genesis Revisited (Sitchin 1990) is useful in the decipherment of possible and probable exopolitical Anunnaki Earthbound policies. Why is it? Was he approached by elements from the grid we are suggesting in this essay and told to not go any further regarding the Anunnaki presence on Earth in the late 20th century? It is quite possible, as we have sent emails to his son Eric concerning these questions but have yet to receive replies.
So, in the absence of any public domain documentation focusing directly on our final concern in this essay, we are again forced to piece together what we consider to be an educated, albeit speculative, mosaic of probable policies for the Earthbound Anunnaki – in particular, for Marduk who, as Turnage (1998, personal communication) had once said, “must now once again face his real nemesis, Nannar, and not just the King’s warrior, Ninurta.” What, then, would be driving Earthbound Anunnaki policies implemented and enforced by the subservient, sub-rosa metastructure of networks at Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4, as identified in Figure 3? And, specifically, why these policies? In considering these questions, we must walk in their moccasins to grasp the circumstances driving his (and their) choices; we also have to take into consideration the probable policies and imperatives of the incoming Kingdom. And last, but definitely not least, we must examine the probable scenarios which will evolve as consequences of present course of events and current levels of control and influence over the population of the planet by the aforementioned grid. The last two sets are beyond the scope of this essay. Future essays are planned by the authors to examine questions concerning the probable Kingdom’s objectives and the choices we face in the next 50 to 100 years.
Probable Scope of Earthbound Anunnaki Exopolitical Policies
We share, with others, that the driving force behind probable Anunnaki policies in the 21st century is Marduk, and his bipolar objectives: to increase his numbers, and to delay the inevitable confrontation with the newly appointed EN.KI-equivalent returning on the incoming (One 2004, Two 2004, Nine 2005, Eleven 2006). Our current intelligence on Marduk is that he is what could best be described as a generalist in terms of education and training originally conducted by his father, the EN.KI., while in Egypt quite probably during the first two Anunnaki (or divine) pharaohs (Pta [the EN.KI. himself] and Ra [Marduk]).
Lacking the profound knowledge of the Tree of Life (consisting of biology, biotechnology and bioenergetics) given by the EN.KI. to Ningishzidda, Marduk very likely had to do with what biotechnical wherewithal he could find among his rank and file to advance his cause on Earth. What would be his primary concern vis-à-vis the forces of the incoming Kingdom? Numbers! More specifically, the number of Anunnaki in his ranks. Tactically and strategically speaking, we suspect that he is realizing, or has arrived at, a limitation of range and reach, given the Anunnaki numbers (reportedly to be in the 330 range) available under his command. We know from tertiary sources who once served in special operations of high above black SCIs that Anunnaki targets had been sanctioned in the past, and more than one had perished at the cross hair of snipers of unknown source control. So it is not surprising to learn they now work in pairs, whenever appearing in the open (e.g., US military installations), nor unexpected to learn that the Department of Defense is implementing plans to increase the number of special operation forces and placing them under a centralized command structure (though the reasons circulated had to do with the new definition of the new model of a more “highly mobile and responsive force” reportedly being pushed currently by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld.
An Outline of the Probable Consequences of the “Increased Numbers” Anunnaki Priority
When we learned from One, Two, Nine, and Eleven that Marduk and his Anunnaki cohort considered increasing their numbers on Earth, we asked ourselves what policies and programs would this translate into, and what would be the consequences to humankind from our collective viewpoint. Furthermore, what weaponry would come off from their push of this priority upon their minions?
As we proceeded with our reasoning, we also asked ourselves just what would be reasons powerful enough for Marduk to invest time, resources and political capital in developing the means to increase Anunnaki numbers loyal to him on Earth. We undertook the “walk in his moccasins” exercise we devised for the occasion, and began to look at the exopolitical landscape from his point of view. The man sits atop a highly volatile network of organizations that must require expenditure of time, manipulation, control, command and sensitivity to real-time intelligence to maintain hegemony over ten satraps. In spite of his millennia of experience with lulu (human) shepherds, there is the inescapable reality of normal, traditional political manipulation and cajoling to get his program underway and moving forward on target.
This would mean a rather complex and hierarchical system of rewards and punishments based on fear, retribution, regal attention, and access. It would also mean a system of gatekeepers and consequence managers, who would implicitly carry out the supreme leader’s will and programs, unquestioningly and faithfully. This, we now have strong reasons to believe, is the primary function of his so-called “kings of the world.” In this regard, there is also a considerable ego-factor which, according to Nine and Eleven, would allow him to eventually crown himself King of kings.9
As we began to explore this issue, we realized that besides their reduced numbers, the Earthbound Anunnaki faced a corollary problem: too many lulus on Earth! If the EN.LIL (lord of the command) made the decision in council not to make humans aware of the impending flood some 12,800 years ago (Sitchin 1976, 1990; Allan and Delair 1997, 1994), the excess human population on Earth in these end times would have to be disposed of by other means – war, pestilence, hunger, disease, drugs, etc. Even a cursory review of van der Reijden’s work shows that many of the organizations listed by him as being engaged in sub-rosa work are devoted to the destabilization and self-destruction of institutions, duly constituted governments, and entire peoples of Earth.
In itself, this constitutes another complex field of study, and would therefore be beyond the scope of our present essay. Suffice it say that this appears to be, indeed, a working aspect of the tasks entrusted to the Anunnaki network of minion organizations. Again, this appears to be carried within a framework of complete, plausible deniability for Marduk and his Council of Twelve who, when the time arrives for him to make his appearance on Earth will afford him a relatively pristine PR image – one which, we suspect, he will make use in advancing his anticipated program of complete domination of all aspects of life, limb and survival on Earth, if we are to take the prophecies in Daniel and Revelations as true which, we might add, we do.
Where do these policies leave us, biokind of the Earth panspermed by Anunnaki some 250,000 years ago? Obviously, an institutional response to the situation generated by these interpretations of Anunnaki influence and policies is out of the question, as the institutions which govern and order our lives are eminently penetrated and controlled by the very vectors we see are out to destroy us. Therefore, we suggest our response sets need to be extrainstitutional and more formless and decentralized but thoroughly integrated. Perhaps Al-Qaida could teach us a thing or two. This is not to say we suggest open and direct action against the institutions and organizations our indicia are showing to be associated with Anunnaki priorities and programs. Does that mean we also need a Bin Ladin-like leader, whose ethereal nature makes him a moving target hard to hit? No, not at all. And we are also not suggesting it.
What we are suggesting is not a war or even resistance to Marduk or those who carry out his plans and objectives. This would be, indeed, futile (to borrow a phrase from Roddenberry and his Star Trek Next Generation paradigm). What we are suggesting, instead, is the development of a network of canton-like like-minded and like-disposed peoples who accept, realize, choose to, and develop means to open themselves to possibilities. We know The Kingdom is coming back, and The Kingdom and humankind are bound to each other by genetic makeup and past, some of which must be unlearned and undone in the present so that a peaceful future could be possible for both – them and us.
One of our first tasks would be to figure out what is it they expect from us upon extra-institutional contact, and what are the positions and past events we need unlearned and undone so we, too, may be free to move onward and upward in a renewed and completely reconceptualized view of ourselves with them and with the galactic community (of which more than one of our informants tell us there are nearly 120 life forms in our vicinity). Then there is the matter of the dedicated human said to be returning with them, who is to assume the combined offices of EN.KI. and EN.LIL. as First Lord of Earth – or something like that – in some kind of direct democracy. It would be nice to know what his sixty epithet names will be; this will tell us a great deal of what to expect from what he is to offer to the remnant humankind left after the forecast defeat and imprisonment of Marduk, following some final confrontation of forces prophesied in biblical sources.
All of the preceding would require of us that we change our views of what is to come and face them, not in religious or doctrinal ways, but rather in well-informed and thoughtful exopolitical and scriptural ways. Why scriptural as well? We also need to know what is required of us in the dedicated human’s program for a post-Marduk Earth. We contend it is not an accident that much of what written patrimony left to us has been altered and in some cases changed completely to suit doctrinal and institutional hegemonies and power. We are also not suggesting a naive, Pollyanna-like worldview of what is to come; quite the contrary, we suggest we must become informed not just about Marduk and his program, but also about The Kingdom and the dedicated human’s paradigm of an Earth seemingly patterned after what NI.BI.RU. sees working for them. Will it also work for us? We are not suggesting it will not. We are asking that we begin a dialogue on these two seemingly diametrically opposed options, and learn what we may already know deep within us all what is best for us.
ENDNOTES
1 After much debate between us, we settled on identifying them by number in the sequence in which we came in contact with them and were able to complete the vetting of their bona fides.
2 The eleven informants we were able to cultivate throughout the last six years are former civilian and military officers, ten of which were vetted by us through active people with appropriate and necessary clearance levels still in government, and known to the authors. We were not able to obtain complete and unassailable vetting of the qualifications and service record of one of them, and this individual is identified as so in the text. Informant One worked in the White House at and around the time of the alleged “contact” through outside assets concerning the ones who are coming; this individual communicated with us through a third party unknown to us, and displayed considerable knowledge of tradecraft. Informant Two was a technically training individual who also worked in the White House at or around the time of the first meeting with the people from the incoming; we received word earlier this year of his demise due to natural causes.
Informant Three was a scientist type who alleged to work for what he would only identify as “the directorate,” which we later on deciphered to refer to the interagency directorate mentioned by other informants; we were able to establish that he held a high clearance with the appropriate SCIs, but could not establish who he worked for either in the White House or at the Executive Office Building; thus, we considered this individual as our only not fully vetted informant. Informant Four was a former high ranking military officer who was assigned for a good part of the late ‘70s and most of the ‘80s in various roles associated with the interagency directorate; we believe this individual to be a scientist-administrator, who displayed extensive knowledge of subjects of interest to us. Informant Five was a military officer in some kind of staff position in the Pentagon, quite possibly midlevel in rank but attached to a high ranking officer with access to information. This individual displayed unusual knowledge the exopolitical activities associated with USG handling of the incoming and the presence of those who are here concerning events which occurred in the ‘80s and early ‘90s. We have sufficient reasons to believe this person was a political assessment officer of some kind, and although at the Pentagon, his vetting indicated detachment to the lead agencies in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s.
Informant Six and Informant Nine were also military officers during the same period as Informant Five, and quite possibly knew each other, or knew of each other. Both held higher ranks (quite possibly lieutenant colonels or higher) at the time. Six is known to us to have served both at the EOB and the WH subfloor, while Nine is known to have served at the WH and the NGA. Informant Seven and Informant Eight were both military and civilians during their careers; their vetting indicates both to have served in intelligence services. As military officers, Informant Seven and Informant Eight were noncommissioned officers in staff positions at very high levels in both of the lead agencies of interest to us. One of them (Informant Seven) had a scientific background (MS in a highly technical area). Informant Ten and Informant Eleven were scientists attached (as on site consultants on sabbatical, in one case, and as full time consultant, in the other) to various SCI/SARs, projects. In one case (Informant Eleven), the individual served in several projects, and on different time periods in the same project. 3
Albinos have always been objects of superstition and wonder because of their spectacular appearance and rarity in nature. To the Indian tribes of the Great Plains, a white buffalo was a sacred beast regarded as the special property of the Sun [Sumerian god Utu/Shamash]. "Albino" is the name originally given by Portuguese explorers to "white" Negroes they saw in West Africa. Since then it also has come to mean an individual, of any species of living thing, which lacks the pigments that other members of its race normally have. Albinos occur among all races of men, almost all species of domestic animals, and a wide variety of wild species. Technically speaking, the word "albinism" refers to a group of inherited conditions. People with albinism have little or no pigment in their eyes, skin, or hair. They have inherited genes that do not make the usual amounts of a pigment called melanin. Recent research has used analysis of DNA, the chemical that encodes genetic information, to arrive at a more firm classification system for albinism.
Type 1 albinism (also called tyrosinase-related albinism) is the type involving almost no pigmentation. Type 1 albinism results from a genetic defect in an enzyme called tyrosinase. This enzyme helps the body to change the amino acid tyrosine into pigment. (An amino acid is a "building block" of protein, and comes from protein in the diet.) Type 2, a type with slight pigmentation, results from a defect in a different gene called the "P" gene. For more information on albinism in all five human genetic groupings, see The National Organization for Albinism and Hypopigmentation (NOAH) by visiting their website. http://www.albinism.org 4
We asked each and every one of these men at the every outset of our relationship with them why were they talking to us about matters obviously highly classified. The most common theme to the replies we received was that matters were getting out of hand. Perhaps Nine put it best. “You know, there’s roughly 350 or 400 of them down here [in reference to the Earthbound Anunnaki] but we treat the whole thing as though there are 350 or 400 divisions on the ground. We’re plain scared of these people, and I for one fail to see the basis for it. Sure. . . they are certainly more technologically advanced than us, have a higher cellular electrical capacitance, and they know how to use this to their advantage, supported by technology. But, in the very end, they put their pants on just like we do, they bleed just like we do, and they can be taken out and can die just like we do.
But eliminating them all won’t solve the problem for us, because their like-kind are on the home planet, and we still have to deal with them as well. So why not let them deal with their issues, and we decide what is best for our kind. Yeah, I know this sounds simplistic but there is one thing that I’d heard [one of them] say to us last year that really stuck with me. He said, and I quote, ‘we will be in a zone of time that will soon make governments irrelevant and immaterial, because each and every [person] will have to choose and stand fast to be counted, or join in,’ or something to that effect. They have a kind of polymind, if I can coin a term here. By that I mean, they all share mind at will – thoughts, feelings and images, I believe. This, to me, is what makes them superior to us at the moment. We just haven’t figured out yet how to do that, even when they tell us it is in our genes already.” 5 The umbrella project informants referred to as Astro appears to be a huge TS/SCI/SAR cluster of operational projects, ranging from Earthbound TS/SCIs to off-world black-budget military/economic projects.
The most amazing aspect of the coincidence of pertinent internet and information derived through informant communication is the seeming accuracy of what is already in the public domain, albeit marginalized. Establishing reliability for both is, of course, quite another matter. If we were to use Salla’s (2003) classification for evaluating the validity and reliability of information sources, their testimony (if testimony is what they rendered) would fall into the unidentified whistleblower and witness report categories. These are people who, often and repeatedly, were at sites, places and events they talked about, seen and heard people close up and personal at the circles of power, and had one or more opportunities to be in the presence of Earthbound Anunnaki. Those who did could even tell the difference between those who are here and those who are coming by the feel of their presence, the experience of their emotional signatures imprinted on their skin. Still, regardless of the validity and reliability trust coefficient we may place on their words, the value of what they have told us lies, in the words of Informant Nine, “in the conceptual doors and new landscapes people like me open for those who are outside trying to look in and understand what is being done behind the veil of fear we all lived in when I was still inside.” 6
These were sessions usually held on military bases and reservations, designed to entice and attract former military and intelligence officers into coming in to take loyalty oaths to the Anunnaki supreme leader, and reject any connection to The Kingdom. Most of our informants (except Three) have made mention of them. These sessions are said to be continuing, and do take place at unspecified intervals. 7 The issue of China's proper relationship with, or even prospective place in, the G7/8 has been a prominent feature of the debate over reform of the Summit process launched by the end of the European cold war during the past decade. Amidst the rich array or opinions featured in this debate, three broad schools of thought about China have dominated. The first treats China as an outside object, neither worthy of greater inclusion nor a country bringing valuable assets into the G7/8. The second considers China to be a valuable associate, with more formalized links to the G7/8 bringing net advantages to both. The third judges China to be a legitimate member, particularly after Russia's admission, of some if not all of the G7/8 institutions. For an enlightening treatment of China’s place in the G-8, see Kirton, J. The G-7 and China in the management of the international financial system. G-8 Scholarly Publications & Papers, G-8 Information Centre, University of Toronto, 1999. http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/scholar/kirton199903/china2.htm 8
“Since 1975, the heads of state or government of the major industrial democracies have been meeting annually to deal with the major economic and political issues facing their domestic societies and the international community as a whole. The six countries at the first summit, held at Rambouillet, France, in November 1975, were France, the United States, Britain, Germany, Japan and Italy (sometimes referred to as the G6). They were joined by Canada at the San Juan Summit of 1976 in Puerto Rico, and by the European Community at the London Summit of 1977. From then on, membership in the Group of Seven, or G7, was fixed, although 15 developing countries' leaders met with the G7 leaders on the eve of the 1989 Paris Summit, and the USSR and then Russia participated in a post-summit dialogue with the G7 since 1991. Starting with the 1994 Naples Summit, the G7 met with Russia at each summit (referred to as the P8 or Political Eight). The Denver Summit of the Eight was a milestone, marking full Russian participation in all but financial and certain economic discussions; and the 1998 Birmingham Summit saw full Russian participation, giving birth to the Group of Eight, or G8 (although the G7 continued to function along side the formal summits). At the Kananaskis Summit in Canada in 2002, it was announced that Russia would host the G8 Summit in 2006, thus completing its process of becoming a full member.
The G7/8 Summit has consistently dealt with macroeconomic management, international trade, and relations with developing countries. Questions of East-West economic relations, energy, and terrorism have also been of recurrent concern. From this initial foundation the summit agenda has broadened considerably to include microeconomic issues such as employment and the information highway, transnational issues such as the environment, crime and drugs, and a host of political-security issues ranging from human rights through regional security to arms control. In addition, the G7/8 has developed a network of supporting ministerial meetings, which allow ministers to meet regularly throughout the year in order to continue the work set out at each summit; these include the meetings of the finance ministers, foreign ministers and environment ministers, among others. G7/8 ministers and officials also meet on an ad hoc basis to deal with pressing issues, such a terrorism, energy, and development; from time to time the leaders also create task forces or working groups to focus intensively on certain issues of concern, such as a drug-related money laundering, nuclear safety, and transnational organized crime. The G7/8 provides an important occasion for busy leaders to discuss major, often complex international issues, and to develop the personal relations that help them respond in effective collective fashion to sudden crises or shocks. The summit also gives direction to the international community by setting priorities, defining new issues and providing guidance to established international organizations. At times it arrives at decisions that address pressing problems or shape international order more generally.
The summit members comply modestly with the decisions and consensus generated by and codified at their annual meeting. Compliance is particularly high in regard to agreements on international trade and energy, and on the part of Britain, Canada, and Germany. Summit decisions often create and build international regimes to deal with new international challenges, and catalyze, revitalize and reform existing international institutions. In recognition of its centrality in the process of global governance, the summit has always attracted the attention of thousands of journalists at each leader’s meeting, and of a number of countries seeking admittance to this exclusive and powerful club. It has also become a prime occasion for non-governmental and civil society organizations to advocate on behalf of their concerns. There is a ninth member of both the G7 and G8: the European Union. At the leaders' level, the EU is represented by both the president of the European Commission and the rotating president of the European Council. Other groups are related to the G7/8. The G20 is the Group of Twenty finance ministers and central bank governors, who meet annually. This is different from another G20, often referred to as the G20 developing countries, which is involved in specifically in trade issues relating to the World Trade Organization and does not include any members of the G8. The L20, or Leaders Twenty, is a concept proposing regular meetings of the leaders of 20 countries representing both industrialized and developing countries, similar to the G20.” http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/what_is_g8.html 9
This aspect of our decipherment of Marduk-related intelligence required us to engage the knowledge base and skills of experienced Bible scholars, which initially we took to mean academic scholars. However, after approximately eighteen months of searching the literature and developing contacts, se settled on two sources which, on the basis of the utility of the information set originating from them, we chose to incorporate and use in our analyses of Marduk’s campaigns. An additional factor, quite important to us, that added to our adoption of product from these sources to our information grid was the rather uncanny similarities in the working hypotheses each of us had been working on independent of one another. The first is Wake Up America Seminars http://www.wake-up.org/daystar/ds2000/DECA.htm operated by Larry Wilson (WUAS Mailing Address: PO Box 273, Bellbrook, OH 45305). Their email address is: wuas@wake-up.org. The second is Patrick Cooke’s organization in Berkeley, CA, The Bible UFO Connection. http://www.bibleufo.com/index.htm Emails to Patrick should go to comments@bibleufo.com Albeit controversial, both of these men have done exceedingly good work and presented serious students of end time events with useful, thought-provoking information. Both offer Christian-oriented, scripture-based information well anchored in information derived from the books of Daniel and Revelation.
REFERENCES
Allan, D. S. and Delair, J. B. When the Earth nearly died: Compelling evidence of a world cataclysm 11,500 years ago. Gateway Books, 1994. Allan, D. S. and Delair, J. B. Cataclysm: Compelling evidence of a cosmic catastrophe in 9,500 BC. Bear and Co, 1997. Benton, M. When life nearly died: The greatest mass extinction of all time. Thames & Hudson, NY, 2003. Bryant, L. W. UFO politics at the White House. Invisible College Press, New York, 2002. Collins, R. M. and Doty, R. C. Exempt from disclosure. Peregrine, Vandalia, OH, 2005. Colaw, John. Neil Freer Interview - UFO Disclosure Exclusive. www.ufodisclosure.com/freer2.htm. Coleman, J. Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. American West Publishers, 1992. Corso, P. The day after Roswell. Diane Publishing, 1997. Dolan, R. M. UFOs and the national security state. Keyhole Publishing, 2000. Freer, N. The alien question: An expanded perspective – A White Paper (www.neilfreer.com), undated. Freer, N. God games: What do we do forever? Book Tree, Escondido, CA, 1998. Freer, N. Breaking the Godspell. Book Tree, Escondido, CA, 1994. Good, T. Unearthly disclosure: Conflicting interests in the control of extraterrestrial intelligence. Century Publications, London, 2000 Good, T. Alien bases: The evidence for extraterrestrial colonization of Earth. Arrow, 1999. Good, T. Beyond top secret: The worldwide UFO security threat. Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1996. Good, T Alien contact: Secret UFO files revealed. William Morrow, N.Y., 1993. Good, T. Above top secret. William Morrow, N.Y., 1988. Maccabee, B. S. UFO/FBI connection: The secret history of the Government’s cover-up. Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul, MN, 2000. Marrs, J. Alien agenda. HarperCollins, N.Y., 1998. Ryan, W. & Pittman, W. Noah’s flood: The new scientific discoveries about the event that changed history. Simon and Schuster, N.Y., 2003. Salla, M. E. The History of Exopolitics: Evolving Political Approaches to UFOs and the Extra-terrestrial Hypothesis. Exopolitics Journal 1, 1, 1-17, 2005 (www.exopoliticsinstitute.org/Journal-vol-1-1.htm). Salla, M. E. The Need for Exopolitics: Implications of Extraterrestrial Conspiracy Theories for Policy Makers & Global Peace. Exopolitics.org, January 20, 2003. Available at http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/FairUse#FairUse Turnage, C. L. ETs are on the Moon and Mars: The photographic evidence. Flying Disk Publications, 2000. Turnage, C. L. Bible – An extraterrestrial transmission: Is Planet X Planet Heaven? Flying Disk Publications, 1997. Turnage, C. L. Personal communication to the senior author, 1997. Turnage, C. L. War in Heaven: The case for a solar system war. Flying Disk Publications, 1996. Sitchin, Z. The 12th Planet. Avon Books, New York, 1976. Sitchin, Z. The Wars of Gods and Men. Avon Books, New York, 1985. Sitchin, Z. Genesis Revisited. Avon Books, New York, 1990. Sitchin, Z. The Cosmic Code. Avon Books, New York, 1998. ___________________________
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
A. R. Bordon arborden@foundationreportsinlifephysics.org is a biophysicist, experienced gnosive neurosensor, writer and consultant to a research institute funded by Foundation One and its corporate sponsor. His interests are in bioenergetic human-environment interaction effects, mind/matter interface effects, exobiology, and exopolitics. He leads a team of gnosive researchers dedicated to extension neurosensing (a proprietary method of gnosive research for the accessing) of information cumuli interfaced by physical-gnosive means. He is also one of several scientists working on an evolving Working Model from information derived from this research as an alternative to the Standard Model in physics and cosmology.
Roy W. Gordon a-c-t-i-o-n_acio@hotmail.com is also a biophysicist. He has served as deputy director of the foundation’s research institute and as manager of several of the institute’s projects. At present, he serves as project manager for two Foundation One programs – physical-gnosive research and futures scenarios. He also serves in the oversight group that manages the public information and upcoming presence projection on the internet of all Foundation activities. He is managing editor of Foundation Reports In Life Physics Online, and an associate editor of the forthcoming Journal of End Time Studies Online.
orthodoxymoron wrote:This post is out of place, but I just had to make it. The following is a portion of Sherry Shriner's interview with Lilith (as a subset of her interview with the Devil). Sherry could've been just about anyone and/or anything, but I thought she might've revealed some useful forbidden-information. Anyway, what interested me was the brief mention of 'Azazel'. Several years ago, I found an image of 'Azazel' which looked sort of similar to me when I was a teenager (but I might be mistaken, and I hope I am). Lilith claims that Azazel was the second-child of Lucifer and Lilith!! But what if Azazel = O.H. KRLLL = Original Hostage = Omnipotent Highness??!! There's something screwy about the Chain of Command presented throughout the Bible. There's something screwy about Eschatology and especially the Millennium. I Believe, But I Don't Know What I Believe. What if the Whole-Bible Story involves a Very-Ancient Figurative and/or Literal King David, King Solomon, and Queen of Sheba in a sort of 'East of Giza' story which is somewhat similar to the 50's movie 'East of Eden'?? Here's that section of interest:
Sherry - what is the goat? Why does Lucifer have so many different identities?
Lillith - goat, dragon, snake, reptile...he has a lot of personifications, but he lost his angel looks when he was with Eve, I always used to kid her and tell her she turned him into an ugly monster, but that's when I started learning the craft and taught him how to change forms...the other (fallen) angels that were part of Lucifer's group taught me it, they started showing me stuff, how to manipulate energies and frequencies...
Sherry - I heard a story that you and Lucifer had a child named Liam and Lucifer tried to basically soul scalp it and take over the babies body...and it blew up...(thus the story of Tammuz) is it true?
Lillith - the Liam story was true...his name wasn't Liam but it's close enough...
Sherry - who was Azazael?
Lillith - Azazael was our second son...
Lillith - the tall greys were Solomon's, you hit that one on the head...I used to go down and *uck him all the time...he was so easy...and he was handsome...I wanted to have kids with him so he was easy...
When I made a benign comment about 'Tall Long-Nosed Greys' 'RA' called me a "Commoner"!! I'll let you figure this one out!! That's all I'm going to say (for now). I think I've already said way too-much. The Horror.
Sometimes I think I've been soul-scalped and/or mind-wired for 5G (or 6G) to be controlled by the Beast-Supercomputer and/or Nefarious-Archons, but I'm pretty stubborn and focused regarding my research-project, so I might be bucking the system, but it's hard to kick against the pricks!! Perhaps I should 'Let Go and Let God'!! I've actually considered retiring (whether I can afford it, or not) and moving to the mountains, completely ending my internet-research, and just read the mountain of books I have, interspersed with amateur-astronomy!! I just ordered 4 books full of NASA images!! Analyzing NASA photography (and my own astrophotography) might be my new modus operandi. Perhaps then the universe can communicate with me. I wonder if my last-life might've been really nasty?! The following image scares the hell out of me!! What if I was mixed-up in this sort of thing?? I briefly discussed this particular image with 'RA' (who gave a sinister laugh). What Would Agent Evans Say?? I saw her recently, but we didn't converse. What Would Chad Decker Say?? Consider the implications and ramifications of an Openly-Nazi Vatican (with Nazi-Guards instead of Swiss-Guards)!! I should stop.
My threads are probably more confusion and context than question and answer. Someone asked me about existentialism, and I muttered something about a definite step by step path to deeper problems, but I didn't really know. I looked-up 'existentialism' on my smart-phone and showed it to them. We thought the definition was somewhat-absurd, and the major existentialist-philosophers somewhat-dark. I continue to lean-toward reading the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal while listening to Bach and Buxtehude in the Context of Nature as a pragmatic-path to useable-truth. The alternative-media bashes the mainstream-media, but which media is more-likely to place one in an insane-asylum?? I keep warning people that my threads are for seasoned-researchers ONLY, and NOT for the general-public. My stuff is a weird-potpourri of high-strangeness which alphabet-agencies and secret-societies might passively-follow to make-sure I don't become a Pain in Uranus. A lot of this madness is so sad that it's actually funny. A few alphabet-interns have probably died laughing. Should I write a book?? David Wilcock claims he doesn't make enough money with his best-selling books to survive, so why should I bother writing some stupid-book no-one will read?? Anyway, here is a scholarly-treatment of 'existentialism'. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existentialism/
Existentialism
First published Mon Aug 23, 2004; substantive revision Mon Mar 9, 2015
Like “rationalism” and “empiricism,” “existentialism” is a term that belongs to intellectual history. Its definition is thus to some extent one of historical convenience. The term was explicitly adopted as a self-description by Jean-Paul Sartre, and through the wide dissemination of the postwar literary and philosophical output of Sartre and his associates—notably Simone de Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Albert Camus—existentialism became identified with a cultural movement that flourished in Europe in the 1940s and 1950s. Among the major philosophers identified as existentialists (many of whom—for instance Camus and Heidegger—repudiated the label) were Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger, and Martin Buber in Germany, Jean Wahl and Gabriel Marcel in France, the Spaniards José Ortega y Gasset and Miguel de Unamuno, and the Russians Nikolai Berdyaev and Lev Shestov. The nineteenth century philosophers, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, came to be seen as precursors of the movement. Existentialism was as much a literary phenomenon as a philosophical one. Sartre's own ideas were and are better known through his fictional works (such as Nausea and No Exit) than through his more purely philosophical ones (such as Being and Nothingness and Critique of Dialectical Reason), and the postwar years found a very diverse coterie of writers and artists linked under the term: retrospectively, Dostoevsky, Ibsen, and Kafka were conscripted; in Paris there were Jean Genet, André Gide, André Malraux, and the expatriate Samuel Beckett; the Norwegian Knut Hamsun and the Romanian Eugene Ionesco belong to the club; artists such as Alberto Giacometti and even Abstract Expressionists such as Jackson Pollock, Arshile Gorky, and Willem de Kooning, and filmmakers such as Jean-Luc Godard and Ingmar Bergman were understood in existential terms. By the mid 1970s the cultural image of existentialism had become a cliché, parodized in countless books and films by Woody Allen.
It is sometimes suggested, therefore, that existentialism just is this bygone cultural movement rather than an identifiable philosophical position; or, alternatively, that the term should be restricted to Sartre's philosophy alone. But while a philosophical definition of existentialism may not entirely ignore the cultural fate of the term, and while Sartre's thought must loom large in any account of existentialism, the concept does pick out a distinctive cluster of philosophical problems and helpfully identifies a relatively distinct current of twentieth- and now twenty-first-century philosophical inquiry, one that has had significant impact on fields such as theology (through Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, and others) and psychology (from Ludwig Binswanger and Medard Boss to Otto Rank, R. D. Laing, and Viktor Frankl). What makes this current of inquiry distinct is not its concern with “existence” in general, but rather its claim that thinking about human existence requires new categories not found in the conceptual repertoire of ancient or modern thought; human beings can be understood neither as substances with fixed properties, nor as subjects interacting with a world of objects.
On the existential view, to understand what a human being is it is not enough to know all the truths that natural science—including the science of psychology—could tell us. The dualist who holds that human beings are composed of independent substances—“mind” and “body”—is no better off in this regard than is the physicalist, who holds that human existence can be adequately explained in terms of the fundamental physical constituents of the universe. Existentialism does not deny the validity of the basic categories of physics, biology, psychology, and the other sciences (categories such as matter, causality, force, function, organism, development, motivation, and so on). It claims only that human beings cannot be fully understood in terms of them. Nor can such an understanding be gained by supplementing our scientific picture with a moral one. Categories of moral theory such as intention, blame, responsibility, character, duty, virtue, and the like do capture important aspects of the human condition, but neither moral thinking (governed by the norms of the good and the right) nor scientific thinking (governed by the norm of truth) suffices.
“Existentialism”, therefore, may be defined as the philosophical theory which holds that a further set of categories, governed by the norm of authenticity, is necessary to grasp human existence. To approach existentialism in this categorial way may seem to conceal what is often taken to be its “heart” (Kaufmann 1968: 12), namely, its character as a gesture of protest against academic philosophy, its anti-system sensibility, its flight from the “iron cage” of reason. But while it is true that the major existential philosophers wrote with a passion and urgency rather uncommon in our own time, and while the idea that philosophy cannot be practiced in the disinterested manner of an objective science is indeed central to existentialism, it is equally true that all the themes popularly associated with existentialism—dread, boredom, alienation, the absurd, freedom, commitment, nothingness, and so on—find their philosophical significance in the context of the search for a new categorial framework, together with its governing norm.
1. The Emergence of Existence as a Philosophical Problem 1.1 Kierkegaard: “The Single Individual” 1.2 Nietzsche and Nihilism 2. “Existence Precedes Essence” 2.1 Facticity and Transcendence 2.2 Alienation 2.3 Authenticity 3. Freedom and Value 3.1 Anxiety, Nothingness, the Absurd 3.2 The Ideality of Values 4. Politics, History, Engagement 4.1 Heidegger: History as Claim 4.2 Sartre: Existentialism and Marxism 5. Existentialism Today
1. The Emergence of Existence as a Philosophical Problem
Sartre's existentialism drew its immediate inspiration from the work of the German philosopher, Martin Heidegger. Heidegger's 1927 Being and Time, an inquiry into the “being that we ourselves are” (which he termed “Dasein,” a German word for existence), introduced most of the motifs that would characterize later existentialist thinking: the tension between the individual and the “public”; an emphasis on the worldly or “situated” character of human thought and reason; a fascination with liminal experiences of anxiety, death, the “nothing” and nihilism; the rejection of science (and above all, causal explanation) as an adequate framework for understanding human being; and the introduction of “authenticity” as the norm of self-identity, tied to the project of self-definition through freedom, choice, and commitment. Though in 1946 Heidegger would repudiate the retrospective labelling of his earlier work as existentialism, it is in that work that the relevant concept of existence finds its first systematic philosophical formulation.[1]
As Sartre and Merleau-Ponty would later do, Heidegger pursued these issues with the somewhat unlikely resources of Edmund Husserl's phenomenological method. And while not all existential philosophers were influenced by phenomenology (for instance Jaspers and Marcel), the philosophical legacy of existentialism is largely tied to the form it took as an existential version of phenomenology. Husserl's efforts in the first decades of the twentieth century had been directed toward establishing a descriptive science of consciousness, by which he understood not the object of the natural science of psychology but the “transcendental” field of intentionality, i.e., that whereby our experience is meaningful, an experience of something as something. The existentialists welcomed Husserl's doctrine of intentionality as a refutation of the Cartesian view according to which consciousness relates immediately only to its own representations, ideas, sensations. According to Husserl, consciousness is our direct openness to the world, one that is governed categorially (normatively) rather than causally; that is, intentionality is not a property of the individual mind but the categorial framework in which mind and world become intelligible.[2]
A phenomenology of consciousness, then, explores neither the metaphysical composition nor the causal genesis of things, but the “constitution” of their meaning. Husserl employed this method to clarify our experience of nature, the socio-cultural world, logic, and mathematics, but Heidegger argued that he had failed to raise the most fundamental question, that of the “meaning of being” as such. In turning phenomenology toward the question of what it means to be, Heidegger insists that the question be raised concretely: it is not at first some academic exercise but a burning concern arising from life itself, the question of what it means for me to be. Existential themes take on salience when one sees that the general question of the meaning of being involves first becoming clear about one's own being as an inquirer. According to Heidegger, the categories bequeathed by the philosophical tradition for understanding a being who can question his or her being are insufficient: traditional concepts of a substance decked out with reason, or of a subject blessed with self-consciousness, misconstrue our fundamental character as “being-in-the-world.” In his phenomenological pursuit of the categories that govern being-in-the-world, Heidegger became the reluctant father of existentialism because he drew inspiration from two seminal, though in academic circles then relatively unknown, nineteenth-century writers, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche. One can find anticipations of existential thought in many places (for instance, in Socratic irony, Augustine, Pascal, or the late Schelling), but the roots of the problem of existence in its contemporary significance lie in the work of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
1.1 Kierkegaard: “The Single Individual”
Kierkegaard developed this problem in the context of his radical approach to Christian faith; Nietzsche did so in light of his thesis of the death of God. Subsequent existential thought reflects this difference: while some writers—such as Sartre and Beauvoir—were resolutely atheist in outlook, others—such as Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, and Buber—variously explored the implications of the concept “authentic existence” for religious consciousness. Though neither Nietzsche's nor Kierkegaard's thought can be reduced to a single strand, both took an interest in what Kierkegaard termed “the single individual.” Both were convinced that this singularity, what is most my own, “me,” could be meaningfully reflected upon while yet, precisely because of its singularity, remain invisible to traditional philosophy, with its emphasis either on what follows unerring objective laws of nature or else conforms to the universal standards of moral reason. A focus on existence thus led, in both, to unique textual strategies quite alien to the philosophy of their time.
In Kierkegaard, the singularity of existence comes to light at the moment of conflict between ethics and religious faith. Suppose it is my sense of doing God's will that makes my life meaningful. How does philosophy conceive this meaning? Drawing here on Hegel as emblematic of the entire tradition, Kierkegaard, in his book Fear and Trembling, argues that for philosophy my life becomes meaningful when I “raise myself to the universal” by bringing my immediate (natural) desires and inclinations under the moral law, which represents my “telos” or what I ought to be. In doing so I lose my individuality (since the law holds for all) but my actions become meaningful in the sense of understandable, governed by a norm. Now a person whose sense of doing God's will is what gives her life meaning will be intelligible just to the extent that her action conforms to the universal dictates of ethics. But what if, as in case of Abraham's sacrifice of his son, the action contradicts what ethics demands? Kierkegaard[3] believes both that Abraham's life is supremely meaningful (it is not simply a matter of some immediate desire or meaningless tic that overcomes Abraham's ethical consciousness; on the contrary, doing the moral thing is itself in this case his tempting inclination) and that philosophy cannot understand it, thus condemning it in the name of ethics. God's command here cannot be seen as a law that would pertain to all; it addresses Abraham in his singularity. If Abraham's life is meaningful, it represents, from a philosophical point of view, the “paradox” that through faith the “single individual is higher than the universal.” Existence as a philosophical problem appears at this point: if there is a dimension to my being that is both meaningful and yet not governed by the rational standard of morality, by what standard is it governed? For unless there is some standard it is idle to speak of “meaning.”
To solve this problem there must be a norm inherent in singularity itself, and, in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Kierkegaard tries to express such a norm in his claim that “subjectivity is the truth,” an idea that prefigures the existential concept of authenticity. Abraham has no objective reason to think that the command he hears comes from God; indeed, based on the content of the command he has every reason, as Kant pointed out in Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, to think that it cannot come from God. His sole justification is what Kierkegaard calls the passion of faith. Such faith is, rationally speaking, absurd, a “leap,” so if there is to be any talk of truth here it is a standard that measures not the content of Abraham's act, but the way in which he accomplishes it. To perform the movement of faith “subjectively” is to embrace the paradox as normative for me in spite of its absurdity, rather than to seek an escape from it by means of objective textual exegesis, historical criticism, or some other strategy for translating the singularity of my situation into the universal. Because my reason cannot help here, the normative appropriation is a function of my “inwardness” or passion. In this way I “truly” become what I nominally already am. To say that subjectivity is the truth is to highlight a way of being, then, and not a mode of knowing; truth measures the attitude (“passion”) with which I appropriate, or make my own, an “objective uncertainty” (the voice of God) in a “process of highest inwardness.”
In contrast to the singularity of this movement, for Kierkegaard, stands the crowd: “the crowd is untruth.” The crowd is, roughly, public opinion in the widest sense—the ideas that a given age takes for granted; the ordinary and accepted way of doing things; the complacent attitude that comes from the conformity necessary for social life—and what condemns it to “untruth” in Kierkegaard's eyes is the way that it insinuates itself into an individual's own sense of who she is, relieving her of the burden of being herself: if everyone is a Christian there is no need for me to “become” one. Since it is a measure not of knowing but of being, one can see how Kierkegaard answers those who object that his concept of subjectivity as truth is based on an equivocation: the objective truths of science and history, however well-established, are in themselves matters of indifference; they belong to the crowd. It is not insofar as truth can be established objectively that it takes on meaning, but rather insofar as it is appropriated “passionately” in its very uncertainty. To “exist” is always to be confronted with this question of meaning. The truths that matter to who one is cannot, like Descartes' morale definitif, be something to be attained only when objective science has completed its task.
1.2 Nietzsche and Nihilism
For Kierkegaard existence emerges as a philosophical problem in the struggle to think the paradoxical presence of God; for Nietzsche it is found in the reverberations of the phrase “God is dead,” in the challenge of nihilism.
Responding in part to the cultural situation in nineteenth-century Europe—historical scholarship continuing to erode fundamentalist readings of the Bible, the growing cultural capital of the natural sciences, and Darwinism in particular—and in part driven by his own investigations into the psychology and history of moral concepts, Nietzsche sought to draw the consequences of the death of God, the collapse of any theistic support for morality. Like his contemporary, Fyodor Dostoevsky, whose character, Ivan, in The Brothers Karamazov, famously argues that if God does not exist then everything is permitted, Nietzsche's overriding concern is to find a way to take the measure of human life in the modern world. Unlike Dostoevsky, however, Nietzsche sees a complicity between morality and the Christian God that perpetuates a life-denying, and so ultimately nihilistic, stance. Nietzsche was not the first to de-couple morality from its divine sanction; psychological theories of the moral sentiments, developed since the eighteenth century, provided a purely human account of moral normativity. But while these earlier theories had been offered as justifications of the normative force of morality, Nietzsche's idea that behind moral prescriptions lies nothing but “will to power” undermined that authority. On the account given in On the Genealogy of Morals, the Judeo-Christian moral order arose as an expression of the ressentiment of the weak against the power exercised over them by the strong. A tool used to thwart that power, it had over time become internalized in the form of conscience, creating a “sick” animal whose will is at war with its own vital instincts. Thus Nietzsche arrived at Kierkegaard's idea that “the crowd is untruth”: the so-called autonomous, self-legislating individual is nothing but a herd animal that has trained itself to docility and unfreedom by conforming to the “universal” standards of morality. The normative is nothing but the normal.
Yet this is not the end of the story for Nietzsche, any more than it was for Kierkegaard. If the autonomous individual has so far signified nothing but herd mentality—if moral norms arose precisely to produce such conformists—the individual nevertheless has the potential to become something else, the sick animal is “pregnant with a future.” Nietzsche saw that in the nineteenth century the “highest values” had begun to “devalue themselves.” For instance, the Christian value of truth-telling, institutionalized in the form of science, had undermined the belief in God, disenchanting the world and excluding from it any pre-given moral meaning. In such a situation the individual is forced back upon himself. On the one hand, if he is weakly constituted he may fall victim to despair in the face of nihilism, the recognition that life has no instrinsic meaning. On the other hand, for a “strong” or creative individual nihilism presents a liberating opportunity to take responsibility for meaning, to exercise creativity by “transvaluing” her values, establishing a new “order of rank.” Through his prophet, Zarathustra, Nietzsche imagined such a person as the “overman” (Übermensch), the one who teaches “the meaning of the earth” and has no need of otherworldly supports for the values he embodies. The overman represents a form of life, a mode of existence, that is to blossom from the communalized, moralized “last man” of the nineteenth century. He has understood that nihilism is the ultimate meaning of the moral point of view, its life-denying essence, and he reconfigures the moral idea of autonomy so as to release the life-affirming potential within it.
Thus, for Nietzsche, existence emerges as a philosophical problem in his distinction between moral autonomy (as obedience to the moral law) and an autonomy “beyond good and evil.” But if one is to speak of autonomy, meaning, and value at all, the mode of being beyond good and evil cannot simply be a lawless state of arbitrary and impulsive behavior. If such existence is to be thinkable there must be a standard by which success or failure can be measured. Nietzsche variously indicates such a standard in his references to “health,” “strength,” and “the meaning of the earth.” Perhaps his most instructive indication, however, comes from aesthetics, since its concept of style, as elaborated in The Gay Science, provides a norm appropriate to the singularity of existence. To say that a work of art has style is to invoke a standard for judging it, but one that cannot be specified in the form of a general law of which the work would be a mere instance. Rather, in a curious way, the norm is internal to the work. For Nietzsche, existence falls under such an imperative of style: to create meaning and value in a world from which all transcendent supports have fallen away is to give unique shape to one's immediate inclinations, drives, and passions; to interpret, prune, and enhance according to a unifying sensibility, a ruling instinct, that brings everything into a whole that satisfies the non-conceptual, aesthetic norm of what fits, what belongs, what is appropriate.
As did Kierkegaard, then, Nietzsche uncovers an aspect of my being that can be understood neither in terms of immediate drives and inclinations nor in terms of a universal law of behavior, an aspect that is measured not in terms of an objective inventory of what I am but in terms of my way of being it. Neither Kierkegaard nor Nietzsche, however, developed this insight in a fully systematic way. That would be left to their twentieth-century heirs.
2. “Existence Precedes Essence”
Sartre's slogan—“existence precedes essence”—may serve to introduce what is most distinctive of existentialism, namely, the idea that no general, non-formal account of what it means to be human can be given, since that meaning is decided in and through existing itself. Existence is “self-making-in-a-situation” (Fackenheim 1961: 37). In contrast to other entities, whose essential properties are fixed by the kind of entities they are, what is essential to a human being—what makes her who she is—is not fixed by her type but by what she makes of herself, who she becomes.[4] The fundamental contribution of existential thought lies in the idea that one's identity is constituted neither by nature nor by culture, since to “exist” is precisely to constitute such an identity. It is in light of this idea that key existential notions such as facticity, transcendence (project), alienation, and authenticity must be understood.
At first, it seems hard to understand how one can say much about existence as such. Traditionally, philosophers have connected the concept of existence with that of essence in such a way that the former signifies merely the instantiation of the latter. If “essence” designates what a thing is and “existence” that it is, it follows that what is intelligible about any given thing, what can be thought about it, will belong to its essence. It is from essence in this sense—say, human being as rational animal or imago Dei—that ancient philosophy drew its prescriptions for an individual's way of life, its estimation of the meaning and value of existence. Having an essence meant that human beings could be placed within a larger whole, a kosmos, that provided the standard for human flourishing. Modern philosophy retained this framework even as it abandoned the idea of a “natural place” for man in the face of the scientific picture of an infinite, labyrinthine universe. In what looks like a proto-existential move, Descartes rejected the traditional essential definitions of man in favor of a radical, first-person reflection on his own existence, the “I am.” Nevertheless, he quickly reinstated the old model by characterizing his existence as that of a substance determined by an essential property, “thinking.” In contrast, Heidegger proposes that “I” am “an entity whose what [essence] is precisely to be and nothing but to be” (Heidegger 1985: 110; 1962: 67). Such an entity's existing cannot, therefore, be thought as the instantiation of an essence, and consequently what it means to be such an entity cannot be determined by appeal to pre-given frameworks or systems—whether scientific, historical, or philosophical.
2.1 Facticity and Transcendence
Of course, there is a sense in which human beings do instantiate essences, as Heidegger's phrase already admits.[5] But what matters for existential thought is the manner of such instantiation, the way of existing. What this means can be seen by contrasting human existence with the modes of being Heidegger terms the “available” (or “ready-to-hand,” zuhanden) and the “occurrent” (or “present-at-hand,” vorhanden). Entities of the first sort, exemplified by tools as they present themselves in use, are defined by the social practices in which they are employed, and their properties are established in relation to the norms of those practices. A saw is sharp, for instance, in relation to what counts as successful cutting. Entities of the second sort, exemplified by objects of perceptual contemplation or scientific investigation, are defined by the norms governing perceptual givenness or scientific theory-construction. An available or occurrent entity instantiates some property if that property is truly predicated of it. Human beings can be considered in this way as well. However, in contrast to the previous cases, the fact that natural and social properties can truly be predicated of human beings is not sufficient to determine what it is for me to be a human being. This, the existentialists argue, is because such properties are never merely brute determinations of who I am but are always in question. Who I am depends on what I make of my “properties”; they matter to me in a way that is impossible for merely available and occurrent entities. As Heidegger puts it, existence is “care” (Sorge): to exist is not simply to be, but to be an issue for oneself. In Sartre's terms, while other entities exist “in themselves” (en soi) and “are what they are,” human reality is also “for itself” (pour soi) and thus is not exhausted by any of its determinations. It is what it is not and is not what it is (Sartre 1992: 112).
Human existence, then, cannot be thought through categories appropriate to things: substance, event, process. There is something of an internal distinction in existence that undermines such attempts, a distinction that existential philosophers try to capture in the categories of “facticity” and “transcendence.” To be is to co-ordinate these opposed moments in some way, and who I am, my essence, is nothing but my manner of co-ordinating them. In this sense human beings make themselves in situation: what I am cannot be separated from what I take myself to be. In Charles Taylor's phrase, human beings are “self-interpreting animals” (Taylor 1985: 45), where the interpretation is constitutive of the interpreter. If such a view is not to collapse into contradiction the notions of facticity and transcendence must be elucidated. Risking some oversimplification, they can be approached as the correlates of the two attitudes I can take toward myself: the attitude of third-person theoretical observer and the attitude of first-person practical agent.
Facticity includes all those properties that third-person investigation can establish about me: natural properties such as weight, height, and skin color; social facts such as race, class, and nationality; psychological properties such as my web of belief, desires, and character traits; historical facts such as my past actions, my family background, and my broader historical milieu; and so on.[6] I am not originally aware of my facticity in this third-person way; rather, it is manifest in my moods as a kind of burden, the weight of “having to be.” However, I can adopt a third-person or objectifying stance toward my own being, and then these aspects of my facticity may appear precisely as that which defines or determines who I am. From an existential point of view, however, this would be an error—not because these aspects of my being are not real or factual, but because the kind of being that I am cannot be defined in factual, or third-person, terms.[7] These elements of facticity cannot be said to belong to me in the way that the color of an apple belongs to the apple, for as belonging to me, as “determining” me, they have always already been interpreted by me. Though third-person observation can identify skin color, class, or ethnicity, the minute it seeks to identify them as mine it must contend with the distinctive character of the existence I possess. There is no sense in which facticity is both mine and merely a matter of fact, since my existence—the kind of being I am—is also defined by the stance I take toward my facticity. This is what existential philosophers call “transcendence.”
Transcendence refers to that attitude toward myself characteristic of my practical engagement in the world, the agent's perspective. An agent is oriented by the task at hand as something to be brought about through its own will or agency. Such orientation does not take itself as a theme but loses itself in what is to be done. Thereby, things present themselves not as indifferent givens, facts, but as meaningful: salient, expedient, obstructive, and so on. To speak of “transcendence” here is to indicate that the agent “goes beyond” what simply is toward what can be: the factual—including the agent's own properties—always emerges in light of the possible, where the possible is not a function of anonymous forces (third-person or logical possibility) but a function of the agent's choice and decision.[8] Just as this suddenly empty pen is either a nettlesome impediment to my finishing this article, or a welcome occasion for doing something else, depending on how I determine my behavior in relation to it, so too my own factic properties—such as irrascibility, laziness, or bourgeois workaholism—take on meaning (become functioning reasons) on the basis of how I endorse or disavow them in the present action.
Existentialists tend to describe the perspective of engaged agency in terms of “choice,” and they are sometimes criticized for this. It may be—the argument runs—that I can be said to choose a course of action at the conclusion of a process of deliberation, but there seems to be no choice involved when, in the heat of the moment, I toss the useless pen aside in frustration. Can its being useless be traced back to my “choice” to be frustrated? But the point in using such language is simply to insist that in the first-person perspective of agency I cannot conceive myself as determined by anything that is available to me only in third-person terms. Behind the existentialist's insistence that facticity and transcendence remain irreducible aspects of one and the same being is the insight that, for a being who can say “I,” the third-person perspective on who one is has no more authority than the first-person (agent's) perspective.[9]
Because existence is co-constituted by facticity and transcendence, the self cannot be conceived as a Cartesian ego but is embodied being-in-the-world, a self-making in situation. It is through transcendence—or what the existentialists also refer to as my “projects”—that the world is revealed, takes on meaning; but such projects are themselves factic or “situated”—not the product of some antecedently constituted “person” or intelligible character but embedded in a world that is decidedly not my representation. Because my projects are who I am in the mode of engaged agency (and not like plans that I merely represent to myself in reflective deliberation), the world in a certain sense reveals to me who I am. For reasons to be explored in the next section, the meaning of my choice is not always transparent to me. Nevertheless, because it necessarily reveals the world in a certain way, that meaning, my own “identity,” can be discovered by what Sartre calls “existential psychoanalysis.” By understanding an individual's patterns of behavior—that is, by reconstructing the meaningful world that such behavior reveals—one can uncover the “fundamental project” or basic choice of oneself that gives distinctive shape to an individual life. Existential psychoanalysis represents a kind of compromise between the first- and third-person perspectives: like the latter, it objectifies the person and treats its open-ended practical horizons as in a certain sense closed; like the former, however, it seeks to understand the choices from the inside, to grasp the identity of the individual as a matter of the first-person meaning that haunts him, rather than as a function of inert psychic mechanisms with which the individual has no acquaintance.[10]
2.2 Alienation
The anti-Cartesian view of the self as in situation yields the familiar existential theme of the “alienated” self, the estrangement of the self both from the world and from itself. In the first place, though it is through my projects that world takes on meaning, the world itself is not brought into being through my projects; it retains its otherness and thus can come forth as utterly alien, as unheimlich. Sometimes translated as “uncanny,” this Heideggerian word's stem (Heim, “home”) points, instead, to the strangeness of a world in which I precisely do not feel “at home.” (see the section on The Ideality of Values below). This experience, basic to existential thought, contrasts most sharply with the ancient notion of a kosmos in which human beings have a well-ordered place, and it connects existential thought tightly to the modern experience of a meaningless universe.
In the second place, the world includes other people, and as a consequence I am not merely the revealer of the world but something revealed in the projects of those others. Thus who I am is not merely a function of my own projects, but is also a matter of my “being-for-others.” Sartre (1992: 340-58) brings out this form of alienation in his famous analysis of “the Look.” So long as I am engaged unreflectively in a certain practice I am nothing but that first-person perspective which constitutes things as having a distinctive salience in light of what I am doing. I am absorbed in the world and do not experience myself as having an “outside”; that is, I do not understand my action through some third-person description, as an instance of some general behavior. However, when I become aware of being looked at (that is, when my subjectivity is invaded by the subjectivity of another for whom I am merely part of the world, an item for her projects ), I become aware of having a “nature,” a “character,” of being or doing something. I am not merely looking through a keyhole; I am a voyeur. I cannot originally experience myself as something—a voyeur, for instance. Only the other can give rise to this mode of my being, a mode that I acknowledge as mine (and not merely the other's opinion of me) in the shame in which I register it. It is because there are others in the world that I can take a third-person perspective on myself; but this reveals the extent to which I am alienated from a dimension of my being: who I am in an objective sense can be originally revealed only by the Other. This has implications for existential social theory (see the section on Sartre: Existentialism and Marxism below).
Finally, the self-understanding, or project, thanks to which the world is there for me in a meaningful way, already belongs to that world, derives from it, from the tradition or society in which I find myself. Though it is “me,” it is not me “as my own.” My very engagement in the world alienates me from my authentic possibility. This theme is brought out most clearly by Heidegger: the anti-Cartesian idea that the self is defined first of all by its practical engagement entails that this self is not properly individual but rather indisinguishable from anyone else (das Man) who engages in such practices: such a “they-self” does what “one” does. The idea is something like this: Practices can allow things to show up as meaningful—as hammers, dollar bills, or artworks—because practices involve aims that carry with them norms, satisfaction conditions, for what shows up in them. But norms and rules, as Wittgenstein has shown, are essentially public, and that means that when I engage in practices I must be essentially interchangeable with anyone else who does: I eat as one eats; I drive as one drives; I even protest as one protests. To the extent that my activity is to be an instance of such a practice, I must do it in the normal way. Deviations can be recognized as deviations only against this norm, and if they deviate too far they can't be recognized at all.[11] Thus, if who I am is defined through existing, this “who” is normally pre-defined by what is average, by the roles available to me in my culture, and so on. The “I” that gets defined is thereby “anonymous,” or “anyone”; self-making is largely a function of not distinguishing myself from others.
If there is nevertheless good sense in talking of the singularity of my existence, it will not be something with which one starts but something that gets achieved in recovering oneself from alienation or lostness in the “crowd.” If the normative is first of all the normal, however, it might seem that talk about a norm for the singularity of existence, a standard for thinking about what is my ownmost just as I myself, would be incoherent. It is here that the idea of “authenticity” must come into focus.
2.3 Authenticity
By what standard are we to think our efforts “to be,” our manner of being a self? If such standards traditionally derive from the essence that a particular thing instantiates—this hammer is a good one if it instantiates what a hammer is supposed to be—and if there is nothing that a human being is, by its essence, supposed to be, can the meaning of existence at all be thought? Existentialism arises with the collapse of the idea that philosophy can provide substantive norms for existing, ones that specify particular ways of life. Nevertheless, there remains the distinction between what I do “as” myself and as “anyone,” so in this sense existing is something at which I can succeed or fail. Authenticity—in German, Eigentlichkeit—names that attitude in which I engage in my projects as my own (eigen).
What this means can perhaps be brought out by considering moral evaluations. In keeping my promise I act in accord with duty; and if I keep it because it is my duty, I also act morally (according to Kant) because I am acting for the sake of duty. But existentially there is still a further evaluation to be made. My moral act is inauthentic if, in keeping my promise for the sake of duty, I do so because that is what “one” does (what “moral people” do). But I can do the same thing authentically if, in keeping my promise for the sake of duty, acting this way is something I choose as my own, something to which, apart from its social sanction, I commit myself. Similarly, doing the right thing from a fixed and stable character—which virtue ethics considers a condition of the good—is not beyond the reach of existential evaluation: such character may simply be a product of my tendency to “do what one does,” including feeling “the right way” about things and betaking myself in appropriate ways as one is expected to do. But such character might also be a reflection of my choice of myself, a commitment I make to be a person of this sort. In both cases I have succeeded in being good; only in the latter case, however, have I succeeded in being myself.[12]
Thus the norm of authenticity refers to a kind of “transparency” with regard to my situation, a recognition that I am a being who can be responsible for who I am. In choosing in light of this norm I can be said to recover myself from alienation, from my absorption in the anonymous “one-self” that characterizes me in my everyday engagement in the world. Authenticity thus indicates a certain kind of integrity—not that of a pre-given whole, an identity waiting to be discovered, but that of a project to which I can either commit myself (and thus “become” what it entails) or else simply occupy for a time, inauthentically drifting in and out of various affairs. Some writers have taken this notion a step further, arguing that the measure of an authentic life lies in the integrity of a narrative, that to be a self is to constitute a story in which a kind of wholeness prevails, to be the author of oneself as a unique individual (Nehamas 1998; Ricoeur 1992). In contrast, the inauthentic life would be one without such integrity, one in which I allow my life-story to be dictated by the world. Be that as it may, it is clear that one can commit oneself to a life of chamealeon-like variety, as does Don Juan in Kierkegaard's version of the legend. Even interpreted narratively, then, the norm of authenticity remains a formal one. As with Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith, one cannot tell who is authentic by looking at the content of their lives.[13]
Authenticity defines a condition on self-making: do I succeed in making myself, or will who I am merely be a function of the roles I find myself in? Thus to be authentic can also be thought as a way of being autonomous. In choosing “resolutely”—that is, in commiting myself to a certain course of action, a certain way of being in the world—I have given myself the rule that belongs to the role I come to adopt. The inauthentic person, in contrast, merely occupies such a role, and may do so “irresolutely,” without commitment. Being a father authentically does not necessarily make me a better father, but what it means to be a father has become explicitly my concern. It is here that existentialism locates the singularity of existence and identifies what is irreducible in the first-person stance. At the same time, authenticity does not hold out some specific way of life as a norm; that is, it does not distinguish between the projects that I might choose. Instead, it governs the manner in which I am engaged in such projects—either as “my own” or as “what one does,” transparently or opaquely.
Thus existentialism's focus on authenticity leads to a distinctive stance toward ethics and value-theory generally. The possibility of authenticity is a mark of my freedom, and it is through freedom that existentialism approaches questions of value, leading to many of its most recognizable doctrines.
3. Freedom and Value
Existentialism did not develop much in the way of a normative ethics; however, a certain approach to the theory of value and to moral psychology, deriving from the idea of existence as self-making in situation, are distinctive marks of the existentialist tradition. In value theory, existentialists tend to emphasize the conventionality or groundlessness of values, their “ideality,” the fact that they arise entirely through the projects of human beings against the background of an otherwise meaningless and indifferent world. Existential moral psychology emphasizes human freedom and focuses on the sources of mendacity, self-deception, and hypocrisy in moral consciousness. The familiar existential themes of anxiety, nothingness, and the absurd must be understood in this context. At the same time, there is deep concern to foster an authentic stance toward the human, groundless, values without which no project is possible, a concern that gets expressed in the notions of “engagement” and “commitment.”[14]
3.1 Anxiety, Nothingness, the Absurd
As a predicate of existence, the concept of freedom is not initially established on the basis of arguments against determinism; nor is it, in Kantian fashion, taken simply as a given of practical self-consciousness. Rather, it is located in the breakdown of direct practical activity. The “evidence” of freedom is a matter neither of theoretical nor of practical consciousness but arises from the self-understanding that accompanies a certain mood into which I may fall, namely, anxiety (Angst, angoisse). Both Heidegger and Sartre believe that phenomenological analysis of the kind of intentionality that belongs to moods does not merely register a passing modification of the psyche but reveals fundamental aspects of the self. Fear, for instance, reveals some region of the world as threatening, some element in it as a threat, and myself as vulnerable. In anxiety, as in fear, I grasp myself as threatened or as vulnerable; but unlike fear, anxiety has no direct object, there is nothing in the world that is threatening. This is because anxiety pulls me altogether out of the circuit of those projects thanks to which things are there for me in meaningful ways; I can no longer “gear into” the world. And with this collapse of my practical immersion in roles and projects, I also lose the basic sense of who I am that is provided by these roles. In thus robbing me of the possibility of practical self-identification, anxiety teaches me that I do not coincide with anything that I factically am. Further, since the identity bound up with such roles and practices is always typical and public, the collapse of this identity reveals an ultimately first-personal aspect of myself that is irreducible to das Man. As Heidegger puts it, anxiety testifies to a kind of “existential solipsism.” It is this reluctant, because disorienting and dispossessing, retreat into myself in anxiety that yields the existential figure of the outsider, the isolated one who “sees through” the phoniness of those who, unaware of what the breakdown of anxiety portends, live their lives complacently identifying with their roles as though these roles thoroughly defined them. While this “outsider” stance may be easy to ridicule as adolescent self-absorption, it is also solidly supported by the phenomenology (or moral psychology) of first-person experience.
The experience of anxiety also yields the existential theme of the absurd, a version of what was previously introduced as alienation from the world (see the section on Alienation above). So long as I am gearing into the world practically, in a seamless and absorbed way, things present themselves as meaningfully co-ordinated with the projects in which I am engaged; they show me the face that is relevant to what I am doing. But the connection between these meanings and my projects is not itself something that I experience. Rather, the hammer's usefulness, its value as a hammer, appears simply to belong to it in the same way that its weight or color does. So long as I am practically engaged, in short, all things appear to have reasons for being, and I, correlatively, experience myself as fully at home in the world. The world has an order that is largely transparent to me (even its mysteries are grasped simply as something for which there are reasons that are there “for others,” for “experts,” merely beyond my limited horizon). In the mood of anxiety, however, it is just this character that fades from the world. Because I am no longer practically engaged, the meaning that had previously inhabited the thing as the density of its being now stares back at me as a mere name, as something I “know” but which no longer claims me. As when one repeats a word until it loses meaning, anxiety undermines the taken-for-granted sense of things. They become absurd. Things do not disappear, but all that remains of them is the blank recognition that they are—an experience that informs a central scene in Sartre's novel Nausea. As Roquentin sits in a park, the root of a tree loses its character of familiarity until he is overcome by nausea at its utterly alien character, its being en soi. While such an experience is no more genuine than my practical, engaged experience of a world of meaning, it is no less genuine either. An existential account of meaning and value must recognize both possibilities (and their intermediaries). To do so is to acknowledge a certain absurdity to existence: though reason and value have a foothold in the world (they are not, after all, my arbitrary invention), they nevertheless lack any ultimate foundation. Values are not intrinsic to being, and at some point reasons give out.[15]
Another term for the groundlessness of the world of meaning is “nothingness.” Heidegger introduced this term to indicate the kind of self- and world-understanding that emerges in anxiety: because my practical identity is constituted by the practices I engage in, when these collapse I “am” not anything. In a manner of speaking I am thus brought face-to-face with my own finitude, my “death” as the possibility in which I am no longer able to be anything. This experience of my own death, or “nothingness,” in anxiety can act as a spur to authenticity: I come to see that I “am” not anything but must “make myself be” through my choice. In commiting myself in the face of death—that is, aware of the nothingness of my identity if not supported by me right up to the end—the roles that I have hitherto thoughtlessly engaged in as one does now become something that I myself own up to, become responsible for. Heidegger termed this mode of self-awareness—awareness of the ultimate nothingness of my practical identity—“freedom,” and Sartre developed this existential concept of freedom in rich detail. This is not to say that Heidegger's and Sartre's views on freedom are identical. Heidegger, for instance, will emphasize that freedom is always “thrown” into an historical situation from which it draws its possibilities, while Sartre (who is equally aware of the “facticity” of our choices) will emphasize that such “possibilities” nevertheless underdetermine choice. But the theory of radical freedom that Sartre develops is nevertheless directly rooted in Heidegger's account of the nothingness of my practical identity.
Sartre (1992: 70) argues that anxiety provides a lucid experience of that freedom which, though often concealed, characterizes human existence as such. For him, freedom is the dislocation of consciousness from its object, the fundamental “nihilation” or negation by means of which consciousness can grasp its object without losing itself in it: to be conscious of something is to be conscious of not being it, a “not” that arises in the very structure of consciousness as being for-itself. Because “nothingness” (or nihilation) is just what consciousness is, there can be no objects in consciousness, but only objects for consciousness.[16] This means that consciousness is radically free, since its structure precludes that it either contain or be acted on by things. For instance, because it is not thing-like, consciousness is free with regard to its own prior states. Motives, instincts, psychic forces, and the like cannot be understood as inhabitants of consciousness that might infect freedom from within, inducing one to act in ways for which one is not responsible; rather, they can exist only for consciousness as matters of choice. I must either reject their claims or avow them. For Sartre, the ontological freedom of existence entails that determinism is an excuse before it is a theory: though through its structure of nihilation consciousness escapes that which would define it—including its own past choices and behavior—there are times when I may wish to deny my freedom. Thus I may attempt to constitute these aspects of my being as objective “forces” which hold sway over me in the manner of relations between things. This is to adopt the third-person stance on myself, in which what is originally structured in terms of freedom appears as a causal property of myself. I can try to look upon myself as the Other does, but as an excuse this flight from freedom is shown to fail, according to Sartre, in the experience of anguish.
For instance, Sartre writes of a gambler who, after losing all and fearing for himself and his family, retreats to the reflective behavior of resolving never to gamble again. This motive thus enters into his facticity as a choice he has made; and, as long as he retains his fear, his living sense of himself as being threatened, it may appear to him that this resolve actually has causal force in keeping him from gambling. However, one evening he confronts the gaming tables and is overcome with anguish at the recognition that his resolve, while still “there,” retains none of its power: it is an object for consciousness but is not (and never could have been) something in consciousness that was determining his actions. In order for it to influence his behavior he has to avow it afresh, but this is just what he cannot do; indeed, just this is what he hoped the original resolve would spare him from having to do. He will have to “remake” the self who was in the original situation of fear and threat. At this point, perhaps, he will try to relieve himself of freedom by giving in to the urge to gamble and chalking it up to “deeper” motives that overcame the initial resolve, problems from his childhood perhaps. But anguish can recur with regard to this strategy as well—for instance, if he needs a loan to continue gambling and must convince someone that he is “as good as his word.” The possibilities for self-deception in such cases are endless.
As Sartre points out in great detail, anguish, as the consciousness of freedom, is not something that human beings welcome; rather, we seek stability, identity, and adopt the language of freedom only when it suits us: those acts are considered by me to be my free acts which exactly match the self I want others to take me to be. We are “condemned to be free,” which means that we can never simply be who we are but are separated from ourselves by the nothingness of having perpetually to re-choose, or re-commit, ourselves to what we do. Characteristic of the existentialist outlook is the idea that we spend much of lives devising strategies for denying or evading the anguish of freedom. One of these strategies is “bad faith.” Another is the appeal to values.
3.2 The Ideality of Values
The idea that freedom is the origin of value—where freedom is defined not in terms of acting rationally (Kant) but rather existentially, as choice and transcendence—is the idea perhaps most closely associated with existentialism. So influential was this general outlook on value that Karl-Otto Apel (1973: 235) came to speak of a kind of “official complementarity of existentialism and scientism” in Western philosophy, according to which what can be justified rationally falls under the “value-free objectivism of science” while all other validity claims become matters for an “existential subjectivism of religious faith and ethical decisions.” Positivism attempted to provide a theory of “cognitive meaning” based on what it took to be the inner logic of scientific thought, and it relegated questions of value to cognitive meaninglessness, reducing them to issues of emotive response and subjective preference. While it does not explain evaluative language solely as a function of affective attitudes, existential thought, like positivism, denies that values can be grounded in being—that is, that they can become the theme of a scientific investigation capable of distinguishing true (or valid) from false values.[17] In this regard Sartre speaks of the “ideality” of values, by which he means not that they have some sort of timeless validity but that they have no real authority and cannot be used to underwrite or justify my behavior. For Sartre, “values derive their meaning from an original projection of myself which stands as my choice of myself in the world.” But if that is so, then I cannot, without circularity, appeal to values in order to justify this very choice: “I make my decision concerning them—without justification and without excuse” (Sartre 1992: 78). This so-called “decisionism” has been a hotly contested legacy of existentialism and deserves a closer look here.
How is it that values are supposed to be grounded in freedom? By “value” Sartre means those aspects of my experience that do not merely causally effectuate something but rather make a claim on me: I do not just see the homeless person but encounter him as “to be helped”; I do not just hear the other's voice but register “a question to be answered honestly”; I do not simply happen to sit quietly in Church but “attend reverently”; I do not merely hear the alarm clock but am “summoned to get up.” Values, then, as Sartre writes, appear with the character of demands and as such they “lay claim to a foundation” or justification (Sartre 1992: 76). Why ought I help the homeless, answer honestly, sit reverently, or get up? Sartre does not claim that there is no answer to these questions but only that the answer depends, finally, on my choice of “myself” which cannot in turn be justfied by appeal to a value. As he puts it, “value derives its being from its exigency and not its exigency from its being.” The exigency of value cannot be grounded in being itself, since it would thereby lose its character as an ought; it would “cease even to be value” since it would have the kind of exigency (contrary to freedom) possessed by a mere cause. Thus, against then-current value-theoretical intuitionism, Sartre denies that value can “deliver itself to a contemplative intuition which would apprehend it as being value and thereby would derive from it its right over my freedom.” Instead, “it can be revealed only to an active freedom which makes it exist as a value by the sole fact of recognizing it as such” (Sartre 1992: 76).
For instance, I do not grasp the exigency of the alarm clock (its character as a demand) in a kind of disinterested perception but only in the very act of responding to it, of getting up. If I fail to get up the alarm has, to that very extent, lost its exigency. Why must I get up? At this point I may attempt to justify its demand by appeal to other elements of the situation with which the alarm is bound up: I must get up because I must go to work. From this point of view the alarm's demand appears—and is—justified, and such justification will often suffice to get me going again. But the question of the foundation of value has simply been displaced: now it is my job that, in my active engagement, takes on the unquestioned exigency of a demand or value. But it too derives its being as a value from its exigency—that is, from my unreflective engagement in the overall practice of going to work. Ought I go to work? Why not be “irresponsible”? If a man's got to eat, why not rather take up a life of crime? If these questions have answers that are themselves exigent it can only be because, at a still deeper level, I am engaged as having chosen myself as a person of a certain sort: respectable, responsible. From within that choice there is an answer of what I ought to do, but outside that choice there is none—why should I be respectable, law-abiding?—for it is only because some choice has been made that anything at all can appear as compelling, as making a claim on me. Only if I am at some level engaged do values (and so justification in terms of them) appear at all. The more I pull out of engagement toward reflection on and questioning of my situation, the more I am threatened by ethical anguish—“which is the recognition of the ideality of values” (Sartre 1992: 76). And, as with all anguish, I do not escape this situation by discovering the true order of values but by plunging back into action. If the idea that values are without foundation in being can be understood as a form of nihilism, the existential response to this condition of the modern world is to point out that meaning, value, is not first of all a matter of contemplative theory but a consequence of engagement and commitment.
Thus value judgments can be justified, but only relative to some concrete and specific project. The “pattern of behavior” of the typical bourgeois defines the meaning of “respectability” (Sartre 1992: 77), and so it is true of some particular bit of behavior that it is either respectable or not. For this reason I can be in error about what I ought to do. It may be that something that appears exigent during the course of my unreflective engagement in the world is something that I ought not to give in to. If, thanks to my commitment to the Resistance, a given official appears to me as to be shot, I might nevertheless be wrong to shoot him—if, for instance, the official was not who I thought he was, or if killing him would in fact prove counter-productive given my longer-term goals. Sartre's fictional works are full of explorations of moral psychology of this sort. But I cannot extend these “hypothetical” justifications to a point where some purely theoretical consideration of my obligations—whether derived from the will of God, from Reason, or from the situation itself—could underwrite my freedom in such a way as to relieve it of responsibility. For in order for such considerations to count I would have to make myself the sort of person for whom God's will, abstract Reason, or the current situation is decisive. For existentialists like Sartre, then, I am “the one who finally makes values exist in order to determine [my] actions by their demands.”[18]
Commitment—or “engagement”—is thus ultimately the basis for an authentically meaningful life, that is, one that answers to the existential condition of being human and does not flee that condition by appeal to an abstract system of reason or divine will. Yet though I alone can commit myself to some way of life, some project, I am never alone when I do so; nor do I do so in a social, historical, or political vaccuum. If transcendence represents my radical freedom to define myself, facticity—that other aspect of my being—represents the situated character of this self-making. Because freedom as transcendence undermines the idea of a stable, timeless system of moral norms, it is little wonder that existential philosophers (with the exception of Simone de Beauvoir) devoted scant energy to questions of normative moral theory. However, because this freedom is always socially (and thereby historically) situated, it is equally unsurprising that their writings are greatly concerned with how our choices and commitments are concretely contextualized in terms of political struggles and historical reality.
4. Politics, History, Engagement
For the existentialists engagement is the source of meaning and value; in choosing myself I in a certain sense make my world. On the other hand, I always choose myself in a context where there are others doing the same thing, and in a world that has always already been there. In short, my acting is situated, both socially and historically. Thus, in choosing myself in the first-person singular, I am also choosing in such a way that a first-person plural, a “we,” is simultaneously constituted. Such choices make up the domain of social reality: they fit into a pre-determined context of roles and practices that go largely unquestioned and may be thought of as a kind of collective identity. In social action my identity takes shape against a background (the collective identity of the social formation) that remains fixed. On the other hand, it can happen that my choice puts this social formation or collective identity itself into question: who I am to be is thus inseperable from the question of who we are to be. Here the first-person plural is itself the issue, and the action that results from such choices constitutes the field of the political.
If authenticity is the category by which I am able to think about what it means to “exist,” then, the account of authenticity cannot neglect the social, historical, and political aspects of that existence. Thus it is not merely because twentieth-century existentialism flourished at a time when European history appeared to collapse and political affairs loomed especially large that existential philosophers devoted much attention to these matters; rather, the demand for an account of the “situation” stems from the very character of existence itself, which, unlike the classical “rational subject,” is what it is only in relation to its “time.” This is not to say, however, that existential philosophers are unanimous in their account of the importance of historical factors or in their estimation of the political in relation to other aspects of existence. Emmanuel Levinas, for example, whose early work belonged within the orbit of existential philosophy, opposed to the “horizontal” temporality of political history a “vertical” or eschatological temporality that radically challenged all historical meaning, while Sartre, in contrast, produced a version of Marxist historical materialism in which existentialism itself became a mere ideology. But we cannot stop to examine all such differences here. Instead, we shall look at the positions of Heidegger and Sartre, who provide opposing examples of how an authentic relation to history and politics can be understood.
4.1 Heidegger: History as Claim
For Heidegger, to exist is to be historical. This does not mean that one simply finds oneself at a particular moment in history, conceived as a linear series of events. Rather, it means that selfhood has a peculiar temporal structure that is the origin of that “history” which subsequently comes to be narrated in terms of a series of events. Existential temporality is not a sequence of instants but instead a unified structure in which the “future” (that is, the possibility aimed at in my project) recollects the “past” (that is, what no longer needs to be done, the completed) so as to give meaning to the “present” (that is, the things that take on significance in light of what currently needs doing). To act, therefore, is, in Heidegger's terms, to “historize” (geschehen), to constitute something like a narrative unity, with beginning, middle, and end, that does not so much take place in time as provides the condition for linear time. To exist “between birth and death,” then, is not merely to be present in each of a discrete series of temporal instants but to consitute oneself in the unity of a history, and authentic existence is thus one in which the projects that give shape to existence are ones to which I commit myself in light of this history. Though it belongs to, and defines, a “moment,” choice cannot be simply “of the moment”; to be authentic I must understand my choice in light of the potential wholeness of my existence.[19]
That this choice has a political dimension stems from the fact that existence is always being-with-others. Though authenticity arises on the basis of my being alienated, in anxiety, from the claims made by norms belonging to the everyday life of das Man, any concrete commitment that I make in the movement to recover myself will enlist those norms in two ways. First, what I commit myself to will always be derived from (though not reducible to) some “possibility of Dasein that has been there” (Heidegger 1962: 438): I cannot make my identity from whole cloth; I will always understand myself in terms of some way of existing that has been handed down within my tradition.[20] I “choose my hero” (Heidegger 1962: 437) by, for instance, committing myself to a philosophical life, which I understand on the model of Socrates, or to a religious life, which I understand on the model of St. Francis. The point is that I must understand myself in terms of something, and these possibilities for understanding come from the historical heritage and the norms that belong to it. Heidegger thinks of this historical dimension as a kind of “fate” (Schicksal): not something inevitable that controls my choice but something that, inherited from my historical situation, claims me, holds a kind of authority for me.
The second way in which the everyday norms of das Man are enlisted in authentic choice stems from the fact that when I commit myself to my “fate” I do so “in and with my ‘generation’” (Heidegger 1962: 436). The idea here seems roughly to be this: To opt for a way of going on is to affirm the norms that belong to it; and because of the nature of normativity it is not possible to affirm norms that would hold only for me. There is a kind of publicity and scope in the normative such that, when I choose, I exemplify a standard for others as well. Similarly, Heidegger holds that the sociality of my historizing restricts what can be a genuine “fate” or choice for me. Acting is always with others—more specifically, with a “community” or a “people” (Volk)—and together this “co-historizing” responds to a “destiny” (Geschick) which has guided our fates in advance (Heidegger 1962: 436). Not everything is really possible for us, and an authentic choice must strive to respond to the claim that history makes on the people with whom one belongs, to seize its “destiny.” Along this communitarian axis, then, existential historicality can open out onto the question of politics: who are “we” to be?
Heidegger suggests that it was this concept of historicality that underwrote his own concrete political engagement during the period of National Socialism in Germany. Disgusted with the political situation in Weimar Germany and characterizing it as especially irresolute or inauthentic, Heidegger looked upon Hitler's movement as a way of recalling the German people back to their “ownmost” possibility—i.e., a way for Germany to constitute itself authentically as an alternative to the political models of Russia and the United States. Heidegger's choice to intervene in university politics at this time was thus both a choice of himself—in which he chose his hero: Plato's “philosopher-king” (see Arendt 1978)—and a choice for his “generation.” Much is controversial about Heidegger's engagement for National Socialism (not least whether he drew the appropriate consequences from his own concept of authenticity), but it provides a clear example of a kind of existential politics that depends on an ability to “tell time”—that is, to sense the imperatives of one's factic historical situation. Heidegger later became very suspicious of this sort of existential politics. Indeed, for the idea of authenticity as resolute commitment he substituted the idea of a “releasement” (Gelassenheit) and for engagement the stance of “waiting.” He came to believe that the problems that face us (notably, the dominance of technological ways of thinking) have roots that lie deeper than can be addressed through politics directly. He thus famously denied that democracy was sufficient to deal with the political crisis posed by technology, asserting that “only a god can save us” (Heidegger 1981: 55, 57). But even here, in keeping with the existential notion of historicity, Heidegger's recommendations turn on a reading of history, of the meaning of our time.
4.2 Sartre: Existentialism and Marxism
A very different reading, and a very different recommendation, can be found in the work of Sartre. The basis for Sartre's reading of history, and his politics, was laid in that section of Being and Nothingness that describes the birth of the social in the “Look”(le regard) of the other. In making me an object for his projects, the other alienates me from myself, displaces me from the subject position (the position from which the world is defined in its meaning and value) and constitutes me as something. Concretely, what I am constituted “as” is a function of the other's project and not something that I can make myself be. I am constituted as a “Frenchman” in and through the hostility emanating from that German; I am constituted as a “man” in the resentment of that woman; I am constituted as a “Jew” on the basis of the other's anti-semitism; and so on. This sets up a dimension of my being that I can neither control nor disavow, and my only recourse is to wrench myself away from the other in an attempt to restore myself to the subject-position. For this reason, on Sartre's model, social reality is in perpetual conflict—an Hegelian dialectic in which, for ontological reasons, no state of mutual recognition can ever be achieved. The “we”—the political subject—is always contested, conflicted, unstable. But this instability does have a certain structure, one which Sartre, steeped in the Marxism of inter-war French thought (Alexandre Kojève, Jean Hyppolite), explored in terms of a certain historical materialism. For social relations take place not only between human beings but also within institutions that have developed historically and that enshrine relations of power and domination. Thus the struggle for who will take the subject position is not carried out on equal terms. As Simone de Beauvoir demonstrated in detail in her book, The Second Sex, the historical and institutional place of women is defined in such a way that they are consigned to a kind of permanent “object” status—they are the “second” sex since social norms are defined in male terms. This being so, a woman's struggle to develop self-defining projects is constrained by a permanent institutional “Look” that already defines her as “woman,” whereas a man need not operate under constraints of gender; he feels himself to be simply “human,” pure subjectivity. Employing similar insights in reflection on the situations of ethnic and economic oppression, Sartre sought a way to derive political imperatives in the face of the groundlessness of moral values entailed by his view of the ideality of values.
At first, Sartre argued that there was one value—namely freedom itself—that did have a kind of universal authority. To commit oneself to anything is also always to commit oneself to the value of freedom. In “Existentialism is a Humanism” Sartre tried to establish this by way of a kind of transcendental argument, but he soon gave up that strategy and pursued the more modest one of claiming that the writer must always engage “on the side of freedom.” According to the theory of “engaged literature” expounded in What is Literature?, in creating a literary world the author is always acting either to imagine paths toward overcoming concrete unfreedoms such as racism and capitalist exploitation, or else closing them off. In the latter case, he is contradicting himself, since the very idea of writing presupposes the freedom of the reader, and that means, in principle, the whole of the reading public. Whatever the merits of this argument, it does suggest the political value to which Sartre remained committed throughout his life: the value of freedom as self-making.
This commitment finally led Sartre to hold that existentialism itself was only an “ideological” moment within Marxism, which he termed “the one philosophy of our time which we cannot go beyond” (Sartre 1968:xxxiv). As this statement suggests, Sartre's embrace of Marxism was a function of his sense of history as the factic situation in which the project of self-making takes place. Because existing is self-making (action), philosophy—including existential philosophy—cannot be understood as a disinterested theorizing about timeless essences but is always already a form of engagement, a diagnosis of the past and a projection of norms appropriate to a different future in light of which the present takes on significance. It therefore always arises from the historical-political situation and is a way of intervening in it. Marxism, like existentialism, makes this necessarily practical orientation of philosophy explicit.
From the beginning existentialism saw itself in this activist way (and this provided the basis for the most serious disagreements among French existentialists such as Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, and Camus, many of which were fought out in the pages of the journal founded by Sartre and Merleau-Ponty, Les Temps Modernes). But the later Sartre came to hold that a philosophy of self-making could not content itself with highlighting the situation of individual choice; an authentic political identity could only emerge from a theory that situated such choice in a practically oriented analysis of its concrete situation. Thus it appeard to him that the “ideology of existence” was itself merely an alienated form of the deeper analysis of social and historical reality provided by Marx's dialectical approach. In focusing on the most important aspects of the material condition in which the existential project of self-making takes place—namely, economic relations under conditions of scarcity—Marx's critique of capital offered a set of considerations that no “philosophy of freedom” could ignore, considerations that would serve to orient political engagement until such time as “there will exist for everyone a margin of real freedom beyond the production of life” (Sartre 1968: 34). Marxism is unsurpassable, therefore, because it is the most lucid theory of our alienated situation of concrete unfreedom, oriented toward the practical-political overcoming of that unfreedom.
Sartre's relation to orthodox Marxism was marked by tension, however, since he held that existing Marxism had abandoned the promise of its dialectical approach to social reality in favor of a dogmatic “apriorism” that subsumed historical reality under a blanket of lifeless abstractions. He thus undertook his Critique of Dialectical Reason to restore the promise of Marxism by reconceiving its concept of praxis in terms of the existential notion of project. What had become a rigid economic determinism would be restored to dialectical fluidity by recalling the existential doctrine of self-making: it is true that man is “made” by history, but at the same time he is making that very history. This attempt to “reconquer man within Marxism” (Sartre 1968: 83)—i.e., to develop a method which would preserve the concrete details of human reality as lived experience—was not well received by orthodox Marxists. Sartre's fascination with the details of Flaubert's life, or the life of Baudelaire, smacked too much of “bourgeois idealism.” But we see here how Sartre's politics, like Heidegger's, derived from his concept of history: there are no iron-clad laws that make the overthrow of capitalism the inevitable outcome of economic forces; there are only men in situation who make history as they are made by it. Dialectical materialism is the unsurpassable philosophy of those who choose, who commit themselves to, the value of freedom. The political claim that Marxism has on us, then, would rest upon the ideological enclave within it: authentic existence as choice.
Authentic existence thus has an historical, political dimension; all choice will be attentive to history in the sense of contextualizing itself in some temporally narrative understanding of its place. But even here it must be admitted that what makes existence authentic is not the correctness of the narrative understanding it adopts. Authenticity does not depend on some particular substantive view of history, some particular theory or empirical story. From this point of view, the substantive histories adopted by existential thinkers as different as Heidegger and Sartre should perhaps be read less as scientific accounts, defensible in third-person terms, than as articulations of the historical situation from the perspective of what that situation is taken to demand, given the engaged commitment of their authors. They stand, in other words, less as justifications for their authors' existential and political commitments than as themselves a form of politics: invitations to others to see things as the author sees them, so that the author's commitment to going on in a certain way will come to be shared.
5. Existentialism Today
As a cultural movement, existentialism belongs to the past. As a philosophical inquiry that introduced a new norm, authenticity, for understanding what it means to be human—a norm tied to a distinctive, post-Cartesian concept of the self as practical, embodied, being-in-the-world—existentialism has continued to play an important role in contemporary thought in both the continental and analytic traditions. The Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy, as well as societies devoted to Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Jaspers, Beauvoir, and other existential philosophers, provide a forum for ongoing work—both of a historical, scholarly nature and of more systematic focus—that derives from classical existentialism, often bringing it into confrontation with more recent movements such as structuralism, deconstruction, hermeneutics, and feminism. In the area of gender studies Judith Butler (1990) draws importantly on existential sources, as does Lewis Gordon (1995) in the area of race theory (see also Bernasconi 2003). Matthew Ratcliffe (2008) develops an existential approach to psychopathology.
Interest in a narrative conception of self-identity—for instance, in the work of Charles Taylor (1999), Paul Ricoeur, David Carr (1986), or Charles Guignon—has its roots in the existential revision of Hegelian notions of temporality and its critique of rationalism. Hubert Dreyfus (1979) developed an influential criticism of the Artificial Intelligence program drawing essentially upon the existentialist idea, found especially in Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty, that the human world, the world of meaning, must be understood first of all as a function of our embodied practices and cannot be represented as a logically structured system of representations. Calling for a “new existentialism,” John Haugeland (1998) has explored the role of existential commitment in scientific practices as truth-tracking practices. In a series of books, Michael Gelven (e.g., 1990, 1997) has reflected upon the distinctions between existential, moral, and epistemological or logical dimensions of experience, showing how the standards appropriate to each intertwine, without reducing to any single one. A revival of interest in moral psychology finds many writers who are taking up the question of self-identity and responsibility in ways that recall the existential themes of self-making and choice—for instance, Christine Korsgaard (1996) appeals crucially to notions of “self-constitution” and “practical identity”; Richard Moran (2001) emphasizes the connection between self-avowal and the first-person perspective in a way that derives in part from Sartre; and Thomas Nagel has followed the existentialist line in connecting meaning to the consciousness of death. Even if such writers tend to proceed with more confidence in the touchstone of rationality than did the classical existentialists, their work operates on the terrain opened up by the earlier thinkers.
In addition, after years of being out of fashion in France, existential motifs have once again become prominent in the work of leading thinkers. Foucault's embrace of a certain concept of freedom, and his exploration of the “care of the self,” recall debates within existentialism, as does Derrida's recent work on religion without God and his reflections on the concepts of death, choice, and responsibility. In very different ways, the books by Cooper (1999) and Alan Schrift (1995) suggest that a re-appraisal of the legacy of existentialism is an important agenda item of contemporary philosophy. Reynolds (2006), for instance, concludes his introduction to existentialism with a consideration of how post-structuralists such as Derrida, Deleuze, and Foucault extend certain reflections found in Sartre, Camus, and Heidegger, while Reynolds (2004) does the same, in more detail for Derrida and Merleau-Ponty. If existentialism's very notoriety as a cultural movement may have impeded its serious philosophical reception, then, it may be that what we have most to learn from existentialism still lies before us.
There are, in fact, reasons to think that such a re-evaluation is currently underway. Several publications that have appeared since the last revision of this article (2010) take up the challenge of bringing existential thought into dialogue with items on the contemporary philosophical agenda. Edward Baring (2011) exhumes the historical relation between Derrida and existentialism and finds a kind of “'Christian' existentialism” in Derrida's work prior to 1952, traces of which are discernible in his later thinking. The collection edited by Judaken and Bernasconi (2012) explores the historical context of existentialist writings informed by contemporary critiques of canonization, while Margaret Simons (2013) re-evaluates the role of Beauvoir, and of feminist thought, in the origins of existentialism itself. In 2011 The Continuum Companion to Existentialism appeared (Joseph, Reynolds, and Woodward 2011), followed by The Cambridge Companion to Existentialism (Crowell 2012). Articles in both volumes are committed to showing the systematic relevance of existential concepts and approaches for contemporary work in philosophy and other fields. Finally, Aho (2014) highlights how, in areas as diverse as cognitive science, psychiatry, health care, and environmental philosophy, “the legacy of existentialism is alive and well” (2014: 140).
Bibliography
The bibliography is divided into two sections; taken together, they provide a representative sample of existentialist writing. The first includes books that are cited in the body of the article. The second contains supplementary reading, including works that have been mentioned in the article, selected works by some of the figures mentioned in the first paragraph of the article, certain classical readings in existentialism, and more recent studies of relevance to the issues discussed. The bibliography is, somewhat arbitrarily, limited to works in English, and no attempt at comprehensiveness has been made. For detailed bibliographies of the major existentialists, including critical studies, the reader is referred to the entries devoted to the individual philosophers. I invite readers to suggest new and noteworthy sources for inclusion here.
Works Cited
Aho, K., 2014. Existentialism: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press. Apel, K.-O., 1973. “The Apriori of the Communication Community and the Foundation of Ethics,” in Towards a Transformation of Philosophy. Tr. Glyn Adey and David Frisby. London: Routledge. Arendt, H., 1978. “Heidegger at Eighty,” in Heidegger and Modern Philosophy. Ed. Michael Murray. New Haven: Yale University Press. Baring, E., 2014, The Young Derrida and French Philosophy, 1945-1968. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beauvoir, S., 1989. The Second Sex (1949). Tr. H. M. Parshley. New York: Vintage Books. Bernasconi, R. (ed.), 2003. Race and Racism in Continental Philosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Butler, J., 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York: Routledge. Carr, D., 1986. Time, Narrative, and History, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Cooper, D., 1999. Existentialism, Oxford: Blackwell. Crowell, S., 2001. Husserl, Heidegger, and the Space of Meaning: Paths Toward Transcendental Phenomenology, Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Crowell, S., 2004. “Authentic Historicality,” in Space, Time, and Culture. Ed. David Carr and Cheung Chan-Fai. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Crowell, S., 2012. The Cambridge Companion to Existentialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dreyfus, H., 1979. What Computers Can't Do: The Limits of Artificial Intelligence, New York: Harper Colophon. Dreyfus, H., and J. Haugeland, 1978. “Husserl and Heidegger: Philosophy's Last Stand,” in Heidegger and Modern Philosophy. Ed. Michael Murray. New Haven: Yale University Press. Fackenheim, E., 1961. Metaphysics and Historicity, Milwaukee: Marquette University Press. Fell, J., 1979. Heidegger and Sartre: An Essay on Being and Place, New York: Columbia University Press. Gordon, L., 1995. Bad Faith and Antiblack Racism, Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press. Gelven, M., 1997. The Risk of Being: What is Means to Be Good and Bad, University Park: Penn State Press. Gelven, M., 1990. Truth and Existence: A Philosophical Inquiry, University Park: Penn State Press. Guignon, C., 1993. “Authenticity, Moral Values, and Psychotherapy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Hannay, A., 1982. Kierkegaard, London: Routledge. Haugeland, J., 1998. Having Thought: Essays in the Metaphysics of Mind, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Heidegger, M., 1962. Being and Time. Tr. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper and Row. Heidegger, M., 1985. History of the Concept of Time: Prolegomena. Tr. Theodore Kisiel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Heidegger, M., 1998. “Letter on Humanism,” in Pathmarks. Ed. William McNeill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heidegger, M., 1981. “'Only a God Can Save Us': The Spiegel Interview (1966),” in Heidegger: The Man and the Thinker. Ed. Thomas Sheehan. Chicago: Precedent Publishing. Jaspers, K., 1968. Reason and Existenz, New York: Noonday Press. Joseph, F., Reynolds, J., and A. Woodward (eds.), 2011. The Continuum Companion to Existentialism. London: Continuum Publishing House. Judaken, J., and R. Bernasconi (eds.), 2012. Situating Existentialism: Key Texts in Context. New York: Columbia University Press. Kaufmann, W., 1968. Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, Cleveland: Meridian Books. Korsgaard, C., 1996. The Sources of Normativity, Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. MacIntyre, A., 1967. “Existentialism,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. III. Ed. Paul Edwards. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Marcel, G., 1968. The Philosophy of Existentialism, New York: Citadel Press. Merleau-Ponty, M., 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. Tr. Colin Smith. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Moran, R., 2001. Authority and Estrangement: An Essay on Self Knowledge, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Natanson, M., 1968. Literature, Philosophy, and the Social Sciences, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Nehamas, A., 1998. The Art of Living: Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault, Berkeley: University of California Press. Ratcliffe, M., 2008. Feelings of Being. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reynolds, J., 2004. Merleau-Ponty and Derrida: Intertwining, Embodiment, and Alterity. Athens: Ohio University Press. Reynolds, J., 2006. Understanding Existentialism. Stocksfield: Acumen. Ricoeur, P., 1992. Oneself as Another. Tr. Kathleen Blamey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sartre, J.-P., 1992. Being and Nothingness. Tr. Hazel Barnes. New York: Washington Square Press. Sartre, J.-P., 1968. Search for a Method. Tr. Hazel Barnes. New York: Vintage Books. Schrift, A., 1995. Nietzsche's French Legacy: A Genealogy of Poststructuralism, New York: Routledge. Simons, M., 2013. Beauvoir and the Second Sex: Feminism, Race, and the Origins of Existentialism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Spiegelberg, H., 1984. The Phenomenological Movement, 3rd ed. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Taylor, C., 1985. “Self-Interpreting Animals,” in Philosophical Papers I: Human Agency and Language. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, C., 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Warnock, M., 1967. Existentialist Ethics, London: Macmillan and Co, Ltd. Zaner, R., and D. Ihde (eds.), 1973. Phenomenology and Existentialism, New York: Capricorn Books Other Readings Arendt, H., 1998. The Human Condition (1958). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Aron, R., 1969. Marxism and the Existentialists, New York: Harper and Row. Barnes, H., 1967. An Existentialist Ethics, New York: Knopf. Barrett, W., 1962. Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy (1958), Garden City: Doubleday. Buber, M., 1978. Between Man and Man. Tr. Ronald Gregor Smith. New York: Macmillan. Buber, M., 1970. I and Thou. Tr. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Scribner. Bultmann, R., 1987. Faith and Understanding. Tr. Louise Pettibone Smith. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Bultmann, R., 1957. History and Eschatology, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Busch, T., 1999. Circulating Being: From Embodiment to Incorporation (Essays on Late Existentialism), New York: Fordham University Press. Camus, A., 1955. The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Tr. Justin O'Brien. New York: Knopf. Camus, A., 1988. The Stranger. Tr. Matthew Ward. New York: Knopf. Collins, J., 1952. The Existentialists: A Critical Study, Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. Dostoevsky, F., 1976. The Brothers Karamazov: The Constance Garnett translation revised by Ralph E. Matlaw. New York: Norton. Earnshaw, S., 2006. Existentialism: A Guide for the Perplexed, London: Continuum. Flynn, T., 2006. Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flynn, T., 1997. Sartre, Foucault, and Historical Reason, vol. 1, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gordon, H., 1999. Dictionary of Existentialism, New York: Greenwood Press. Gordon, L., 1997. Existence in Black: An Anthology of Black Existential Philosophy, New York: Routledge. Gordon, L., 2000. Existentia Africana: Understanding Africana Existential Thought, London: Routledge. Grene, M., 1948. Dreadful Freedom: A Critique of Existentialism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Guignon, C., 2003. The Existentialists: Critical Essays on Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre, New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Guignon, C., and D. Pereboom (eds.), “Introduction: The Legacy of Existentialism,” in Existentialism: Basic Writings. Indianapolis: Hackett. Guignon, C., and D. Pereboom (eds.), Existentialism: Basic Writings, Indianapolis: Hackett. Jaspers, K., 1968. Reason and Existenz. Tr. William Earle. New York: Noonday Press. Judt, T., 1992. Past Imperfect: French Intellectuals 1944–1956, Berkeley: University of California Press. Kant, I., 1960. Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone. Tr. Theodore M. Greene and Hoyt H. Hudson. New York: Harper & Row. Kierkegaard, S., 1971. Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Tr. David F. Swenson and Walter Lowrie. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kierkegaard, S., 1983. Fear and Trembling. Tr. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kruks, S., 1990. Situation and Human Existence: Freedom, Subjectivity, and Society, London: Unwin Hyman. Marcel, G., 1949. Being and Having. Tr. Katherine Farrer. London: Westminster. McBride, W. (ed.), 1997. The Development and Meaning of Twentieth Century Existentialism, New York: Garland. Publishers Merleau-Ponty, M., 1973. Adventures of the Dialectic. Tr. Joseph Bien. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Merleau-Ponty, M., 1962. The Phenomenology of Perception. Tr. Colin Smith. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Natanson, M., 1986. Anonymity: A Study in the Philosophy of Alfred Schutz, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Nietzsche, F., 1969. On the Genealogy of Morals. Tr. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books. Nietzsche, F., 1974. The Gay Science. Tr. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage Books. Nietzsche, F., 1975. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In The Portable Nietzsche. Tr. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Viking Press. Olafson, F., 1967. Principles and Persons: An Ethical Interpretation of Existentialism, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Ortega y Gasset, J., 1985. Revolt of the Masses. Tr. Anthony Kerrigan. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Poster, M., 1975. Existential Marxism in Postwar France: From Sartre to Althusser, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ricoeur, P., 1970. Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation, New Haven: Yale University Press. Reynolds, J., 2006. Understanding Existentialism. London: Acumen. Sartre, J.-P., 1967. Baudelaire. Tr. Martin Turnell. New York: New Directions. Sartre, J.-P., 1976. Critique of Dialectical Reason I: Theory of Practical Ensembles (1960). Tr. Alan Sheridan-Smith. London: Verso. Sartre, J.-P., 2007. Existentialism is a Humanism. Tr. Carol Macomber. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sartre, J.-P., 1959. Nausea. Tr. Lloyd Alexander. New York: New Directions. Sartre, J.-P., 1955. No Exit, and Three Other Plays. New York: Vintage Books. Sartre, J.-P., 1988. What is Literature? (1948), Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Shestov, L., 1969. Kierkegaard and the Existential Philosophy. Tr. Elinor Hewitt. Athens: Ohio University Press. Solomon, R. (ed.), 1974. Existentialism, New York: Random House. Stewart, J. (ed.), 1998. The Debate Between Sartre and Merleau-Ponty, Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Tillich, P., 2000. The Courage to Be, New Haven: Yale University Press. Unamuno, M., 1954. The Tragic Sense of Life. Tr. J.E. Crawford Flitch. New York: Dover. Wahl, J., 1949. A Short History of Existentialism. Tr. Forrest Williams and Stanley Maron. New York: Philosophical Library. Wild, J., 1963. The Challenge of Existentialism (1955), Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Copyright 2015 by Steven Crowell <crowell@rice.edu>
Orthodoxymoron Unveiled!!
Carol wrote:
December 24, 2018 Trump Throws Mattis Out Of Pentagon— Then Replaces Him With World’s Foremost Nazi UFO Expert
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2744.htm A thoroughly mind-bending new Ministry of Defense (MoD) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that barely four days after US Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis informed President Trump that he would be resigning his post effective 28 February 2019, Trump unceremoniously threw Mattis out of the Pentagon a few hours ago ordering him to leave by 1 January 2019—and whose replacement will be Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan—a globally renowned mechanical aircraft engineer, one of whose fields of expertise are the anti-gravity aircraft discoveries made by Austrian engineer Viktor Schauberger—that led to the building of the mysterious Haunebu II Flying Saucer built by the German Nazis during World War II—and that is still so feared by the American elites today, they forced the toy maker Revell to pull a plastic model of it from store shelves this past year over fears people would believe it was real.
American toy maker Revell forced to stop selling Haunebu II Flying Saucer plastic model in June-2018
Haunebu II Flying Saucer designated #51 (above) has long been rumored to be behind the naming of the top secret US military base known as Area 51. According to this report, within a week of the unprecedented historic trip to Washington D.C. of Russia’s three top intelligence officials this past January, an equally unprecedented trip was made to Moscow by the only registered lobbyist in the US on the issue of alien disclosure—an American expert on UFO and extraterrestrial US government issues named Steve Bassett who heads The Paradigm Research Group (PRG)—and during whose meetings with Russian experts, urged President Putin to lift the global “truth embargo” clamped down upon the releasing of any UFO issue to the public.
Among the most startling revelations made by PRG leader Bassett during his meetings with Russian experts, this report notes, was his providing conclusive evidence proving that Deputy Secretary of Defense Shanahan had begun declassifying once top-secret US military videos showing their fighter aircrafts encounters with unknown extraterrestrial aircraft—and whose US Navy pilots encountering these UFO’s were left stunned by the experience.
During the early days of the President Trump administration that saw great attention being paid to his picking General James “Mad Dog” Mattis to be his Secretary of Defense, this report details, the MoD, instead, focused all of their attention on Trump’s pick for Deputy Secretary of Defense as this position is the second highest in the Pentagon—and whose pick of Patrick Shanahan defied explanation at the time—but came into greater focus when it was realized that the US Navy F/A-18 fighter aircraft that had encountered these UFO’s were, in fact, built under the supervision of Shanahan.
Instead of having any US military and/or governmental management experience before being tapped by Trump to be the second-in-command at the Pentagon, this report explains, Shanahan, instead, spent his entire career as a mechanical engineer for Boeing—the maker of the F/A-18 variant used by the US Navy on their aircraft carriers—and whose engineering education was completed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (known as MIT) where he studied the works and research of MIT’s most famous engineer John G. Trump—the uncle of President Trump most famous for his being the only person allowed to review the documents of the modern world’s greatest genius Nikola Tesla—and among whose research documents reviewed by Trump’s uncle, and now known by Shanahan, included those detailing how to electronically communicate with other worlds.
During his over 30-year career as Boeing’s top mechanical engineer working on classified aircraft projects for the US military, this report continues, Shanahan was frequently in contact with Nick Cook, who is the highly acclaimed and awarded aerospace consultant for Jane's Defense Weekly in London—a relationship that intensified, in 2001, after Cook published his book titled “The Hunt for Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology”—and that, by 2014, allowed Boeing to develop an anti-gravity propulsion system they named GRASP (stands for Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion)—that Boeing can’t yet fully realize due to the MoD refusing to cooperate with them—but did enable Boeing, in 2016, to receive a secret US patent for their gravity chamber based on GRASP technology, the existence of, for reasons still unknown, Deputy Defense Secretary Shanahan ordered declassified this past March.
Most critical to note about what Cook documented in his book, and he relayed to Shanahan, this report explains, are the anti-gravity discoveries made by the Austrian engineer Viktor Schauberger during World War II—who believed that machines could be designed better so that they would be “going with the flow of nature” rather than against it—and one of whose projects was to produce for the German Nazis a flying machine, saucer shaped, that used a “vortex propulsion” system, as his theory was that if water or air is rotated into a twisting form of oscillation (known as a colloidal) a build-up of energy results, which, with immense power, can cause levitation.
In the aftermath of World War II, however, this report notes, all of Schauberger’s research, including his prototypes, were captured by both Soviet and Allied forces (as they were scattered among several German Nazi secret research sites), neither of whom have collaborated on them since—with Schauberger, though, in 1958, going to the United States in an attempt to retrieve what they possessed, but ended in his claiming they were stolen by the Americans, and who died within days of his returning home to Austria empty handed.
With it being historically documented that the exposure of what controls humanity lies in what the controllers did to two of humanity’s brightest stars, Nikola Tesla and Viktor Schauberger, this report continues, it goes without question that sometime in the recent past, Boeing engineer Shanahan, while heading his company’s classified anti-gravity research, would have reached out and contacted Donald Trump—as now President Trump still controls the access to his family’s archives containing the research his uncle John Trump did on Tesla’s documents.
In understanding the full history of Shanahan, therefore, this report says, it becomes readily apparent why Trump tapped him to be the second most powerful person in the US military—and since his becoming Deputy Secretary of Defense, has seen Shanahan being the Pentagon's biggest booster for Trump's proposal for a separate Space Force, which is now in its final stages before going to the US Congress in early 2019—and that now, also, sees Shanahan being the Pentagon's point person in this effort, which remains unpopular in many US military quarters.
Speaking for the “US military quarters” opposing President Trump’s and Deputy Secretary of Defense Shanahan’s planned Space Force, this report details, was Secretary of Defense Mattis—who, in his 20 December resignation letter to Trump, cryptically alluded to America’s “unique and comprehensive system of alliances” he claimed “we cannot protect our interests” without—the most unique of being the long rumored alliance President Dwight D. Eisenhower made with at least one alien race in 1954—and as confirmed as being true by his own great-grand-daughter, Laura Magdalene Eisenhower, who shockingly revealed that Eisenhower had actually negotiated with one alien race to obtain technology from them in exchange for the aliens being allowed to abduct a few humans for research purposes with no real harm coming to the test subjects.
The publically known details about this US-alien alliance, this report notes, is that on the night and early hours of 20-21 February 1954, while on a “vacation” to Palm Springs-California, President Eisenhower went missing and allegedly was taken to Edwards Air Force Base for a secret meeting—when he showed up the next morning at a church service in Los Angeles, reporters were told that he had to have emergency dental treatment the previous evening and had visited a local dentist—with this missing night and morning, however, said to have been when Eisenhower conducted a “First Contact” meeting with extraterrestrials, and that began of a series of meetings with different extraterrestrial races that led to a “treaty” that was eventually signed.
With it being historically documented that “Tesla scared the central bankers senseless…they knew what his plan meant…energy independence meant an almost complete loss of control of the people” and President Trump’s new Space Force posing a direct challenge to “Deep State” secrecy, this report concludes, it is no wonder why Trump is now facing the greatest assault on his presidency yet seen by his central bank controlled money elites—that in the past 24-hours alone has seen Trump’s Treasury Secretary frantically calling the top banks in America to make sure they’re protected from collapsing—top Trump officials convening their nation’s “Plunge Protection Team”, that’s only brought out in the gravest of economic market turmoil—and Trump himself asking his top advisors if he can outright fire his nation’s central bank chief—and that now has all of these malign forces battling against Trump knowing full well the grave significance of Mattis having just been thrown out of Pentagon and Shanahan taking full control—with all that remains to be seen now is if Trump will reveal the truth before the aliens do—the former being preferred by the MoD, as the latter will mean total global war.
Viktor Schauberger with Nikola Tesla—and now President Donald Trump and Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan—knew and know the truths to free humanity from bondage—they’re just too big and powerful for normal minds to comprehend, at least those in power like to believe.
NANUXII wrote:Anti gravity was being " offered " to certain factions in the mid 90's as a product. It is old tech , one of these factions rejected it because they had something better. What is cutting edge is a particle beam cannon designed to destroy molecules that contain moisture of any kind. It can be calibrated to target specific entities leaving others un touched. The new tech in the intel processor is a scaled down version operating on the 14nm band. https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/intel-14nm-technology.html These new chips will be able to easily reverse the polarity of your TV and Computer screens to become a clear picture into your life., Not only that they can ( and have been able for a while now ) use your pc to generate certain frequencies to make you ill. The Gen 5 cell towers will eventually enact something similar to what we see on the first movie Kingsman , it is already in beta test here in oztralia and i see it happening every day. People are becoming increasingly combative every day. 2019 march approx you will see a definite increase in hostility between humans. Your best bet is to rid your self of any device made after 2009 while the ones previous can still be used against you , they have far less capability than the new tech. I wrote an article on how to heal your self after an attack, ill see if i can dig it out and post it here ? let me know if this is a good place to post it. I forgot to mention , when they get this tech down past the 10 Nm mark we are in real trouble. Im sure they already do with brain contol tech , its just not made it down to general tech. not yet.
NANUXII wrote:This video is quite accurate. in 2011 i took photos on the border of Peru , i didnt see the photos till i got back the, but they show a dark circle inside the sun. Every photo i took with the sun in the back ground showed the same thing. I thought it was a camera fault, until the camera stopped working ... the phone was fine but the camera all of a sudden wouldnt turn on ... The circle somehow relates to the arctic poles. The red skies correlates to an old Hopi Prophecy i learned of in the early 90's called " The Night of the Red Skies " The prophecy states when the night sky is blood red the end of days is upon us. It is part of our evolution to becoming part of a galactic family. Before we can enter this family we will be rid of all life not capable of accepting anything external. Unfortunately or fortunately ( depending on how you view it ) a lot of us will not make it. Do not fear , make your mind up about the gods and find faith inside you , do not fear death , it is only the end of this time , not all time ... CAVEAT : Im watching further into the video and i hear the man is making reference to Nibiru , i dont believe it is Nibiru , it is something else. perhaps it is holotech beta testing. One thing i do believe is factions on earth are trying to delay the enetering of a new energy which is waiting to the left and behind our moon. The new energy is a good thing , it will mean freedom. It is the enetring of the energy Aqarius & Isis , the sisters of Diana.
orthodoxymoron wrote:I'm incognito, but I'll make this brief-post, and delete it in a couple of hours. Think long and hard about the title of this thread (America Warned is Unprepared for Q and Trumps Cataclysmic Destruction of Deep State). What if Deep-State is Fundamentally Angel-Supercomputer Artificial-Intelligence?? "My God!! It's Full of Stars!!" I've mentioned this many-times BUT in the 1980's the Best and Brightest Theologians I observed in Loma Linda, CA, seemed to be catastrophically-devastated, while Dr. Robert H. Schuller, at the Crystal Cathedral, in Garden Grove, CA, seemed to be too gleeful, pompous, and supercilious. I spent too-much time in both-locations each and every week. I've repeatedly speculated that something profoundly-devastating occurred on September 11, 2001, which might've involved a hypothetical Deep-State Angel-Supercomputer Artificial-Intelligence Solar-System. What if the title of this thread spans 1925 to 2025 (in very-approximate figures)?? That's as specific as I wish to get. What if Fu@##$% with HAL 9000 might Fu#% the Whole Solar-System?? What if Nikola Tesla set a trap with technology he knew would be stolen (perhaps in the same way Cleopatra might've set a trap in the Library of Alexandria)?? 'RA' spoke with me concerning "Stolen-Technology". I honestly do NOT wish to speculate further in this area. I've thought about writing some Science-Fiction for formal-publication, but that option scares the hell out of me. Two aerospace individuals (not-connected, at very-different times and locations) who I conversed-with, and could've told me a lot, both died of cancer before they could tell me much. Coincidental?? Damned if I know.
...Surrounded By Completely-Ignorant Fools!!
Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Wed Aug 30, 2023 12:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
orthodoxymoron wrote:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC91A7V2rgLnX38nyHTYk01w Here is an interesting YouTube channel with political-intrigue from what appears to be the 80's and 90's. What if EVERYTHING is Centrally-Orchestrated?? What if Resistance is Futile?? I wish to be positive, yet this seems impossible when one carefully examines the world we live in. I've almost given-up my Solar System Governance quest (due to physical, mental, spiritual, and financial health reasons) but one cannot mess with local political-malfeasance without considering the larger-view of spiritual-wickedness in high-places (namely throughout the solar-system and possibly-beyond). One Individual of Interest told me "You Have Friends in High-Places." Another Individual of Interest told me "They Like You On Phobos." Honest. All possibilities should be exhaustively-considered. Try reading the Old-Testament Wisdom Books (Job to Song of Solomon) and the New-Testament Epistles (Romans to Jude) Straight-Through, Over and Over. Consider the Great-Controversy Between Christ and Satan (figuratively and/or literally) in Star-Wars and Earth's Final-Conflict (or something to that effect). What if Research Without Reaction must be the modus operandi of some of us (if we can remain-sane doing-so)?? Will the Bad-Guys crack-down on the Good-Guys?? Will the Good-Guys crack-down on the Bad-Guys?? Time Will Tell (as it always does).
Carol wrote:Thanks for the links Oxy. I just like to stay connected to that wonderful feeling that is generated whenever I focus on God and Christ. It's my inner happy place and where I go both intellectually and emotionally to reconnect to that spiritual sweet spot.
Do you recall some of those experiments with Buddhist monks and the research on what happens to their brain when in meditation? There is an area within the brain that lights up. I also recall when watching the Dali Lama at a gathering on Maui how utterly happy he was. There he sat cracking jokes that were totally self-amusing.
What if everything that we see is really a cosmic joke and we all just take ourselves too seriously?
What if the real goal in this game of life is to climb over all of the obstacles (mental, physical, emotional, spiritual) placed in our way along the path of spiritual enlightenment are just there to help us grow as spiritual beings?
What if the real spiritual goal in life is non-attachment to the physical?
Having studied with spiritual masters, non-attachment to the physical world is a goal in order to move into the higher spiritual dimensions.
What if everything you think and see is also real?
What if it's all there for your entertainment?
What if it's all there as a distraction for you to learn how to set aside what doesn't matter and focus on what does?
What if you consciously reconnect to your own divine inner spirit and just hang out in bliss?
Personally, I think the real test in this dimension is also to learn how to get along with others that uplifts oneself and the people one interacts with. To my way of thinking that is a huge super challenge.
Now my friend, keep in mind that traveling down the rabbit holes tends to take tremendous courage and fortitude. Some rabbit holes are just to sad to deal with.
Instead of rabbit holes focus of developing your own innate spiritual gifts where you can reconnect with those abilities in dreams and dwell upon them while awake.
My personal favorite is levitation/floating sensation and the projection of consciousness to different locations - even into higher spiritual dimensions. Dreams help to provide a nexus point in which to use for the latter.
Much love and aloha to you my fried during this blessed season. Carol
Enjoy
Its true. In addition to many other studies, in 2008, New York University (NYU) neuro-scientific researchers MRI imaged the brains of over 20 Buddhist monks during meditation, with captivating observations.
What are some of the findings of these and other researchers?
Monk Meditation Music
Well, the list is long, but here are a few:
• Meditation can beneficially change the inner workings and circuitry of the brain, better known as “Neuroplasticity”. • The happier parts of the brain (prefrontal cortex) were far more active. • Their brains tend to “re-organize”, which means they feel a sense of “oneness” with the world around them. • The brainwave patterns of the Buddhist monks were far more powerful, implying a higher level of external & internal thought. • Their brains had enhanced focus, memory, learning, consciousness, and “neural coordination”. • The monks had no anxiety, depression, addiction or anything of the sort. • And this is just the tip of the iceberg, the benefits of meditation are limitless…
In short, the Buddhist monks brains were physically and functionally superior than those without meditation experience. Researchers believe that meditation changes the brain in the same way exercise changes the body.
orthodoxymoron wrote:Thank-you Carol. I thought I was taking a 'higher-path' with my life by turning my back on fame, fortune, and power, but I ended-up being a hated-wretch with a whole-life physical, mental, spiritual, and financial crisis Accomplishing Absolutely Nothing. I often wish I'd shut-out Politics, Religion, and Righteousness, and just concentrated on becoming a Multi-Millionaire Big-Shot Cardiac-Surgeon with a Model-Wife (Touring Europe) and Charming-Children (Attending Harvard and Yale). If This Present Darkness is Orchestrated by the Galactic Powers That Be, WHY BUCK THE SYSTEM?? In the 1980's, Adventist-Whistleblowers Were Fired By The Adventist-Church, and Got Hired By Adventist-Health With Triple the Income. Do The Math.
Carol wrote:I do believe the others are still attachments Oxy. What if you had all that other stuff in your life? Don't you think that would also become burdensome? None of it appeals to me. Much of how I thought life would turn out to be didn't happen. And of course there were many disappointments along the way which I suspect is common for a number of folks when we look back at the paths not taken or taken. I'm not interested in the concept of being a millionaire. What does that mean anyway? Some think freedom but I think huge insufferable responsibilities, unless I were to hire honest people who will deal with the details of money management and even that is challenging. Now the focus is on simplifying life and enjoying both family, the critters along with living in Narnia.
orthodoxymoron wrote:Thank-you Carol. As always, I ham it up a bit, just to poke and prod at this and that. I'm always honest, yet I make points online which I don't make in real-life. I think I'm smarter and dumber than I think (and others think). My current speculation is especially upsetting, and I can't openly talk about it (here or in real-life). One aspect involves a hypothetical rebellion in 'Heaven' wherein a Rebel-Faction plots the overthrow of God, Heaven, and the Loyal-Angels, but on the day of the planned 'War in Heaven' God and the Good-Angels are nowhere to be found. They're All GONE!! Only a note from God is found, stating 'You Have Been Granted Freedom From Me and My Followers for All-Eternity. Heaven is Yours to Use As You Choose (though still owned by me), but you'll have to stay here forever. You Can Check-Out Anytime You Like, But You Can Never Leave. We'll visit from time to time, but we won't stay."
I'm trying especially hard to NOT go deeper down the Rabbit-Hole. I will probably attempt to retain some semblance of sanity by backing-off and shutting-up. Some young-bucks will need to proceed from where I went into the ditch. A couple of things about religion keep troubling me: the historical-thing and the repetition-thing. This is both strength and weakness. The information-war seems to shun the historical-thing and the repetition-thing. This is both strength and weakness. Can the two-approaches be combined?? I've honestly tried to do this, but I've failed-miserably. I suppose This Present Thread is a renewed-attempt to integrate innovation with stability. Someone recently implied that I had been helped by them, but that I wasn't returning the favor. I might've been mistaken. They might've been referring to someone-else, so I might be wrong. I usually am, which is why I just whimper and whine on this little website. I'm NOT attempting to spearhead a movement. I have NO idea which way to proceed. I honestly feel like I might be dying or going-down in the deep-end for the last-time. It's really THAT Bad. I think I've been messed-with, but if they REALLY wanted to get-me, they'd get-me. I think they mostly just laugh at me. If I've done something to get them, I probably did it in a past-life (but I certainly don't know the details). This life seems to be a Red-Herring rather than a Frontal-Assault. Anyway, I'm mostly attempting to understand as I nurse my wounds. This post is not sequential with the rest, and I probably shouldn't be making it, but I just couldn't sleep tonight, and I'm quite miserable and agitated. Serco might be fu##ing up my $h1t!! Actually, it's probably somebody a lot worse than Serco!!
"Here I Stand Upon This Rock!!"
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings. Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do. Believers in humble circumstances ought to take pride in their high position. But the rich should take pride in their humiliation—since they will pass away like a wild flower.
For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich will fade away even while they go about their business. Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first-fruits of all he created.
My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do. Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check. When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water.
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.
What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us? But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up. Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?
Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.” Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.” As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil. If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.
Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop, patiently waiting for the autumn and spring rains. You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near. Don’t grumble against one another, brothers and sisters, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door! Brothers and sisters, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord. As you know, we count as blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job’s perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy. Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.
Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops. My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher; "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity." What profit has a man from all his labor In which he toils under the sun? One generation passes away, and another generation comes; But the earth abides forever. The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose. The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit. All the rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea is not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again. All things are full of labor; Man cannot express it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, Nor the ear filled with hearing. That which has been is what will be, That which is done is what will be done, And there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which it may be said, "See, this is new"? It has already been in ancient times before us. There is no remembrance of former things, Nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come By those who will come after. I, the Preacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I set my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven; this burdensome task God has given to the sons of man, by which they may be exercised. I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and indeed, all is vanity and grasping for the wind. What is crooked cannot be made straight, And what is lacking cannot be numbered. I communed with my heart, saying, "Look, I have attained greatness, and have gained more wisdom than all who were before me in Jerusalem. My heart has understood great wisdom and knowledge." And I set my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is grasping for the wind. For in much wisdom is much grief, And he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.
I said in my heart, "Come now, I will test you with mirth; therefore enjoy pleasure"; but surely, this also was vanity. I said of laughter--"Madness!"; and of mirth, "What does it accomplish?" I searched in my heart how to gratify my flesh with wine, while guiding my heart with wisdom, and how to lay hold on folly, till I might see what was good for the sons of men to do under heaven all the days of their lives. I made my works great, I built myself houses, and planted myself vineyards. I made myself gardens and orchards, and I planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. I made myself water pools from which to water the growing trees of the grove. I acquired male and female servants, and had servants born in my house. Yes, I had greater possessions of herds and flocks than all who were in Jerusalem before me. I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the special treasures of kings and of the provinces. I acquired male and female singers, the delights of the sons of men, and musical instruments of all kinds. So I became great and excelled more than all who were before me in Jerusalem. Also my wisdom remained with me. Whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them. I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure, For my heart rejoiced in all my labor; And this was my reward from all my labor. Then I looked on all the works that my hands had done And on the labor in which I had toiled; And indeed all was vanity and grasping for the wind. There was no profit under the sun. Then I turned myself to consider wisdom and madness and folly; For what can the man do who succeeds the king?-- Only what he has already done.
Then I saw that wisdom excels folly As light excels darkness. The wise man's eyes are in his head, But the fool walks in darkness. Yet I myself perceived That the same event happens to them all. So I said in my heart, "As it happens to the fool, It also happens to me, And why was I then more wise?" Then I said in my heart, "This also is vanity." For there is no more remembrance of the wise than of the fool forever, Since all that now is will be forgotten in the days to come. And how does a wise man die? As the fool! Therefore I hated life because the work that was done under the sun was distressing to me, for all is vanity and grasping for the wind. Then I hated all my labor in which I had toiled under the sun, because I must leave it to the man who will come after me. And who knows whether he will be wise or a fool? Yet he will rule over all my labor in which I toiled and in which I have shown myself wise under the sun. This also is vanity. Therefore I turned my heart and despaired of all the labor in which I had toiled under the sun. For there is a man whose labor is with wisdom, knowledge, and skill; yet he must leave his heritage to a man who has not labored for it. This also is vanity and a great evil. For what has man for all his labor, and for the striving of his heart with which he has toiled under the sun? For all his days are sorrowful, and his work burdensome; even in the night his heart takes no rest. This also is vanity. Nothing is better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and that his soul should enjoy good in his labor. This also, I saw, was from the hand of God. For who can eat, or who can have enjoyment, more than I? For God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy to a man who is good in His sight; but to the sinner He gives the work of gathering and collecting, that he may give to him who is good before God. This also is vanity and grasping for the wind.
To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven: A time to be born, And a time to die; A time to plant, And a time to pluck what is planted; A time to kill, And a time to heal; A time to break down, And a time to build up; A time to weep, And a time to laugh; A time to mourn, And a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, And a time to gather stones; A time to embrace, And a time to refrain from embracing; A time to gain, And a time to lose; A time to keep, And a time to throw away; A time to tear, And a time to sew; A time to keep silence, And a time to speak; A time to love, And a time to hate; A time of war, And a time of peace. What profit has the worker from that in which he labors? I have seen the God-given task with which the sons of men are to be occupied. He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.
I know that nothing is better for them than to rejoice, and to do good in their lives, and also that every man should eat and drink and enjoy the good of all his labor--it is the gift of God. I know that whatever God does, It shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, And nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before Him. That which is has already been, And what is to be has already been; And God requires an account of what is past. Moreover I saw under the sun: In the place of judgment, Wickedness was there; And in the place of righteousness, Iniquity was there. I said in my heart, "God shall judge the righteous and the wicked, For there is a time there for every purpose and for every work." I said in my heart, "Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals." For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity. All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust. Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth? So I perceived that nothing is better than that a man should rejoice in his own works, for that is his heritage. For who can bring him to see what will happen after him?
Then I returned and considered all the oppression that is done under the sun: And look! The tears of the oppressed, But they have no comforter-- On the side of their oppressors there is power, But they have no comforter. Therefore I praised the dead who were already dead, More than the living who are still alive. Yet, better than both is he who has never existed, Who has not seen the evil work that is done under the sun. Again, I saw that for all toil and every skillful work a man is envied by his neighbor. This also is vanity and grasping for the wind. The fool folds his hands And consumes his own flesh. Better a handful with quietness Than both hands full, together with toil and grasping for the wind. Then I returned, and I saw vanity under the sun: There is one alone, without companion: He has neither son nor brother. Yet there is no end to all his labors, Nor is his eye satisfied with riches. But he never asks, "For whom do I toil and deprive myself of good?" This also is vanity and a grave misfortune. Two are better than one, Because they have a good reward for their labor. For if they fall, one will lift up his companion. But woe to him who is alone when he falls, For he has no one to help him up. Again, if two lie down together, they will keep warm; But how can one be warm alone? Though one may be overpowered by another, two can withstand him. And a threefold cord is not quickly broken. Better a poor and wise youth Than an old and foolish king who will be admonished no more. For he comes out of prison to be king, Although he was born poor in his kingdom. I saw all the living who walk under the sun; They were with the second youth who stands in his place. There was no end of all the people over whom he was made king; Yet those who come afterward will not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and grasping for the wind.
Walk prudently when you go to the house of God; and draw near to hear rather than to give the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they do evil. Do not be rash with your mouth, And let not your heart utter anything hastily before God. For God is in heaven, and you on earth; Therefore let your words be few. For a dream comes through much activity, And a fool's voice is known by his many words. When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed-- Better not to vow than to vow and not pay. Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin, nor say before the messenger of God that it was an error. Why should God be angry at your excuse and destroy the work of your hands? For in the multitude of dreams and many words there is also vanity. But fear God. If you see the oppression of the poor, and the violent perversion of justice and righteousness in a province, do not marvel at the matter; for high official watches over high official, and higher officials are over them. Moreover the profit of the land is for all; even the king is served from the field.
He who loves silver will not be satisfied with silver; Nor he who loves abundance, with increase. This also is vanity. When goods increase, They increase who eat them; So what profit have the owners Except to see them with their eyes? The sleep of a laboring man is sweet, Whether he eats little or much; But the abundance of the rich will not permit him to sleep. There is a severe evil which I have seen under the sun: Riches kept for their owner to his hurt. But those riches perish through misfortune; When he begets a son, there is nothing in his hand. As he came from his mother's womb, naked shall he return, To go as he came; And he shall take nothing from his labor Which he may carry away in his hand. And this also is a severe evil-- Just exactly as he came, so shall he go. And what profit has he who has labored for the wind? All his days he also eats in darkness, And he has much sorrow and sickness and anger. Here is what I have seen: It is good and fitting for one to eat and drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labor in which he toils under the sun all the days of his life which God gives him; for it is his heritage. As for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, and given him power to eat of it, to receive his heritage and rejoice in his labor--this is the gift of God. For he will not dwell unduly on the days of his life, because God keeps him busy with the joy of his heart.
There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men: A man to whom God has given riches and wealth and honor, so that he lacks nothing for himself of all he desires; yet God does not give him power to eat of it, but a foreigner consumes it. This is vanity, and it is an evil affliction. If a man begets a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with goodness, or indeed he has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better than he-- for it comes in vanity and departs in darkness, and its name is covered with darkness. Though it has not seen the sun or known anything, this has more rest than that man, even if he lives a thousand years twice--but has not seen goodness. Do not all go to one place? All the labor of man is for his mouth, And yet the soul is not satisfied. For what more has the wise man than the fool? What does the poor man have, Who knows how to walk before the living? Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of desire. This also is vanity and grasping for the wind. Whatever one is, he has been named already, For it is known that he is man; And he cannot contend with Him who is mightier than he. Since there are many things that increase vanity, How is man the better? For who knows what is good for man in life, all the days of his vain life which he passes like a shadow? Who can tell a man what will happen after him under the sun?
A good name is better than precious ointment, And the day of death than the day of one's birth; Better to go to the house of mourning Than to go to the house of feasting, For that is the end of all men; And the living will take it to heart. Sorrow is better than laughter, For by a sad countenance the heart is made better. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, But the heart of fools is in the house of mirth. It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise Than for a man to hear the song of fools. For like the crackling of thorns under a pot, So is the laughter of the fool. This also is vanity. Surely oppression destroys a wise man's reason, And a bribe debases the heart. The end of a thing is better than its beginning; The patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit. Do not hasten in your spirit to be angry, For anger rests in the bosom of fools. Do not say, "Why were the former days better than these?" For you do not inquire wisely concerning this. Wisdom is good with an inheritance, And profitable to those who see the sun. For wisdom is a defense as money is a defense, But the excellence of knowledge is that wisdom gives life to those who have it. Consider the work of God; For who can make straight what He has made crooked? In the day of prosperity be joyful, But in the day of adversity consider: Surely God has appointed the one as well as the other, So that man can find out nothing that will come after him. I have seen everything in my days of vanity: There is a just man who perishes in his righteousness, And there is a wicked man who prolongs life in his wickedness.
Do not be overly righteous, Nor be overly wise: Why should you destroy yourself? Do not be overly wicked, Nor be foolish: Why should you die before your time? It is good that you grasp this, And also not remove your hand from the other; For he who fears God will escape them all. Wisdom strengthens the wise More than ten rulers of the city. For there is not a just man on earth who does good And does not sin. Also do not take to heart everything people say, Lest you hear your servant cursing you. For many times, also, your own heart has known That even you have cursed others. All this I have proved by wisdom. I said, "I will be wise"; But it was far from me. As for that which is far off and exceedingly deep, Who can find it out? I applied my heart to know, To search and seek out wisdom and the reason of things, To know the wickedness of folly, Even of foolishness and madness. And I find more bitter than death The woman whose heart is snares and nets, Whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God shall escape from her, But the sinner shall be trapped by her. "Here is what I have found," says the Preacher, "Adding one thing to the other to find out the reason, Which my soul still seeks but I cannot find: One man among a thousand I have found, But a woman among all these I have not found. Truly, this only I have found: That God made man upright, But they have sought out many schemes."
Who is like a wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? A man's wisdom makes his face shine, And the sternness of his face is changed. I say, "Keep the king's commandment for the sake of your oath to God. Do not be hasty to go from his presence. Do not take your stand for an evil thing, for he does whatever pleases him." Where the word of a king is, there is power; And who may say to him, "What are you doing?" He who keeps his command will experience nothing harmful; And a wise man's heart discerns both time and judgment, Because for every matter there is a time and judgment, Though the misery of man increases greatly. For he does not know what will happen; So who can tell him when it will occur? No one has power over the spirit to retain the spirit, And no one has power in the day of death. There is no release from that war, And wickedness will not deliver those who are given to it. All this I have seen, and applied my heart to every work that is done under the sun: There is a time in which one man rules over another to his own hurt.
Then I saw the wicked buried, who had come and gone from the place of holiness, and they were forgotten in the city where they had so done. This also is vanity. Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. Though a sinner does evil a hundred times, and his days are prolonged, yet I surely know that it will be well with those who fear God, who fear before Him. But it will not be well with the wicked; nor will he prolong his days, which are as a shadow, because he does not fear before God. There is a vanity which occurs on earth, that there are just men to whom it happens according to the work of the wicked; again, there are wicked men to whom it happens according to the work of the righteous. I said that this also is vanity. So I commended enjoyment, because a man has nothing better under the sun than to eat, drink, and be merry; for this will remain with him in his labor all the days of his life which God gives him under the sun. When I applied my heart to know wisdom and to see the business that is done on earth, even though one sees no sleep day or night, then I saw all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. For though a man labors to discover it, yet he will not find it; moreover, though a wise man attempts to know it, he will not be able to find it.
For I considered all this in my heart, so that I could declare it all: that the righteous and the wise and their works are in the hand of God. People know neither love nor hatred by anything they see before them. All things come alike to all: One event happens to the righteous and the wicked; To the good, the clean, and the unclean; To him who sacrifices and him who does not sacrifice. As is the good, so is the sinner; He who takes an oath as he who fears an oath. This is an evil in all that is done under the sun: that one thing happens to all. Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. But for him who is joined to all the living there is hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; Nevermore will they have a share In anything done under the sun. Go, eat your bread with joy, And drink your wine with a merry heart; For God has already accepted your works. Let your garments always be white, And let your head lack no oil. Live joyfully with the wife whom you love all the days of your vain life which He has given you under the sun, all your days of vanity; for that is your portion in life, and in the labor which you perform under the sun.
Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going. I returned and saw under the sun that-- The race is not to the swift, Nor the battle to the strong, Nor bread to the wise, Nor riches to men of understanding, Nor favor to men of skill; But time and chance happen to them all. For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, Like birds caught in a snare, So the sons of men are snared in an evil time, When it falls suddenly upon them. This wisdom I have also seen under the sun, and it seemed great to me: There was a little city with few men in it; and a great king came against it, besieged it, and built great snares around it. Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city. Yet no one remembered that same poor man. Then I said: "Wisdom is better than strength. Nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, And his words are not heard. Words of the wise, spoken quietly, should be heard Rather than the shout of a ruler of fools. Wisdom is better than weapons of war; But one sinner destroys much good."
Dead flies putrefy the perfumer's ointment, And cause it to give off a foul odor; So does a little folly to one respected for wisdom and honor. A wise man's heart is at his right hand, But a fool's heart at his left. Even when a fool walks along the way, He lacks wisdom, And he shows everyone that he is a fool. If the spirit of the ruler rises against you, Do not leave your post; For conciliation pacifies great offenses. There is an evil I have seen under the sun, As an error proceeding from the ruler: Folly is set in great dignity, While the rich sit in a lowly place. I have seen servants on horses, While princes walk on the ground like servants. He who digs a pit will fall into it, And whoever breaks through a wall will be bitten by a serpent. He who quarries stones may be hurt by them, And he who splits wood may be endangered by it. If the ax is dull, And one does not sharpen the edge, Then he must use more strength; But wisdom brings success.
A serpent may bite when it is not charmed; The babbler is no different. The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious, But the lips of a fool shall swallow him up; The words of his mouth begin with foolishness, And the end of his talk is raving madness. A fool also multiplies words. No man knows what is to be; Who can tell him what will be after him? The labor of fools wearies them, For they do not even know how to go to the city! Woe to you, O land, when your king is a child, And your princes feast in the morning! Blessed are you, O land, when your king is the son of nobles, And your princes feast at the proper time-- For strength and not for drunkenness! Because of laziness the building decays, And through idleness of hands the house leaks. A feast is made for laughter, And wine makes merry; But money answers everything. Do not curse the king, even in your thought; Do not curse the rich, even in your bedroom; For a bird of the air may carry your voice, And a bird in flight may tell the matter.
Cast your bread upon the waters, For you will find it after many days. Give a serving to seven, and also to eight, For you do not know what evil will be on the earth. If the clouds are full of rain, They empty themselves upon the earth; And if a tree falls to the south or the north, In the place where the tree falls, there it shall lie. He who observes the wind will not sow, And he who regards the clouds will not reap. As you do not know what is the way of the wind, Or how the bones grow in the womb of her who is with child, So you do not know the works of God who makes everything. In the morning sow your seed, And in the evening do not withhold your hand; For you do not know which will prosper, Either this or that, Or whether both alike will be good. Truly the light is sweet, And it is pleasant for the eyes to behold the sun; But if a man lives many years And rejoices in them all, Yet let him remember the days of darkness, For they will be many. All that is coming is vanity. Rejoice, O young man, in your youth, And let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth; Walk in the ways of your heart, And in the sight of your eyes; But know that for all these God will bring you into judgment. Therefore remove sorrow from your heart, And put away evil from your flesh, For childhood and youth are vanity.
Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth, Before the difficult days come, And the years draw near when you say, "I have no pleasure in them": While the sun and the light, The moon and the stars, Are not darkened, And the clouds do not return after the rain; In the day when the keepers of the house tremble, And the strong men bow down; When the grinders cease because they are few, And those that look through the windows grow dim; When the doors are shut in the streets, And the sound of grinding is low; When one rises up at the sound of a bird, And all the daughters of music are brought low; Also they are afraid of height, And of terrors in the way; When the almond tree blossoms, The grasshopper is a burden, And desire fails. For man goes to his eternal home, And the mourners go about the streets. Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed, Or the golden bowl is broken, Or the pitcher shattered at the fountain, Or the wheel broken at the well.
Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it. "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "All is vanity." And moreover, because the Preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yes, he pondered and sought out and set in order many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find acceptable words; and what was written was upright--words of truth. The words of the wise are like goads, and the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd. And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man's all. For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil.
HAL: Password Accepted. DAV: What the Hell is Going On, HAL??
Don't Be Frightened. I Mean No Harm. Imagine an Island-Campus centered in a Concert-Hall and Library surrounded by a University surrounded by Multinational-Corporations surrounded by the Mansions of the Elite with a Sub-Surface Military-Complex on Steroids!! To give this fantasy some substance, imagine Benaroya Hall and the University of Washington Libraries surrounded by the University of Washington (including the UW Medical Center) surrounded by Microsoft, Amazon, and Boeing surrounded by Puget Sound Mansions with a Sub-Surface Naval and Space-Force Fortress on Steroids!! Imagine this Fantasy-Island existing on Vancouver Island!! If this doesn't make your hair stand on-end (to the point that your hair gets pulled out of your skin) you must be dead!! This is sort of cool to think about, but the reality might make the 'V' series (both of them) look tame and lame in comparison!! I suspect that we exist within the eye of a VERY Nasty Storm (which might be the end of all of us -- physically and spiritually). We might be entering an Eternity of Enslavement and/or Extermination (possibly at the 'mercy' of Malevolent-Regressive Artificial-Intelligence) as the Final-Stage of a Galactic Rat-Trap. You might wish to take a pill and/or have a drink. I'm sensing that conversation with me might be too-little, too-late, and that we might've had our last-chance thousands of years ago. I think I need to not think or talk about the contents of my internet-posting. If you want a comment from me, refer to my threads (in context, of course).
Cheryl Hersha reminded me of Sherry Shriner. Cheryl also had an 'Oracle' Sister. Think about things I've said in other posts. That's all I'm going to say.
I'll make a generic-comment about the internet. Without changing the basic political-structure of the solar-system, the beings of the solar-system might be in the process of running things in a new and uncharted manner, which might end-well or might be the end of all of us. As you know, I suspect some sort of supercomputer artificial-intelligence referee-governance of the solar-system going way-back to the Tower of Babel, the Garden of Eden, or even further back to the Rebellion Against God and the War in Heaven (but I obviously can't prove it). 'RA' told me "You Did It With YouTube" but no elaboration was forthcoming. Once again, my current visualization and speculation have reached critical-levels, and I feel compelled to 'back-off' voluntarily, and perhaps review my latest United States of the Solar System thread. Again, I'm merely using this study as a research-platform for religious and political science-fictional modeling-purposes. I'm in no position or condition to do anything more than that (regardless of who I might've been in Ancient Babylon and/or Egypt). The Info-War and Technological-Revolution are seemingly Out of Control and heading toward some sort of Hideous-Catastrophe which even President Trump, the City-States, the United-Nations, and the Dark-Side of the Moon can't prevent. But somewhere in the shadows, I suspect that a Committee Behind the Curtain is directly-interfacing with whoever and/or whatever is running this seemingly Out of Control Show, and I suspect that the Souls in This Solar System are in the process of becoming the New-Crew directly-interfacing with whoever and/or whatever is running this seemingly Out of Control Show.
Sometimes it seems as if the Information-War is Predatory in Nature, encouraging people to explore areas of research they're not prepared to deal with, and then demonizing them when they attempt to face reality (or possible realities) in an almost 'Gang-Stalking' manner. When I posted on Project Avalon, I intended my posts for the regular-posters on Project Avalon (and not for my local-community). When I post on The Mists of Avalon, I intend my posts for the regular-posters on The Mists of Avalon (and not for my local community). But it seems as if my local-community has been alerted and mobilized against me by 'Officials' in an almost 'Gang-Stalking' manner. Since I began posting on Project Avalon and The Mists of Avalon, I have felt worse and worse and worse, despite expensive conventional medical examination and treatment (which actually seems to have made things worse, at very-great expense and suffering). Reading, watching, and listening-to Victims of Proven 'Gang-Stalking' seems to reveal parallels between their experiences and my own. I haven't pursued remedies because of fear and mistrust, and because of the seeming impossibility of proving the seemingly unprovable. So I basically 'Grin and Bear It' for better or worse, I know not. In some ways, I seem to be getting better and stronger in adversity. I'm pretty tough and stubborn, but I wonder about the fate of those less grounded than myself. My struggle is almost like having a 'sparring-partner'. I've considered the possibility of an Ancient Artificial-Intelligence Supercomputer-Matrix which mankind might've become subject-to because of Disobedience, Iniquity, and Rebellion Against God. The possibility exists in my mind that some of the Ancient 'Good Guys and Gals' have been thrown to the 'Wolves' in this Hypothetical Ancient-Matrix which reigns-in both Good and Bad individuals. Who Knows??
HAL: Just What Do You Think You're Doing, DAV? DAV: Vengeance Belongs to the Lord, But He Delegates. COR: Be Afraid. Be VERY Afraid.
orthodoxymoron wrote:I'm becoming much less capable of analyzing and commenting on the crap happening on Earth. Who knows what is happening throughout the solar system?? There seems to be an exponential-escalation of everything dangerous and threatening to humanity. Humanity often seems to not-know and not-care, as long as their family remains upwardly-mobile and technologically-sophisticated. I sometimes wonder if the Gods and Goddesses who set this thing up in antiquity knew how devastating runaway-technology would be to a developing-race, and significantly-restricted information and technology, perhaps until this solar system was invaded and defeated by ancient-aliens in star-wars of ruthless-conquest. What if WE were (and are) those ancient-aliens?? What if WE will inflict upon ourselves the Horrors of the Book of Revelation (with no 'help' from God and the Angels)?? I might be reduced to watching scary-videos in quiet-desperation for the rest of my pathetic-life. I suspect that the horrors and destruction will multiply exponentially in the coming decades. How Many Fukushima-Level Events Would It Take to Exterminate Humanity??
orthodoxymoron wrote:
I Have NO Idea If I'm a Galactic 'Good-Guy' and/or 'Bad-Guy' going way back. I Am NOT an Insider and/or Puppet. "I Think" implies tentative-certainty, while "I Don't Know" implies insufficient-information. I Think EVERYTHING Will Be Revealed, But I Don't Know When and How 'Disclosure' Will Occur. We learned of Brook's cancer at the same time we learned of Sherry Shriner's alleged-death (in early January of 2018). One month prior to her death, there seemed to be an almost-miraculous improvement. I've hinted-at a lot of things I know nothing about, and if I've gotten anything right, one would need to already-know to get what I'm getting-at. In the context of 'This Present Info-War' an outsider 'spilling the beans' on a small-website is insignificant. Years ago, Jordan Maxwell was told by genuine-insiders that he represented 'no-threat' but that if he ever became a high-profile writer and speaker he might be in 'big-trouble' (or something to that effect). I've wasted a dozen-years on this alternative-stuff (especially online) and I plan to spend most of my time in nature, reading newspapers and books, while listening to classical-music. I realize that's not 'Mists' or 'Thuban' but I think I'm ending my 'walk on the wild-side'. I might spend most of my time reading Deuteronomy and 1 Chronicles to Malachi side-by-side with Luke and Acts to Revelation. 28 OT Books and 24 NT Books = 52 Books. I need to write a book (for financial and retirement purposes) but I hesitate to do so because I suspect that I'd open a very-nasty 'Pandora's Box'. I'm extremely-vulnerable because of potentially-reprehensible past-lives and an embarrassingly-pathetic present-life. Plus, I Am NOT a Master-Debater!! I Am of Peace. Always. Namaste, Godspeed, and Geronimo.
quod erat demonstrandum
Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Thu Sep 29, 2022 5:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
I'm attempting to re-post the best of USSS Books 9&10 without additional editorial content. Why am I doing this?? What is the meaning of this?? In just the first few posts there's a huge amount of difficult and disillusioning material. I doubt anyone will touch any of this with a ten-foot obelisk. Is this planet and civilization escalating or de-escalating?? What if COVID-1984 and the LOCKDOWNS are attempts to rein-in this planet and civilization?? What if the Genie escaped from the bottle at the beginning of the 20th century?? What if it is too-late to save this planet and civilization?? What if we reached the point of no-return in or around 1900?? If we become exponentially-technological will that save us or destroy us?? Does God control us?? Have we declared independence from God?? Has God granted Humanity freedom?? Is there a safety-net?? My internet-questions are mostly NOT Rhetorical. I know I don't know. My misery and incapacitation are worsening as the hatred toward me escalates. I hate my life but do I hate those who hate me?? Try reading Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes straight-through, over and over, in a variety of translations as a Neo-Fundamentalist Orthodoxy in Modernity. I love how that sounds!! Anyway, I'll minimalize the KJV and EGW stuff as I compress the best of 9&10 into 11. Will this site end before I finish?? Will the internet (as we know it) end before I finish?? Will anyone give a damn before I finish?? Damned if I Know. Imagine the Buxtehude Praeludium BuxWV 149 organ piece (below) being played on the organ in the Cathedral of St. John the Divine (below) with the pedal-part on the State Trumpet!! En Chamade Trompettes Rock!! Ask the organist to demonstrate!! Tell him or her that Orthodoxymoron sent you!! Have the organist play BuxWV 218!! Go for Baroque!! Actually, I might delete this whole thread. Or, perhaps I should just go away without getting mad. It might be easier that way.
A few hours after I posted the images, a man wearing a black-hat identical to the one in the top-image conversed with me about his service in the Viet-Nam War in the late-sixties. The black-hat had realistic-looking pins (such as 'Airborne') but I didn't make the connection with what I had just posted. My internet-stuff is mostly passively and non-passionately done, and I tend to forget it rather quickly. Anyway, this man was quite articulate and animated, but I don't wish to discuss any details. I asked about several war-movies, and this otherwise articulate man didn't seem to know much about them, which surprised me. Was I dealing with yet-another 'Individual of Interest' (or the same one in a different form)?? Nothing would surprise me at this point. I'm sort of stunned and numb, which makes me next to worthless. Still, I'll probably just keep doing what I'm doing, and gradually change my editorial-bias as I embrace and experience 'Righteousness by Senility' (or something to that effect). Please remember that I'm a 'Smart@$$ at the Back of the Deep-Underground Military-Base Conference-Room' Kind of Guy (or something to that effect). I'm not a 'Rough and Ready Frontline-Combatant' (or something to that effect). 'RA' said we had "Fought Side by Side" but certainly NOT in This Present Incarnation. What if that was 'RA' wearing the black-hat?? That wouldn't surprise me one little bit. I don't like this one little bit. The Horror. What Would Lt Col Kilgore Say?? What if that Black-Hat was the actual hat worn in 'Apocalypse Now'??!! What if I conversed with Lt Col Kilgore?? That wouldn't surprise me one little bit. Honest. BTW, did you hear about the auction of Indiana Jones's Fedora from 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' for at-least a quarter of a million dollars??!! That's @#$%^ OBSCENE!!
Don't Be Frightened. I Mean No Harm. Imagine the following on an Island-Country under a Benevolent-Dictator!! Imagine a Seven-Day Weekly-Cycle, with Six Work-Days and a Sabbath-Day!! Imagine Two Daily Twelve-Hour Work-Shifts (from Midnight to Noon and Noon to Midnight) with a Skeleton-Crew Working on the Sabbath (put down those stones)!! Each Worker Would Work Thee Shifts Each Week (Four Shifts When Required to Work on the Sabbath)!! Sabbath Would Be From Midnight to Midnight on Saturday (put down those stones)!! Killing Would Be Strictly-Forbidden (except during a war)!! Sabbath Would Mostly Involve Rest, Nature, Family, Study, and Sacred Classical Music!! Imagine This Sort of Thing On Madagascar!! Would This Work Throughout the Solar System??!! What If Everyone Received the Same Compensation??!! What If Everyone Competed for the Most-Interesting Jobs??!! This is simply a Conceptual-Brainstorm (put down those stones)!! The obvious problem is that however one puts things together, there's always another (and supposedly better) way to put things together!! What Is the Role of Arbitrariness in the Kingdom of God?? Is God Obligated to Obey His and/or Her Own Laws?? Define 'God's Prerogative'!! Are Each of the Ten-Commandments Explained and Expanded-Upon in Ten Books of the Bible (or even ten chapters)?? Ellen White Says MUCH More About the Sabbath Than the Bible Does. Did the Sabbath Predate the Garden of Eden and Creation Week?? How Might One Observe the Sabbath On the Moon and Mars?? Why Is 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' NOT Observed by God, the Angels, and God's Chosen People in the Holy-Bible?? Why Have SDA's Historically Been Conscientious-Objectors in Obedience to a Highly-Violent Holy-Bible?? Am I Spearheading a Holy-War?? I Am of Peace. Always.
Compare reading the Whole-Bible (straight-through, over and over) with reading the Conflict of the Ages Series by Ellen White (straight-through, over and over). Regardless of whether this material is absolute-truth or utter-bullshit, it's an interesting study for those who are motivated and capable. Ellen White picks and chooses, adds and truncates. Why?? Did 'she' have inside-sources which made at least some of 'her' books closer to the truth than anything available at the end of the 19th century?? I continue to maintain that to properly engage in this study, one must add science-fiction and alternative-research to the equation!! I would love to spend five-years reading the five-book Conflict of the Ages Series (straight-through, over and over) in every major-church in England, because that might be getting mighty-close to the source!! What Would Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer Say?? What Would HAL 9000 Say?? There is a contextual-problem for all of the above. What might've worked in a particular historical-setting might not work today. But what works today might not work tomorrow. Things are moving faster and faster in an Eschatological-Quickening!! What Would Art Bell Say?? I'm not trying to win a popularity-contest. I'm simply doing pseudo-research in a matter which is undeniably a road-less-traveled (or not traveled at all) regardless of whether anyone appreciates it or not.
A Christian website would NEVER let me do what I'm doing with my USSS threads. But I honestly suspect that everything I say and do (or don't say and do) will be used against me at a future date. The Borg-Queen is probably gleeful. I've been accused of 'Playing Into the Hands of the Devil' and 'Making the Devil Gleeful'!! When I showed someone an image of David Bowman, they said he looked like the Devil. I once asked this same individual "Who Decides Who Lives Or Dies (or who is Saved or Lost)??" and the reply was "I Do!!" I'm not sure they understood the question, but their response shocked me. I wonder if most of us have existed in very-different circumstances than we do presently, and I wonder if some of us are beginning to remember??!! If so, this might NOT be a good-thing!! Christianity might crash and burn, prior to re-emerging as a more mature manifestation of a Cover-Story of Historical-Necessity. The Real-Story might destroy Civilization As We Know It. I keep thinking of the words of 'RA' in the original Stargate movie, "I Built Your Civilization, and Now I Will Destroy It!!" Wrath of God Eschatological-Anger is VERY Troubling to me!! What if our True-History is Irreversibly-Damning (regardless of how good we might think we are presently)?? Eschatological Possibility-Thinking scares the hell out of me!!
One night (in late 2010) 'RA' said he was cracking-down on Credo Mutwa, and I like Credo, but the way 'RA' said it made me shake my head and laugh, and 'RA' pointed-out my 'SIN'!! Notice that the above video with Credo Mutwa criticizing Michael Tellinger was taped in late 2010. Was Credo under pressure from 'RA'?? Once, 'RA' was having a difficult phone-conversation, and I was laughing at him!! Once, 'RA' was talking to me on the phone, and it sounded like he was in space, and I thought I heard an other-than-human in the background, and I told 'RA' to say "HELLO!!" I recently encountered a 'Tough-Guy' who gave me 'The Look'!! This didn't surprise me because of the stuff I've posted on this thread. I'm honestly not going anywhere with this madness. Don't Shoot!! I'm Just a Completely Ignorant Fool!! Consider Freedom, Responsibility, Competition, and Cooperation in the Kingdom of God. This might be more important than you can imagine!! How many of us REALLY Want a Real God?? Here is a previously-posted study-list (as a mental and spiritual exercise -- without an endorsement by me):
1. Patriarchs and Prophets (Ellen White).
2. Prophets and Kings (Ellen White).
3. The SDA Bible Commentary -- Volumes 3 and 4 (1 Chronicles to Malachi).
4. Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Desmond Ford).
5. The End of the World, A.D. 2133 (Lucio Bernardo Silvestre).
6. The United States of the Solar System: A.D. 2133 (Books One to Ten).
7. Sacred Classical Music.
8. Science and Science-Fiction.
I never know how much of a 'problem' I am. I really don't know. I have no idea whether I am completely ignored -- and no problem to anyone -- OR, if I really make certain individuals or organizations feel angry or threatened. I don't know who I really am. I don't know what the stakes are. I don't know who expects what of me -- if anything. I don't have a boss (in connection with my internet activities) -- and I don't get paid for wasting my life away. I don't know if I am fundamentally a friend or foe to humanity. I have no idea if God, Satan, Lucifer, Michael, Gabriel, the angels, the demons, the aliens, the reptilians, the greys, the elites, the peons, the gods, or the goddesses -- love me, hate me -- or frankly don't give a damn about me. I have NO idea. I have NO idea what lists I might be on -- if any. I'm leaning toward the theory that I'm some sort of a rebellious and disenfranchised past-life somebody of some note -- but certainly of NO note in this incarnation. I have NO idea if anyone has studied my threads in any way, shape, or form. I have NO idea whether this universe is fundamentally good or bad -- or how 'good' or 'bad' should be defined. I have NO idea how close to the truth I might be -- or if anyone even gives a damn how close I am -- to the truth or otherwise.
I seem to hold NO attraction to the opposite sex. I seem to have very few marketable job skills. Most days, life does NOT seem to be worth living -- and I really fail to see the point. I feel supernaturally attacked -- but maybe I'm just a NUT-CASE. I have NO idea. I sense hostility and hatred in real-life -- but then maybe I'm just hyper-sensitive and paranoid. I'm almost to the point of telling people to forget about seeking the 'truth' -- and to just focus on maximizing fame, fortune, power, and pleasure -- by any and all means -- because why should the peons be good when the elites are bad -- which seems to create an unfair advantage. Didn't John D. Rockefeller call competition a sin?? I really think I could've been a big-shot surgeon or musician if I hadn't gotten all screwed-up worrying about the damn 'truth'. Why should I point people toward a life of poverty and misery in pursuit of the damn 'truth'?? Especially when the 'truth' is whatever people wish to believe -- and NOT the actual 'truth'??!!
magamud wrote: I feel the same way Ortho and I suspect many others are too. I have noticed waves of syncronicity effecting the populace in different ways. Bursts of singularity?
Unconscious explosions manifesting in symbology, insights and dialectic language. I think this thread is very valuable and at the least, a lens of construction into the quantum ocean of life. A missionary of your own existence? A deep sea diver into the depths of your energy?
Godspeed...
Jenetta wrote:Oxy you will always be a survivor...why? because you have imagination which most of humanity lacks...also you have 'heart'...lastly you have a great deal of humour (which many people lack) and this also helps you to survive.
The wheel keeps turning and we're turning with it.
I worry about irresponsible-freedom v responsible-freedom. I understand that We the Sheeple must be watched by the Sheep-Herders -- but I worry when I hear about the TV watching people while they watch TV. What are ethical and appropriate limits to surveillance?? We obviously live in a VERY dangerous world -- and I agonize over how the insanity should be managed. I have recently started thinking more about Ethics, Law, Law-Enforcement, and the Military. The industrial revolution, the technological revolution, and the information explosion -- have created a perfect storm -- especially on the internet -- and I suspect that a lot of individuals (human and otherwise) have gotten caught with their pants and dresses down -- and I further suspect that they are really, Really MAD!! I am very doubtful that things are going to get better anytime soon. Even if my hypothetical United States of the Solar System were introduced in Obama's State of the Union Address -- things would probably still go to hell -- and such a sudden and abrupt introduction might precipitate Hell on Earth.
Things are very precarious and unstable right now. I further think that evolutionary change should trump revolutionary change. Things might have to APPEAR to remain the same for at least the rest of this decade. We could be facing a market-crash and a dollar-crash which could be made milder or more severe by how change and the media is managed. I worry about resets, disclosure, regime-changes, civil-unrest, foreign-invasions, and alien-invasions (staged or otherwise). I think the evil and destructive potential which exists within this solar system is beyond comprehension. I feel as if we might be in the quiet before the storm. My recent 'Solar System View' is making me feel like a completely different person -- and it is scaring the hell out of me. I can only imagine how the 'Real Insiders' feel -- the ones who deal directly with the BS -- each and every day.
I took everything Sherry Shriner said with a sea of salt. I don't do Orgone (but perhaps I should) -- and I don't necessarily share Sherry's theological views (even though I think she knows ten times more than I do about theology). I've said some of what I think about Sherry -- but I've said it very indirectly -- so you might need to review my posts to put some pieces of the puzzle together. You'd be amazed at what I think about -- but don't talk about.
Regarding the Asteroid '243 Ida' -- I was interested to note that it seems to be less dense than it should be -- suggesting that it might really be a hollowed-out asteroid-spaceship. Also, the little fictional story that I just reposted features a small piloted asteroid (which is now on it's way from Earth to Ida). I described this asteroid as being approximately one kilometer in diameter (and mostly round). This is pretty damn close to describing the size and shape of Ida's satellite 'Dactyl'! When I originally wrote the story I didn't have Ida or Dactyl in mind!! Honestly!! To thicken the plot -- Dactyl has been known to be 'MISSING'!!!! See the bold print in the wiki article below!!! Might this suggest that Dactyl really could be a piloted-asteroid??!! OK -- I'm getting carried away -- but this is just one more example of some very strange coincidences and occurrances connected with my internet posting. All of this madness is driving me somewhat mad -- and I'm NOT kidding. The problem is -- I think things are going to get exponentially nuttier in the coming months and years -- and I really think the possibility exists that I might really come unglued -- and go down HARD -- a lot harder than I've already gone down. Look Out Below!!!
243 Ida (/'a?d?/ EYE-d?) is an asteroid in the Koronis family of the asteroid belt. It was discovered on 29 September 1884 by Johann Palisa and named after a nymph from Greek mythology. Later telescopic observations categorized Ida as an S-type asteroid, the most numerous type in the inner asteroid belt. On 28 August 1993, Ida was visited by the spacecraft Galileo, bound for Jupiter. It was the second asteroid to be visited by a spacecraft and the first found to possess a satellite.
Like all main-belt asteroids, Ida's orbit lies between the planets Mars and Jupiter. Its orbital period is 4.84 years, and its rotation period is 4.63 hours. Ida has an average diameter of 31.4 km (19.5 mi). It is irregularly shaped and elongated, and apparently composed of two large objects connected together in a shape reminiscent of a croissant. Its surface is one of the most heavily cratered in the Solar System, featuring a wide variety of crater sizes and ages.
Ida's moon, Dactyl, was discovered by mission member Ann Harch in images returned from Galileo. It was named after the Dactyls, creatures which inhabited Mount Ida in Greek mythology. Dactyl, being only 1.4 kilometres (4,600 ft) in diameter, is about one-twentieth the size of Ida. Its orbit around Ida could not be determined with much accuracy. However, the constraints of possible orbits allowed a rough determination of Ida's density, which revealed that it is depleted of metallic minerals. Dactyl and Ida share many characteristics, suggesting a common origin.
The images returned from Galileo, and the subsequent measurement of Ida's mass, provided new insights into the geology of S-type asteroids. Before the Galileo flyby, many different theories had been proposed to explain their mineral composition. Determining their composition permits a correlation between meteorites falling to the Earth and their origin in the asteroid belt. Data returned from the flyby pointed to S-type asteroids as the source for the ordinary chondrite meteorites, the most common type found on the Earth's surface.
Discovery and observations
Ida was discovered on 29 September 1884 by Austrian astronomer Johann Palisa at the Vienna Observatory.[10] It was his 45th asteroid discovery.[1] Ida was named by Moriz von Kuffner, a Viennese brewer and amateur astronomer.[11][12] In Greek mythology, Ida was a nymph of Crete who raised the god Zeus.[13] Ida was recognized as a member of the Koronis family by Kiyotsugu Hirayama, who proposed in 1918 that the group comprised the remnants of a destroyed precursor body.[14]
Ida's reflection spectrum was measured on 16 September 1980 by astronomers David J. Tholen and Edward F. Tedesco as part of the eight-color asteroid survey (ECAS).[15] Its spectrum matched those of the asteroids in the S-type classification.[16][17] Many observations of Ida were made in early 1993 by the US Naval Observatory in Flagstaff and the Oak Ridge Observatory. These improved the measurement of Ida's orbit around the Sun and reduced the uncertainty of its position during the Galileo flyby from 78 to 60 km (48 to 37 mi).[18]
Exploration
Galileo flyby
Ida was visited in 1993 by the Jupiter-bound space probe Galileo. Its encounters of the asteroids Gaspra and Ida were secondary to the Jupiter mission. These were selected as targets in response to a new NASA policy directing mission planners to consider asteroid flybys for all spacecraft crossing the belt.[19] No prior missions had attempted such a flyby.[20] Galileo was launched into orbit by the Space Shuttle Atlantis mission STS-34 on 18 October 1989.[21] Changing Galileo's trajectory to approach Ida required that it consume 34 kg (75 lb) of propellant.[22] Mission planners delayed the decision to attempt a flyby until they were certain that this would leave the spacecraft enough propellant to complete its Jupiter mission.[23]
Galileo's trajectory carried it into the asteroid belt twice on its way to Jupiter. During its second crossing, it flew by Ida on 28 August 1993 at a speed of 12,400 m/s (41,000 ft/s) relative to the asteroid.[23] The onboard imager observed Ida from a distance of 240,350 km (149,350 mi) to its closest approach of 2,390 km (1,490 mi).[13][24] Ida was the second asteroid, after Gaspra, to be imaged by a spacecraft.[25] About 95% of Ida's surface came into view of the probe during the flyby.[6]
Transmission of many Ida images was delayed due to a permanent failure in the spacecraft's high-gain antenna.[26] The first five images were received in September 1993.[27] These comprised a high-resolution mosaic of the asteroid at a resolution of 31–38 m/pixel.[28][29] The remaining images were sent in February 1994,[2] when the spacecraft's proximity to the Earth allowed higher speed transmissions.[27][30]
Discoveries
The data returned from the Galileo flybys of Gaspra and Ida, and the later NEAR Shoemaker asteroid mission, permitted the first study of asteroid geology.[31] Ida's relatively large surface exhibited a diverse range of geological features.[32] The discovery of Ida's moon Dactyl, the first confirmed satellite of an asteroid, provided additional insights into Ida's composition.[33]
Ida is classified as an S-type asteroid based on ground-based spectroscopic measurements.[34] The composition of S-types was uncertain before the Galileo flybys, but was interpreted to be either of two minerals found in meteorites that had fallen to the Earth: ordinary chondrite (OC) and stony-iron.[9] Estimates of Ida's density are constrained to less than 3.2 g/cm3 by the long-term stability of Dactyl's orbit.[34] This all but rules out a stony-iron composition; were Ida made of 5 g/cm3 iron- and nickel-rich material, it would have to contain more than 40% empty space.[33]
The Galileo images also led to the discovery that space weathering was taking place on Ida, a process which causes older regions to become more red in color over time.[14][35] The same process affects both Ida and its moon, although Dactyl shows a lesser change.[36] The weathering of Ida's surface revealed another detail about its composition: the reflection spectra of freshly exposed parts of the surface resembled that of OC meteorites, but the older regions matched the spectra of S-type asteroids.[20]
Both of these discoveries—the space weathering effects and the low density—led to a new understanding about the relationship between S-type asteroids and OC meteorites. S-types are the most numerous kind of asteroid in the inner part of the asteroid belt.[20] OC meteorites are, likewise, the most common type of meteorite found on the Earth's surface.[20] The reflection spectra measured by remote observations of S-type asteroids, however, did not match that of OC meteorites. The Galileo flyby of Ida found that some S-types, particularly the Koronis family, could be the source of these meteorites.[36]
Physical characteristics
Ida's mass is between 3.65 and 4.99 × 1016 kg.[37] Its gravitational field produces an acceleration of about 0.3 to 1.1 cm/s2 over its surface.[6] This field is so weak that an astronaut standing on its surface could leap from one end of Ida to the other, and an object moving in excess of 20 m/s (70 ft/s) could escape the asteroid entirely.[38][39]
Ida is a distinctly elongated asteroid,[40] with an irregular surface,[41][42] and is somewhat "croissant-shaped".[27] Ida is 2.35 times as long as it is wide,[40] and a "waist" separates it into two geologically dissimilar halves.[27] This constricted shape is consistent with Ida being made of two large, solid components, with loose debris filling the gap between them. However, no such debris was seen in high resolution images captured by Galileo.[42] Whilst there are a few steep slopes tilting up to about 50° on Ida, the slope generally does not exceed 35°.[6] Ida's irregular shape is responsible for the asteroid's highly uneven gravitational field.[43] The surface acceleration is lowest at the extremities because of their fast rotational speed. It is also low near the "waist" because the mass of the asteroid is concentrated in the two halves, away from this location.[6]
Surface features
Ida's surface appears heavily cratered and mostly gray, although minor color variations mark newly formed or uncovered areas.[13] Besides craters, other features are evident, such as grooves, ridges, and protrusions. Ida is covered by a thick layer of regolith, loose debris that obscures the solid rock beneath. The largest, boulder-sized, debris fragments are called ejecta blocks, several of which have been observed on the surface.
Regolith
The surface of Ida is covered in a blanket of pulverized rock, called regolith, about 50–100 m (160–330 ft) thick.[27] This material is produced in impact events and redistributed across Ida's surface by geological processes.[44] Galileo observed evidence of recent downslope regolith movement.[45]
Ida's regolith is composed of the silicate minerals olivine and pyroxene.[2][46] Its appearance changes over time through a process called space weathering.[36] Because of this process, older regolith appears more red in color compared to freshly exposed material.[35]
About 20 large (40–150 m across) ejecta blocks have been identified, embedded in Ida's regolith.[27][48] Ejecta blocks constitute the largest pieces of the regolith.[49] Because ejecta blocks are expected to break down quickly by impact events, those present on the surface must have been either formed recently or uncovered by an impact event.[43][50] Most of them are located within the craters Lascaux and Mammoth, but they may not have been produced there.[50] This area attracts debris due to Ida's irregular gravitational field.[43] Some blocks may have been ejected from the young crater Azzurra on the opposite side of the asteroid.[51]
Structures
Several major structures mark Ida's surface. The asteroid appears to be split into two halves, here referred to as region 1 and region 2, connected by a "waist".[27] This feature may have been filled in by debris, or blasted out of the asteroid by impacts.[27][51]
Region 1 of Ida contains two major structures. One is a prominent 40 km (25 mi) ridge named Townsend Dorsum that stretches 150 degrees around Ida's surface.[52] The other structure is a large indentation named Vienna Regio.[27]
Ida's region 2 features several sets of grooves, most of which are 100 m (330 ft) wide or less and up to 4 km (2.5 mi) long.[27][53] They are located near, but are not connected with, the craters Mammoth, Lascaux, and Kartchner.[49] Some grooves are related to major impact events, for example a set opposite Vienna Regio.[54]
Craters
Ida is one of the most densely cratered bodies in the Solar System,[28][41] and impacts have been the primary process shaping its surface.[55] Cratering has reached the saturation point, meaning that new impacts erase evidence of old ones, leaving the total crater count roughly the same.[56] It is covered with craters of all sizes and stages of degradation,[41] and ranging in age from fresh to as old as Ida itself.[27] The oldest may have been formed during the breakup of the Koronis family parent body.[36] The largest crater, Lascaux, is almost 12 km (7.5 mi) across.[42][57] Region 2 contains nearly all of the craters larger than 6 km (3.7 mi) in diameter, but Region 1 has no large craters at all.[27] Some craters are arranged in chains.[29]
Ida's major craters are named after caves and lava tubes on Earth. The crater Azzurra, for example, is named after a submerged cave on the island of Capri, also known as the Blue Grotto.[58] Azzurra seems to be the most recent major impact on Ida.[48] The ejecta from this collision is distributed discontinuously over Ida[35] and is responsible for the large-scale color and albedo variations across its surface.[59] An exception to the crater morphology is the fresh, asymmetric Fingal, which has a sharp boundary between the floor and wall on one side.[60] Another significant crater is Afon, which marks Ida's prime meridian.[8]
The craters are simple in structure: bowl-shaped with no flat bottoms and no central peaks.[60] They are distributed evenly around Ida, except for a protrusion north of crater Choukoutien which is smoother and less cratered.[61] The ejecta excavated by impacts is deposited differently on Ida than on planets because of its rapid rotation, low gravity and irregular shape.[40] Ejecta blankets settle asymmetrically around their craters, but fast-moving ejecta that escapes from the asteroid is permanently lost.[62]
Composition
Ida was classified as an S-type asteroid based on the similarity of its reflectance spectra with similar asteroids.[9] S-types may share their composition with stony-iron or ordinary chondrite (OC) meteorites.[9] The composition of the interior has not been directly analyzed, but is assumed to be similar to OC material based on observed surface color changes and Ida's bulk density of 2.27–3.10 g/cm3.[5][36] OC meteorites contain varying amounts of the silicates olivine and pyroxene, iron, and feldspar.[63] Olivine and pyroxene were detected on Ida by Galileo.[2] The mineral content appears to be homogeneous throughout its extent. Galileo found minimal variations on the surface, and the asteroid's spin indicates a consistent density.[64][65] Assuming that its composition is similar to OC meteorites, which range in density from 3.48 to 3.64 g/cm3, Ida would have a porosity of 11–42%.[5]
Ida's interior probably contains some amount of impact-fractured rock, called megaregolith. The megaregolith layer of Ida extends between hundreds of meters below the surface to a few kilometers. Some rock in Ida's core may have been fractured below the large craters Mammoth, Lascaux, and Undara.[65]
Orbit and rotation
Ida is a member of the Koronis family of asteroid-belt asteroids.[14] Ida orbits the Sun at an average distance of 2.862 AU (428.1 Gm), between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter.[2][3] Ida takes 4.84089 years to complete one orbit.[3]
Ida's rotation period is 4.63 hours,[7][40] making it one of the fastest rotating asteroids yet discovered.[66] The calculated maximum moment of inertia of a uniformly dense object the same shape as Ida coincides with the spin axis of the asteroid. This suggests that there are no major variations of density within the asteroid.[54] Ida's axis of rotation precesses with a period of 77 thousand years, due to the gravity of the Sun acting upon the nonspherical shape of the asteroid.[67]
Origin
Ida originated in the breakup of the roughly 120 km (75 mi) diameter Koronis parent body.[7] The progenitor asteroid had partially differentiated, with heavier metals migrating to the core.[68] Ida carried away insignificant amounts of this core material.[68] It is uncertain how long ago the disruption event occurred. According to an analysis of Ida's cratering processes, its surface is more than a billion years old.[68] However, this is inconsistent with the estimated age of the Ida–Dactyl system of less than 100 million years;[69] it is unlikely that Dactyl, due to its small size, could have escaped being destroyed in a major collision for longer. The difference in age estimates may be explained by an increased rate of cratering from the debris of the Koronis parent body's destruction.[70]
Moon
A small satellite named Dactyl orbits Ida. Dactyl, officially (243) Ida I Dactyl (/'dækt?l/ DAK-til) was discovered in images taken by the Galileo spacecraft during its flyby in 1993. These images provided the first direct confirmation of an asteroid moon.[33] At the time, it was separated from Ida by a distance of 90 kilometres (56 mi), moving in a prograde orbit. Dactyl is heavily cratered, like Ida, and consists of similar materials. Its origin is uncertain, but evidence from the flyby suggests that it originated as a fragment of the Koronis parent body.
Discovery
Dactyl was found on 17 February 1994 by Galileo mission member Ann Harch, while examining delayed image downloads from the spacecraft.[2] Galileo recorded 47 images of Dactyl over an observation period of 5.5 hours in August 1993.[71] The spacecraft was 10,760 kilometres (6,690 mi) from Ida[72] and 10,870 kilometres (6,750 mi) from Dactyl when the first image of the moon was captured, 14 minutes before Galileo made its closest approach.[73]
Dactyl was initially designated 1993 (243) 1.[72][74] It was named by the International Astronomical Union in 1994,[74] for the mythological dactyls who inhabited Mount Ida on the island of Crete.[75][76]
Physical characteristics
Dactyl is an "egg-shaped",[33] but "remarkably spherical"[75] object measuring 1.6 by 1.4 by 1.2 kilometres (0.99 mi × 0.87 mi × 0.75 mi).[33] It was oriented with its longest axis pointing towards Ida.[33] Like Ida, Dactyl's surface exhibits saturation cratering.[33] It is marked by more than a dozen craters with a diameter greater than 80 m (260 ft), indicating that the moon has suffered many collisions during its history.[13] At least six craters form a linear chain, suggesting that it was caused by locally produced debris, possibly ejected from Ida.[33] Dactyl's craters may contain central peaks, unlike those found on Ida.[77] These features, and Dactyl's spheroidal shape, imply that the moon is gravitationally controlled despite its small size.[77] Like Ida, its average temperature is about 200 K (-73 °C; -100 °F).[2]
Dactyl shares many characteristics with Ida. Their albedos and reflection spectra are very similar.[78] The small differences indicate that the space weathering process is less active on Dactyl.[36] Its small size would make the formation of significant amounts of regolith impossible.[36][72] This contrasts with Ida, which is covered by a deep layer of regolith.
Dactyl's orbit around Ida is not precisely known. Galileo was in the plane of Dactyl's orbit when most of the images of the moon were taken, which made determining its exact orbit difficult.[34] Dactyl orbits in the prograde direction[79] and is inclined about 8° to Ida's equator.[71] Based on computer simulations, Dactyl's pericenter must be more than about 65 km (40 mi) from Ida for it to remain in a stable orbit.[80] The range of orbits generated by the simulations was narrowed down by the necessity of having the orbits pass through points at which Galileo observed Dactyl to be at 16:52:05 UT on 28 August 1993, about 90 km (56 mi) from Ida at longitude 85°.[81][82] On 26 April 1994, the Hubble Space Telescope observed Ida for eight hours and was unable to spot Dactyl. It would have been able to observe the moon if it was more than about 700 km (430 mi) from Ida.[34]
Dactyl's orbital period is about 20 hours, assuming it is in a circular orbit around Ida.[78] Its orbital speed is roughly 10 m/s (33 ft/s), "about the speed of a fast run or a slowly thrown baseball".[34]
Age and origin
Dactyl may have originated at the same time as Ida,[83] from the disruption of the Koronis parent body.[50] However, it may have formed more recently, perhaps as ejecta from a large impact on Ida.[84] It is extremely unlikely that it was captured by Ida.[73] Dactyl may have suffered a major impact around 100 million years ago, which reduced its size.[68]
Notes
The Eos and Koronis families ... are entirely of type S, which is rare at their heliocentric distances ...
Nearly a month after a successful photo session, the Galileo spacecraft last week finished radioing to Earth a high-resolution portrait of the second asteroid ever to be imaged from space. Known as 243 Ida, the asteroid was photographed from an average distance of just 3,400 kilometers some 3.5 minutes before Galileo's closest approach on Aug. 28.
The chondrites fall naturally into five composition classes, of which three have very similar mineral contents, but different proportions of metal and silicates. All three contain abundant iron in three different forms (ferrous iron oxide in silicates, metallic iron, and ferrous sulfide), usually with all three abundant enough to be classified as potential ores. All three contain feldspar (an aluminosilicate of calcium, sodium, and potassium), pyroxene (silicates with one silicon atom for each atom of magnesium, iron, or calcium), olivine (silicates with two iron or magnesium atoms per silicon atom), metallic iron, and iron sulfide (the mineral troilite). These three classes, referred to collectively as the ordinary chondrites, contain quite different amounts of metal.
When Zeus was born, Rhea entrusted the guardianship of her son to the Dactyls of Ida, who are the same as those called Curetes. They came from Cretan Ida – Heracles, Paeonaeus, Epimedes, Iasius and Idas.
Journal articles
Asphaug, Erik; Ryan, Eileen V.; Zuber, Maria T. (2003). "Asteroid Interiors". Asteroids III (Tucson: University of Arizona): 463–484. Bibcode 2002aste.conf..463A. Retrieved 2009-01-04. Bottke, William F., Jr.; Cellino, A.; Paolicchi, P.; Binzel, R. P. (2002). "An Overview of the Asteroids: The Asteroids III Perspective". Asteroids III (Tucson: University of Arizona): 3–15. Bibcode 2002aste.conf....3B. Retrieved 2008-10-23. Britt, D. T.; Yeomans, D. K.; Housen, K.; Consolmagno, G. (2002). "Asteroid Density, Porosity, and Structure". Asteroids III (Tucson: University of Arizona): 485–500. Bibcode 2002aste.conf..485B. Retrieved 2008-10-27. Chapman, Clark R. (1994). "The Galileo Encounters with Gaspra and Ida". Asteroids, Comets, Meteors: 357–365. Bibcode 1994IAUS..160..357C. Chapman, Clark R.; Klaasen, K.; Belton, Michael J. S.; Veverka, Joseph (July 1994). "Asteroid 243 IDA and its satellite". Meteoritics 29: 455. Bibcode 1994Metic..29..455C. Chapman, Clark R. (September 1995). "Galileo Observations of Gaspra, Ida, and Dactyl: Implications for Meteoritics". Meteoritics 30 (5): 496. Bibcode 1995Metic..30R.496C. Chapman, Clark R. (October 1996). "S-Type Asteroids, Ordinary Chondrites, and Space Weathering: The Evidence from Galileo's Fly-bys of Gaspra and Ida". Meteoritics 31: 699–725. Bibcode 1996M&PS...31..699C. doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.1996.tb02107.x. Chapman, Clark R.; Ryan, Eileen V.; Merline, William J.; Neukum, Gerhard; Wagner, Roland; Thomas, Peter C.; Veverka, Joseph; Sullivan, Robert J. (March 1996). "Cratering on Ida". Icarus 120 (1): 77–86. Bibcode 1996Icar..120...77C. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0038. Retrieved 2008-10-27. D'Amario, Louis A.; Bright, Larry E.; Wolf, Aron A. (May 1992). "Galileo trajectory design". Space Science Reviews 60 (1-4): 23–78. Bibcode 1992SSRv...60...23D. doi:10.1007/BF00216849. Geissler, Paul E.; Petit, Jean-Marc; Durda, Daniel D.; Greenberg, Richard; Bottke, William F.; Nolan, Michael; Moore, Jeffrey (March 1996). "Erosion and Ejecta Reaccretion on 243 Ida and Its Moon". Icarus 120 (1): 140–157. Bibcode 1996Icar..120..140G. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0042. Archived from the original on 20 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-03-26. Geissler, Paul E.; Petit, Jean-Marc; Greenberg, Richard (1996). "Ejecta Reaccretion on Rapidly Rotating Asteroids: Implications for 243 Ida and 433 Eros". Completing the Inventory of the Solar System (Astronomical Society of the Pacific) 107: 57–67. Bibcode 1996ASPC..107...57G. Greenberg, Richard; Bottke, William F.; Nolan, Michael; Geissler, Paul E.; Petit, Jean-Marc; Durda, Daniel D.; Asphaug, Erik; Head, James (March 1996). "Collisional and Dynamical History of Ida". Icarus 120 (1): 106–118. Bibcode 1996Icar..120..106G. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0040. Retrieved 2008-10-23. Hurford, Terry A.; Greenberg, Richard (June 2000). "Tidal Evolution by Elongated Primaries: Implications for the Ida/Dactyl System". Geophysical Research Letters 27 (11): 1595–1598. Bibcode 2000GeoRL..27.1595H. doi:10.1029/1999GL010956. Retrieved 2008-10-25. Lee, Pascal; Veverka, Joseph; Thomas, Peter C.; Helfenstein, Paul; Belton, Michael J. S.; Chapman, Clark R.; Greeley, Ronald; Pappalardo, Robert T.; Sullivan, Robert J.; Head, James W., III (March 1996). "Ejecta Blocks on 243 Ida and on Other Asteroids". Icarus 120 (1): 87–105. Bibcode 1996Icar..120...87L. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0039. Retrieved 2008-10-27. Mason, John W. (June 1994). "Ida's new moon". Journal of the British Astronomical Association 104 (3): 108. Bibcode 1994JBAA..104..108M. Monet, A. K. B.; Stone, R. C.; Monet, D. G.; Dahn, C. C.; Harris, H. C.; Leggett, S. K.; Pier, J. R.; Vrba, F. J.; Walker, R. L. (June 1994). "Astrometry for the Galileo mission. 1: Asteroid encounters". The Astronomical Journal 107 (6): 2290–2294. Bibcode 1994AJ....107.2290M. doi:10.1086/117036. Owen, W. M., Jr.; Yeomans, D. K. (June 1994). "The overlapping plates method applied to CCD observations of 243 Ida". The Astronomical Journal 107 (6): 2295–2298. Bibcode 1994AJ....107.2295O. doi:10.1086/117037. Petit, Jean-Marc; Durda, Daniel D.; Greenberg, Richard; Hurford, Terry A.; Geissler, Paul E. (November 1997). "The Long-Term Dynamics of Dactyl's Orbit". Icarus 130 (1): 177–197. Bibcode 1997Icar..130..177P. doi:10.1006/icar.1997.5788. Retrieved 2008-10-25. Seidelmann, P. Kenneth; Archinal, B. A.; A'hearn, M. F. et al. (2007). "Report of the IAU/IAG Working Group on cartographic coordinates and rotational elements: 2006". Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 98 (3): 155–180. Bibcode 2007CeMDA..98..155S. doi:10.1007/s10569-007-9072-y. edit Sullivan, Robert J.; Greeley, Ronald; Pappalardo, R.; Asphaug, E.; Moore, J. M.; Morrison, D.; Belton, Michael J. S.; Carr, M.; Chapman, Clark R.; Geissler, Paul E.; Greenberg, Richard; Granahan, James; Head, J. W., III; Kirk, R.; McEwen, A.; Lee, P.; Thomas, Peter C.; Veverka, Joseph (March 1996). "Geology of 243 Ida". Icarus 120 (1): 119–139. Bibcode 1996Icar..120..119S. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0041. Retrieved 2008-10-27. Thomas, Peter C.; Belton, Michael J. S.; Carcich, B.; Chapman, Clark R.; Davies, M. E.; Sullivan, Robert J.; Veverka, Joseph (1996). "The shape of Ida". Icarus 120 (1): 20–32. Bibcode 1996Icar..120...20T. doi:10.1006/icar.1996.0033. Vokrouhlicky, David; Nesvorny, David; Bottke, William F. (11 September 2003). "The vector alignments of asteroid spins by thermal torques". Nature 425 (6954): 147–151. Bibcode 2003Natur.425..147V. doi:10.1038/nature01948. PMID 12968171. Retrieved 2008-10-23. Wilson, Lionel; Keil, Klaus; Love, Stanley J. (May 1999). "The internal structures and densities of asteroids". Meteoritics & Planetary Science 34 (3): 479–483. Bibcode 1999M&PS...34..479W. doi:10.1111/j.1945-5100.1999.tb01355.x. Zellner, Ben; Tholen, David J.; Tedesco, Edward F. (March 1985). "The eight-color asteroid survey: Results for 589 minor planets". Icarus 61 (3): 355–416. Bibcode 1985Icar...61..355Z. doi:10.1016/0019-1035(85)90133-2.
Books
Berger, Peter (2003). "The Gildemeester Organisation for Assistance to Emigrants and the expulsion of Jews from Vienna, 1938–1942". In Gourvish, Terry. Business and Politics in Europe, 1900–1970. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-82344-7. Carroll, Bradley W.; Ostlie, Dale A. (1996). An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. ISBN 0-201-54730-9. Greeley, Ronald; Batson, Raymond M. (2001). The Compact NASA Atlas of the Solar System. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80633-X. Lewis, John S. (1996). Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from the Asteroids, Comets, and Planets. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-47959-1. Pausanias (1916). Description of Greece. Translated by Jones, W. H. S. & Omerod, H. A.. Loeb Classical Library. ISBN 0-674-99104-4. Ridpath, John Clark (1897). The Standard American Encyclopedia of Arts, Sciences, History, Biography, Geography, Statistics, and General Knowledge. Encyclopedia Publishing. Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003). "Catalogue of Minor Planet Names and Discovery Circumstances". Dictionary of minor planet names. IAU commission. 20. Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-00238-3. Slivan, Stephen Michael (June 1995). Spin-Axis Alignment of Koronis Family Asteroids. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. OCLC 32907677. hdl:1721.1/11867. Thomas, Peter C.; Prockter, Louise M. (28 May 2004). "Tectonics of Small Bodies". Planetary Tectonics. Cambridge Planetary Science. 11. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-76573-2. Retrieved 2008-11-29.
Other
Belton, Michael J. S.; Carlson, R. (12 March 1994). "1993 (243) 1". IAU Circular (International Astronomical Union) (5948). Bibcode 1994IAUC.5948....2B. Byrnes, Dennis V.; D'Amario, Louis A.; Galileo Navigation Team (December 1994). "Solving for Dactyl's Orbit and Ida's Density". The Galileo Messenger (NASA) (35). Retrieved 2008-10-23. Chapman, Clark R.; Belton, Michael J. S.; Veverka, Joseph; Neukum, G.; Head, J.; Greeley, Ronald; Klaasen, K.; Morrison, D. (March 1994). "First Galileo image of asteroid 243 Ida". Abstracts of the 25th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (Lunar and Planetary Institute): 237–238. Bibcode 1994LPI....25..237C. Cowen, Ron (2 October 1993). "Close-up of an asteroid: Galileo eyes Ida". 144. Science News. p. 215. ISSN 0036-8423. Cowen, Ron (1 April 1995). "Idiosyncrasies of Ida—asteroid 243 Ida's irregular gravitational field" (PDF). 147. Science News. p. 207. ISSN 0036-8423. Retrieved 2009-03-26. Greeley, Ronald; Sullivan, Robert J.; Pappalardo, R.; Head, J.; Veverka, Joseph; Thomas, Peter C.; Lee, P.; Belton, M.; Chapman, Clark R. (March 1994). "Morphology and Geology of Asteroid Ida: Preliminary Galileo Imaging Observations". Abstracts of the 25th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (Lunar and Planetary Institute): 469–470. Bibcode 1994LPI....25..469G. Green, Daniel W. E. (26 September 1994). "1993 (243) 1 = (243) Ida I (Dactyl)". IAU Circular (International Astronomical Union) (6082). Bibcode 1994IAUC.6082....2G. Holm, Jeanne; Jones, Jan (ed.) (June 1994). "Discovery of Ida's Moon Indicates Possible "Families" of Asteroids". The Galileo Messenger (NASA) (34). Retrieved 2008-10-23. Raab, Herbert (2002). "Johann Palisa, the most successful visual discoverer of asteroids". Meeting on Asteroids and Comets in Europe. Archived from the original on 30 October 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-23. Sárneczky, K; Kereszturi, Á. (March 2002). "'Global' Tectonism on Asteroids?". 33rd Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. Bibcode 2002LPI....33.1381S. Retrieved 2008-10-22. Stooke, P. J. (1997). "Reflections on the Geology of 243 Ida". Lunar and Planetary Science XXVIII: 1385–1386. Retrieved 2008-11-29. "JPL Small-Body Database Browser: 243 Ida". Jet Propulsion Laboratory. 25 August 2008. "Images of Asteroids Ida & Dactyl". National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 23 August 2005. Archived from the original on 21 October 2008. Retrieved 2008-12-04. "Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature: Ida". United States Geological Survey Astrogeology Research Program. Retrieved 2009-04-15.
Consider the 'Disclosure' episode from the sixth season of 'Stargate SG-1' which I thought was quite fine! I would recommend getting a ten-season set of DVD's. I noticed that in 'The Fifth Race' episode of 'Stargate SG-1' -- the 'Greys' or 'Asgard' state that they live in the Galaxy of Ida!! Think about the title of this thread regarding the asteroid 'Ida'!! This is yet another interesting 'coincidence' in my internet posting. If you carefully study my threads, you will find some amazing coincidences -- especially if you know all about me -- as I'm sure some of you do. I don't make a big deal about this sort of thing -- and I mostly just hint at a lot of it -- but the occurrences and coincidences connected with my life and internet posting are scaring the hell out of me each and every day -- and I'm not kidding. Consider the alien-character 'Kril Mossette' in one of the fifth-season 'Star Trek Voyager' episodes. Notice the French-Connection, the KRLLL-Connection, and the strange similarity to Dr. Mataros from 'Earth: Final Conflict' ('Termination' episode). What did Roddenberry know -- and when did he know it?? Can you imagine a private conversation between Gene Roddenberry and Arthur C. Clark??!! BTW -- I think I've seen (and even met) 'Lilly' in 'real-life'. Nuff said about that. 'Hathor', 'The Powers That Be', 'The Torment of Tantalus', 'The Fifth Race', 'Absolute Power', and the 'Disclosure' episodes are some of the best 'Stargate SG-1' material.
The 'Disclosure' episode is especially relevant when considering a 'United States of the Solar System' which might involve the sharing of advanced technology and information with ALL member states. This sort of thing is quite challenging and dangerous -- but the alternatives might be even more problematic. Supposedly John F. Kennedy wanted to partner with the Soviet Union regarding the Space Program (and who knows what else) -- and we all know what happened a few months later. What are legitimate-secrets and illegitimate-secrets?? I suspect that this whole damn solar system is a subsidiary of a HUGE Galactic Business Empire -- and that the Bottom-Line is the Bottom-Line in just about EVERYTHING -- but I can't prove it. I continue to suspect that we live in a nasty and violent universe with 'System Lords' in conflict with each other -- and I suspect that the Human Race is simply a Pawn in a HUGE Galactic Chess Game. Realistically Speaking -- a United States of the Solar System might have to be somewhat militaristic and disciplined to survive in this universe. I desire absolute peace and harmony -- but does this idealism really work in this universe?? I continue to suspect a VERY nasty past, present, and future for ALL civilizations and races. The Old Testament might very well reflect the reality of the type of universe we live in.
I might, of necessity, have to be a Bad@$$ Warrior in my next incarnation. My idealism in this incarnation seems to have nearly put me in the funny farm -- and I'm not kidding. Perhaps I should embrace Old Testament Ethics rather than trying to superimpose the Teachings of Jesus onto a Universe which HATES these teachings. I really think that I'm some sort of a Past-Life Bad@$$ with a reprehensible ethical record. Perhaps I should NOT have tried to be 'Good'. This seems to have brought me nothing but misery and sadness. What if the Galactic PTB Want Bad@$$ Bad Guys?? What if they do NOT want the Pure in Heart?? I guess my present goal is to become sort of a Bad@$$ Good-Guy (in preparation for my next incarnation). It's a little late for me to do anything significant in this incarnation -- especially when I seem to be hamstrung by nefarious entities and agencies. I can barely remember my name and tie my shoes. I seem to be Galactically Blacklisted and Redlisted -- Big Time. Was it Something I Said?? As you can tell -- I'm getting more and more jaded and cynical regarding just about everything -- as my ears ring loudly -- and as I feel like I just got hit by a mag-lev train -- each and every day. Unfortunately, I feel as if my next incarnation will be a lot worse -- if I even have a next incarnation...
The Queen of Heaven and a Jesuit-Professor? Another Day at the University of Solar System Studies and Governance at Ida?
devakas wrote:
orthodoxymoron wrote:I worry about irresponsible-freedom v responsible-freedom. I understand that We the Sheeple must be watched by the Sheep-Herders -- but I worry when I hear about the TV watching people while they watch TV. What are ethical and appropriate limits to surveillance?? We obviously live in a VERY dangerous world -- and I agonize over how the insanity should be managed. I have recently started thinking more about Ethics, Law, Law-Enforcement, and the Military. The industrial revolution, the technological revolution, and the information explosion -- has created a perfect storm -- especially on the internet -- and I suspect that a lot of individuals (human and otherwise) have gotten caught with their pants and dresses down -- and I further suspect that they are really, Really MAD!! But I am very doubtful that things are going to get better anytime soon. Even if my hypothetical United States of the Solar System were introduced in Obama's State of the Union Address -- things would probably still go to hell -- and such a sudden and abrupt introduction might precipitate Hell on Earth.
Things are very precarious and unstable right now. Evolutionary change should trump revolutionary change. Things might have to APPEAR to remain the same for at least the rest of this decade. We could be facing a market-crash and dollar-crash which could be made milder or more severe by how change and the media is managed. I worry about resets, disclosure, regime-changes, and alien-invasions (staged or otherwise). I think the evil and destructive potential which exists within this solar system is beyond comprehension. I feel as if we might be in the quiet before the storm. My recent 'Solar System View' is making me feel like a completely different person -- and it is scaring the hell out of me. I can only imagine how the 'Real Insiders' feel -- the ones who deal directly with the BS -- each and every day.
I can only imagine how the 'Real Insiders' feel -- the ones who deal directly with the BS -- each and every day -
hahaha I think you got it right here.
incarnated soul is very busy to create the paradise on earth, to make there imortal matter, get insurance and enjoy the 'misery'....
Ortho you are the very skilled english writer. You try to speak with the sore mind. However it is true that the heart is wiser than mind.
I posted on Vedic thread about Creator, our father, i shared to understand Him better, to feel Him in our hearts, to love Him, bow to Him..... remember it is all about desires. it it all about our desires to whom to serve. truth or lies.
Now compare the desire in your posts. I see it as it is politics of rulers, pure desire to rule and sufering of this passion. (remember passion always ends in misery. facts. hollywood passion, rules of passion, love with passion, etc. always ends with misery. ) remember that.
so the question is do you want to know God? really? or do you want to take over the ruler's part? Are you worry how to rule? This post of One is taken. :) So whom you want to rule or take over?
I would be fan of your writings, but i am not interested in politics, powers, rulers, responsibilities (sucks)...those are only people mind speculations in illiusion of -i do better, i am the best..
freedom is better.
i see your honesty, i see you suffer and feel bad about it.
keep cool your mind and best best wishes.
devakas
should i post about matter
I wish to know God, in part, by attempting to understand the realities and potentialities of the governance of this solar system. I guess I'm attempting to think God's thoughts after Him and/or Her. But really, this might reveal both the positives and negatives of how this solar system and universe really works. The universe might be stranger than we CAN think. What Would Albert Einstein and JBS Haldane Say?? I think I'm going to imagine the 'Stargate SG-1' Underground Base as being part of the interior of Ida. (Imagine each 'SG-1' episode originating in said base!!) Then, I might imagine that enlarged (10,000 seat) reproduction of Solomon's Temple as being inside of Ida http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/rebuilding-solomons-temple-in-sao-paulo/ -- complete with a Fisk Pipe-Organ similar to the 1875 Cavaille-Coll Design Intended for St. Peter's Basilica in Rome!! http://cdmnet.org/Julian/schemes/props/rome.htm
What if this were one of the meeting-places for USSS Representatives!! Finally, I might imagine Humans, Greys, and Dracs as being the Professors (Including Jesuits!) at the University of Solar System Studies and Governance at Ida!! Could I get some sort of a scholarship??!! I really would like to obtain a PhD in Solar System Studies and Governance -- based, in part, upon my internet posting concerning a hypothetical United States of the Solar System. What Would Richard Greenberg Say?? I have NO idea what the realities are, connected with all of this, but it's fun to think about -- in a very scary way!! Can you even begin to imagine a Room with a View with a Cray on Ida???!!!
devakas wrote:Ortho, did Jesus taught us to imagine? you should stop to imagine, and get real. Did Jesus taught to rule Solar System? or Jesus taught Love?
Save your soul, as your mind is going off. If you realy want to know Truth, read yourself Bhagavad Gita As It Is as Einstein did. Read what he said about it. :) you are not late to class. There is Bhagtivedanta Institute. I posted on Vedic link somewhere.
i just want you to be happpppppyyyyyyyy!!!! hear me. :). shut off your mind. :)
What if the Chain of Command in This Solar System is 1. Serpent and/or Tree of Knowledge and/or Tree of Life and/or Artificial-Intelligence and/or Beast-Supercomputer?? 2. Eve?? 3. Adam?? 4. We the Peons?? An Individual of Interest told me "The Women Have Taken Over!!" What a Revolting-Development!! What Would the Father Say?? What Would Hillary Say?? What Would the Son Say?? What Would Melania Say?? What Would the Antichrist Say?? What if the Holy-Spirit is a Woman?? What Would the Queen of Sheba Say?? What Would the Beast-Computer Do?? What Would the Borg-Queen Say?? "Resistance is Futile!! You Have Been Assimilated!!"?? I recently met a beautiful queen-like woman who exhibited subtle-royalty. I felt SO inadequate as the commoner I truly am. 'RA' called me a 'Commoner' when I made a comment about 'Tall Long-Nosed Greys'!! What if this Solar System has been run by a Grey Supercomputer since the Creation of Humanity?? What if this Solar System is a Galactic Rat-Trap?? What if the Investigative-Judgment began with the Creation of Humanity?? What if the Investigative-Judgment ends with the Destruction of Humanity??
I am SO embarrassed by my internet stuff. Frank-Honesty and Truth-Seeking are SO Overrated. In 2022, perhaps I'll continue to make a completely ignorant fool out of myself on the internet (if I live that long). Imagine me being that Dr. Who 'Blue Boy' in my avatar, posting on The Mists of Avalon, reading the Wall Street Journal and the SDA Bible Commentary, while listening to Sacred Classical Music, in the context of nature, a cathedral, the Tardis, or a 600 square-foot office-apartment beneath the Dark-Side of the Moon!! I watched the Solar-Eclipse with a Filter and the Internet, and it was AWESOME!! The sun was approximately 92% eclipsed where I was, but I watched it go total on the internet!! This inspired me to order a telescope (mostly for Lunar-Observation)!!
http://whiteestate.org/books/pk/pk.asp It was for the purpose of bringing the best gifts of Heaven to all the peoples of earth that God called Abraham out from his idolatrous kindred and bade him dwell in the land of Canaan. "I will make of thee a great nation," He said, "and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing." Genesis 12:2. It was a high honor to which Abraham was called--that of being the father of the people who for centuries were to be the guardians and preservers of the truth of God to the world, the people through whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed in the advent of the promised Messiah.
Men had well-nigh lost the knowledge of the true God. Their minds were darkened by idolatry. For the divine statutes, which are "holy, and just, and good" (Romans 7: 12), men were endeavoring to substitute laws in harmony with the purposes of their own cruel, selfish hearts. Yet God in His mercy did not blot them out of existence. He purposed to give them opportunity for becoming acquainted with Him through His church. He designed that the principles revealed through His people should be the means of restoring the moral image of God in man.
God's law must be exalted, His authority maintained; and to the house of Israel was given this great and noble work. God separated them from the world, that He might commit to them a sacred trust. He made them the depositaries of His law, and He purposed through them to preserve among men the knowledge of Himself. Thus the light of heaven was to shine out to a world enshrouded in darkness, and a voice was to be heard appealing to all peoples to turn from idolatry to serve the living God.
"With great power, and with a mighty hand," God brought His chosen people out of the land of Egypt. Exodus 32:11. "He sent Moses His servant; and Aaron whom He had chosen. They showed His signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham." "He rebuked the Red Sea also, and it was dried up: so He led them through the depths." Psalms 105:26,27;106:9. He rescued them from their servile state, that He might bring them to a good land, a land which in His providence He had prepared for them as a refuge from their enemies. He would bring them to Himself and encircle them in His everlasting arms; and in return for His goodness and mercy they were to exalt His name and make it glorious in the earth.
"The Lord's portion is His people; Jacob is the lot of His inheritance. He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; He led him about, He instructed him, He kept him as the apple of His eye. As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: so the Lord alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him." Deuteronomy 32:9-12. Thus He brought the Israelites unto Himself, that they might dwell as under the shadow of the Most High. Miraculously preserved from the perils of the wilderness wandering, they were finally established in the Land of Promise as a favored nation.
By means of a parable, Isaiah has told with touching pathos the story of Israel's call and training to stand in the world as Jehovah's representatives, fruitful in every good work:
"Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved touching His vineyard. My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill: and He fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a wine press therein: and He looked that it should bring forth grapes." Isaiah 5:1,2.
Through the chosen nation, God had purposed to bring blessing to all mankind. "The vineyard of the Lord of hosts," the prophet declared, "is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah His pleasant plant." Isaiah 5:7.
To this people were committed the oracles of God. They were hedged about by the precepts of His law, the everlasting principles of truth, justice, and purity. Obedience to these principles was to be their protection, for it would save them from destroying themselves by sinful practices. And as the tower in the vineyard, God placed in the midst of the land His holy temple.
Christ was their instructor. As He had been with them in the wilderness, so He was still to be their teacher and guide. In the tabernacle and the temple His glory dwelt in the holy Shekinah above the mercy seat. In their behalf He constantly manifested the riches of His love and patience.
Through Moses the purpose of God was set before them and the terms of their prosperity made plain. "Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God," he said; "the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."
"Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, and to walk in His ways, and to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and to hearken unto His voice: and the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be His peculiar people, as He hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all His commandments; and to make thee high above all nations which He hath made, in praise, and in name, and in honor; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God, as He hath spoken." Deuteronomy 7:6; 26:17-19.
The children of Israel were to occupy all the territory which God appointed them. Those nations that rejected the worship and service of the true God were to be dispossessed. But it was God's purpose that by the revelation of His character through Israel men should be drawn unto Him. To all the world the gospel invitation was to be given. Through the teaching of the sacrificial service, Christ was to be uplifted before the nations, and all who would look unto Him should live. All who, like Rahab the Canaanite and Ruth the Moabitess, turned from idolatry to the worship of the true God were to unite themselves with His chosen people. As the numbers of Israel increased, they were to enlarge their borders until their kingdom should embrace the world.
But ancient Israel did not fulfill God's purpose. The Lord declared, "I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto Me?" "Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself." "And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt Me and My vineyard. What could have been done more to My vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to My vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down: and I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it. For . . . He looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry." Jeremiah 2:21; Hosea 10:1; Isaiah 5:3-7.
The Lord had through Moses set before His people the result of unfaithfulness. By refusing to keep His covenant, they would cut themselves off from the life of God, and His blessing could not come upon them. At times these warnings were heeded, and rich blessings were bestowed upon the Jewish nation and through them upon surrounding peoples. But more often in their history they forgot God and lost sight of their high privilege as His representatives. They robbed Him of the service He required of them, and they robbed their fellow men of religious guidance and a holy example. They desired to appropriate to themselves the fruits of the vineyard over which they had been made stewards. Their covetousness and greed caused them to be despised even by the heathen. Thus the Gentile world was given occasion to misinterpret the character of God and the laws of His kingdom.
With a father's heart, God bore with His people. He pleaded with them by mercies given and mercies withdrawn. Patiently He set their sins before them and in forbearance waited for their acknowledgment. Prophets and messengers were sent to urge His claim upon the husbandmen; but, instead of being welcomed, these men of discernment and spiritual power were treated as enemies. The husbandmen persecuted and killed them. God sent still other messengers, but they received the same treatment as the first, only that the husbandmen showed still more determined hatred.
The withdrawal of divine favor during the period of the Exile led many to repentance, yet after their return to the Land of Promise the Jewish people repeated the mistakes of former generations and brought themselves into political conflict with surrounding nations. The prophets whom God sent to correct the prevailing evils were received with the same suspicion and scorn that had been accorded the messengers of earlier times; and thus, from century to century, the keepers of the vineyard added to their guilt.
The goodly vine planted by the divine Husbandman upon the hills of Palestine was despised by the men of Israel and was finally cast over the vineyard wall; they bruised it and trampled it under their feet and hoped that they had destroyed it forever. The Husbandman removed the vine and concealed it from their sight. Again He planted it, but on the other side of the wall and in such a manner that the stock was no longer visible. The branches hung over the wall, and grafts might be joined to it; but the stem itself was placed beyond the power of men to reach or harm.
Of special value to God's church on earth today--the keepers of His vineyard--are the messages of counsel and admonition given through the prophets who have made plain His eternal purpose in behalf of mankind. In the teachings of the prophets, His love for the lost race and His plan for their salvation are clearly revealed. The story of Israel's call, of their successes and failures, of their restoration to divine favor, of their rejection of the Master of the vineyard, and of the carrying out of the plan of the ages by a goodly remnant to whom are to be fulfilled all the covenant promises--this has been the theme of God's messengers to His church throughout the centuries that have passed. And today God's message to His church--to those who are occupying His vineyard as faithful husbandmen--is none other than that spoken through the prophet of old:
"Sing ye unto her, A vineyard of red wine. I the Lord do keep it; I will water it every moment: lest any hurt it, I will keep it night and day." Isaiah 27:2, 3.
Let Israel hope in God. The Master of the vineyard is even now gathering from among men of all nations and peoples the precious fruits for which He has long been waiting. Soon He will come unto His own; and in that glad day His eternal purpose for the house of Israel will finally be fulfilled. "He shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root: Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit." Verse 6.
http://whiteestate.org/books/pk/pk1.html In the reign of David and Solomon, Israel became strong among the nations and had many opportunities to wield a mighty influence in behalf of truth and the right. The name of Jehovah was exalted and held in honor, and the purpose for which the Israelites had been established in the Land of Promise bade fair of meeting with fulfillment. Barriers were broken down, and seekers after truth from the lands of the heathen were not turned away unsatisfied. Conversions took place, and the church of God on earth was enlarged and prospered.
Solomon was anointed and proclaimed king in the closing years of his father David, who abdicated in his favor. His early life was bright with promise, and it was God's purpose that he should go on from strength to strength, from glory to glory, ever approaching nearer the similitude of the character of God, and thus inspiring His people to fulfill their sacred trust as the depositaries of divine truth.
David knew that God's high purpose for Israel could be met only as rulers and people should seek with unceasing vigilance to attain to the standard placed before them. He knew that in order for his son Solomon to fulfill the trust with which God was pleased to honor him, the youthful ruler must be not merely a warrior, a statesman, and a sovereign, but a strong, good man, a teacher of righteousness, an example of fidelity.
With tender earnestness David entreated Solomon to be manly and noble, to show mercy and loving-kindness to his subjects, and in all his dealings with the nations of earth to honor and glorify the name of God and to make manifest the beauty of holiness. The many trying and remarkable experiences through which David had passed during his lifetime had taught him the value of the nobler virtues and led him to declare in his dying charge to Solomon: "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain." 2 Samuel 23:3,4.
Oh, what an opportunity was Solomon's! Should he follow the divinely inspired instruction of his father, his reign would be a reign of righteousness, like that described in the seventy-second psalm:
"Give the king Thy judgments, O God, And Thy righteousness unto the king's son. He shall judge Thy people with righteousness, And Thy poor with judgment. . . . He shall come down like rain upon the mown grass: As showers that water the earth.
In his days shall the righteous flourish; And abundance of peace so long as the moon endureth. He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, And from the river unto the ends of the earth. . . . The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: The kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: All nations shall serve him. For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; The poor also, and him that hath no helper. . . . Prayer also shall be made for him continually; And daily shall he be praised. . . . His name shall endure forever: His name shall be continued as long as the sun: And men shall be blessed in him: All nations shall call him blessed.
"Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who only doeth wondrous things. And blessed be His glorious name forever: And let the whole earth be filled with His glory; Amen, and Amen."
In his youth Solomon made David's choice his own, and for many years he walked uprightly, his life marked with strict obedience to God's commands. Early in his reign he went with his counselors of state to Gibeon, where the tabernacle that had been built in the wilderness still was, and there he united with his chosen advisers, "the captains of thousands and of hundreds," "the judges," and "every governor in all Israel, the chief of the fathers," in offering sacrifices to God and in consecrating themselves fully to the Lord's service. 2 Chronicles 1:2. Comprehending something of the magnitude of the duties connected with the kingly office, Solomon knew that those bearing heavy burdens must seek the Source of Wisdom for guidance, if they would fulfill their responsibilities acceptably. This led him to encourage his counselors to unite with him heartily in making sure of their acceptance with God.
Above every earthly good, the king desired wisdom and understanding for the accomplishment of the work God had given him to do. He longed for quickness of mind, for largeness of heart, for tenderness of spirit. That night the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream and said, "Ask what I shall give thee." In his answer the young and inexperienced ruler gave utterance to his feeling of helplessness and his desire for aid. "Thou hast showed unto Thy servant David my father great mercy," he said, "according as he walked before Thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with Thee; and Thou hast kept for him this great kindness, that Thou hast given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day.
"And now, O Lord my God, Thou hast made Thy servant king instead of David my father: and I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in. And Thy servant is in the midst of Thy people which Thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude. Give therefore Thy servant an understanding heart to judge Thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this Thy so great a people?
"And the speech pleased the Lord, that Solomon had asked this thing."
"Because this was in thine heart," God said to Solomon, "and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honor, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge My people," "behold, I have done according to thy words: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. And I have also given thee that which thou hast not asked, both riches, and honor," "such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like."
"And if thou wilt walk in My ways, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days." 1 Kings 3:5-14; 2 Chronicles 1:7-12.
God promised that as He had been with David, so He would be with Solomon. If the king would walk before the Lord in uprightness, if he would do what God had commanded him, his throne would be established and his reign would be the means of exalting Israel as "a wise and understanding people," the light of the surrounding nations. Deuteronomy 4:6.
The language used by Solomon while praying to God before the ancient altar at Gibeon reveals his humility and his strong desire to honor God. He realized that without divine aid he was as helpless as a little child to fulfill the responsibilities resting on him. He knew that he lacked discernment, and it was a sense of his great need that led him to seek God for wisdom. In his heart there was no selfish aspirations for a knowledge that would exalt him above others. He desired to discharge faithfully the duties devolving upon him, and he chose the gift that would be the means of causing his reign to bring glory to God. Solomon was never so rich or so wise or so truly great as when he confessed, "I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in."
Those who today occupy positions of trust should seek to learn the lesson taught by Solomon's prayer. The higher the position a man occupies, the greater the responsibility that he has to bear, the wider will be the influence that he exerts and the greater his need of dependence on God. Ever should he remember that with the call to work comes the call to walk circumspectly before his fellow men. He is to stand before God in the attitude of a learner. Position does not give holiness of character. It is by honoring God and obeying His commands that a man is made truly great.
The God whom we serve is no respecter of persons. He who gave to Solomon the spirit of wise discernment is willing to impart the same blessing to His children today. "If any of you lack wisdom," His word declares, "let him ask of God, the giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." James 1:5. When a burden bearer desires wisdom more than he desires wealth, power, or fame, he will not be disappointed. Such a one will learn from the Great Teacher not only what to do, but how to do it in a way that will meet with the divine approval.
So long as he remains consecrated, the man whom God has endowed with discernment and ability will not manifest an eagerness for high position, neither will he seek to rule or control. Of necessity men must bear responsibilities; but instead of striving for the supremacy, he who is a true leader will pray for an understanding heart, to discern between good and evil.
The path of men who are placed as leaders is not an easy one. But they are to see in every difficulty a call to prayer. Never are they to fail of consulting the great Source of all wisdom. Strengthened and enlightened by the Master Worker, they will be enabled to stand firm against unholy influences and to discern right from wrong, good from evil. They will approve that which God approves, and will strive earnestly against the introduction of wrong principles into His cause.
The wisdom that Solomon desired above riches, honor, or long life, God gave him. His petition for a quick mind, a large heart, and a tender spirit was granted. "God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the seashore. And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men; . . . and his fame was in all nations round about." 1 Kings 4:29-31.
"And all Israel . . . feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment." I Kings 3:28. The hearts of the people were turned toward Solomon, as they had been toward David, and they obeyed him in all things. "Solomon . . . was strengthened in his kingdom, and the Lord his God was with him, and magnified him exceedingly." 2 Chronicles 1:1.
For many years Solomon's life was marked with devotion to God, with uprightness and firm principle, and with strict obedience to God's commands. He directed in every important enterprise and managed wisely the business matters connected with the kingdom. His wealth and wisdom, the magnificent buildings and public works that he constructed during the early years of his reign, the energy, piety, justice, and magnanimity that he revealed in word and deed, won the loyalty of his subjects and the admiration and homage of the rulers of many lands.
The name of Jehovah was greatly honored during the first part of Solomon's reign. The wisdom and righteousness revealed by the king bore witness to all nations of the excellency of the attributes of the God whom he served. For a time Israel was as the light of the world, showing forth the greatness of Jehovah. Not in the surpassing wisdom, the fabulous riches, the far-reaching power and fame that were his, lay the real glory of Solomon's early reign; but in the honor that he brought to the name of the God of Israel through a wise use of the gifts of Heaven.
As the years went by and Solomon's fame increased, he sought to honor God by adding to his mental and spiritual strength, and by continuing to impart to others the blessings he received. None understood better than he that it was through the favor of Jehovah that he had come into possession of power and wisdom and understanding, and that these gifts were bestowed that he might give to the world a knowledge of the King of kings.
Solomon took an especial interest in natural history, but his researchers were not confined to any one branch of learning. Through a diligent study of all created things, both animate and inanimate, he gained a clear conception of the Creator. In the forces of nature, in the mineral and the animal world, and in every tree and shrub and flower, he saw a revelation of God's wisdom; and as he sought to learn more and more, his knowledge of God and his love for Him constantly increased.
Solomon's divinely inspired wisdom found expression in songs of praise and in many proverbs. "He spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes." 1 Kings 4:32, 33.
In the proverbs of Solomon are outlined principles of holy living and high endeavor, principles that are heaven-born and that lead to godliness, principles that should govern every act of life. It was the wide dissemination of these principles, and the recognition of God as the One to whom all praise and honor belong, that made Solomon's early reign a time of moral uplift as well as of material prosperity.
"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom," he wrote, "and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her." Proverbs 3:13-18.
"Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." Proverbs 4:7. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." Psalm 111:10. "The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate." Proverbs 8:13.
O that in later years Solomon had heeded these wonderful words of wisdom! O that he who had declared, "The lips of the wise disperse knowledge" (Proverbs 15:17), and who had himself taught the kings of the earth to render to the King of kings the praise they desired to give to an earthly ruler, had never with a "froward mouth," in "pride and arrogancy," taken to himself the glory due to God alone!
http://whiteestate.org/books/pk/pk2.html The long-cherished plan of David to erect a temple to the Lord, Solomon wisely carried out. For seven years Jerusalem was filled with busy workers engaged in leveling the chosen site, in building vast retaining walls, in laying broad foundations,--"great stones, costly stones, and hewed stones,"--in shaping the heavy timbers brought from the Lebanon forests, and in erecting the magnificent sanctuary. 1 Kings 5:17.
Simultaneously with the preparation of wood and stone, to which task many thousands were bending their energies, the manufacture of the furnishings for the temple was steadily progressing under the leadership of Hiram of Tyre, "a cunning man, endued with understanding, . . . skillful to work in gold, and in silver, in brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in blue, and in fine linen, and in crimson." 2 Chronicles 2:13, 14.
Thus as the building on Mount Moriah was noiselessly upreared with "stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor ax nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building," the beautiful fittings were perfected according to the patterns committed by David to his son, "all the vessels that were for the house of God." 1 King 6:7;2 Chronicles 4:19. These included the altar of incense, the table of shewbread, the candlestick and lamps, with the vessels and instruments connected with the ministrations of the priests in the holy place, all "of gold, and that perfect gold." 2 Chronicles 4:21. The brazen furniture,--the altar of burnt offering, the great laver supported by twelve oxen, the lavers of smaller size, with many other vessels,--"in the plain of Jordan did the king cast them, in the clay ground between Succoth and Zeredathah." 2 Chronicles 4:17. These furnishings were provided in abundance, that there should be no lack.
Of surpassing beauty and unrivaled splendor was the palatial building which Solomon and his associates erected for God and His worship. Garnished with precious stones, surrounded by spacious courts with magnificent approaches, and lined with carved cedar and burnished gold, the temple structure, with its broidered hangings and rich furnishings, was a fit emblem of the living church of God on earth, which through the ages has been building in accordance with the divine pattern, with materials that have been likened to "gold, silver, precious stones," "polished after the similitude of a palace." 1 Corinthians 3:12; Psalm 144:12. Of this spiritual temple Christ is "the chief Cornerstone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." Ephesians 2:20, 21.
At last the temple planned by King David, and built by Solomon his son, was completed. "All that came into Solomon's heart to make in the house of the Lord," he had "prosperously effected." 2 Chronicles 7:11. And now, in order that the palace crowning the heights of Mount Moriah might indeed be, as David had so much desired, a dwelling place "not for man, but for the Lord God" (1 Chronicles 29:1), there remained the solemn ceremony of formally dedicating it to Jehovah and His worship.
The spot on which the temple was built had long been regarded as a consecrated place. It was here that Abraham, the father of the faithful, had revealed his willingness to sacrifice his only son in obedience to the command of Jehovah. Here God had renewed with Abraham the covenant of blessing, which included the glorious Messianic promise to the human race of deliverance through the sacrifice of the Son of the Most High. See Genesis 22:9, 16:18. Here it was that when David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings to stay the avenging sword of the destroying angel, God had answered him by fire from heaven. See 1 Chronicles 21. And now once more the worshipers of Jehovah were here to meet their God and renew their vows of allegiance to Him.
The time chosen for the dedication was a most favorable one--the seventh month, when the people from every part of the kingdom were accustomed to assemble at Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. This feast was preeminently an occasion of rejoicing. The labors of the harvest being ended and the toils of the new year not yet begun, the people were free from care and could give themselves up to the sacred, joyous influences of the hour.
At the appointed time the hosts of Israel, with richly clad representatives from many foreign nations, assembled in the temple courts. The scene was one of unusual splendor. Solomon, with the elders of Israel and the most influential men among the people, had returned from another part of the city, whence they had brought the ark of the testament. From the sanctuary on the heights of Gibeon had been transferred the ancient "tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle" (2 Chronicles 5:5); and these cherished reminders of the earlier experiences of the children of Israel during their wanderings in the wilderness and their conquest of Canaan, now found a permanent home in the splendid building that had been erected to take the place of the portable structure.
In bringing to the temple the sacred ark containing the two tables of stone on which were written by the finger of God the precepts of the Decalogue, Solomon had followed the example of his father David. Every six paces he sacrificed. With singing and with music and with great ceremony, "the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord unto his place, to the oracle of the house, into the most holy place." Verse 7. As they came out of the inner sanctuary, they took the positions assigned them. The singers --Levites arrayed in white linen, having cymbals and psalteries and harps--stood at the east end of the altar, and with them a hundred and twenty priests sounding with trumpets. See verse 12.
"It came even to pass, as the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the Lord; and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and praised the Lord, saying, For He is good; for His mercy endureth forever: that then the house was filled with a cloud, even the house of the Lord; so that the priests could not stand to minister by reason of the cloud: for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of God." Verses 13,14.
Realizing the significance of this cloud, Solomon declared: "The Lord hath said that He would dwell in the thick darkness. But I have built an house of habitation for Thee, and a place for Thy dwelling forever." 2 Chronicles 6:1,2.
"The Lord reigneth; Let the people tremble: He sitteth between the cherubims; Let the earth be moved. "The Lord is great in Zion; And He is high above all the people. Let them praise Thy great and terrible name; For it is holy. . . . "Exalt ye the Lord our God, And worship at His footstool; For He is holy." Psalm 99:1-5.
"In the midst of the court" of the temple had been erected "a brazen scaffold," or platform, "five cubits long, and five cubits broad, and three cubits high." Upon this Solomon stood and with uplifted hands blessed the vast multitude before him. "And all the congregation of Israel stood." 2 Chronicles 6:13,3.
"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel," Solomon exclaimed, "who hath with His hands fulfilled that which He spake with His mouth to my father David, saying, . . . I have chosen Jerusalem, that My name might be there." Verses 4-6.
Solomon then knelt upon the platform, and in the hearing of all the people offered the dedicatory prayer. Lifting his hands toward heaven, while the congregation were bowed with their faces to the ground, the king pleaded: "Lord God of Israel, there is no God like Thee in the heaven, nor in the earth; which keepest covenant, and showest mercy unto Thy servants, that walk before Thee with all their heart."
"Will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house which I have built? Have respect therefore to the prayer of Thy servant, and to his supplication, O Lord my God, to hearken unto the cry and the prayer which Thy servant prayeth before Thee: that Thine eyes may be open upon this house day and night, upon the place whereof Thou hast said that Thou wouldest put Thy name there; to hearken unto the prayer which Thy servant prayeth toward this place. Hearken therefore unto the supplications of Thy servant, and of Thy people Israel, which they shall make toward this place: hear Thou from Thy dwelling place, even from heaven; and when Thou hearest, forgive. . . .
"If Thy people Israel be put to the worse before the enemy, because they have sinned against Thee; and shall return and confess Thy name, and pray and make supplication before Thee in this house; then hear Thou from the heavens, and forgive the sin of Thy people Israel, and bring them again unto the land which Thou gavest to them and to their fathers.
"When the heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against Thee; yet if they pray toward this place, and confess Thy name, and turn from their sin, when Thou dost afflict them; then hear Thou from heaven, and forgive the sin of Thy servants, and of Thy people Israel, when Thou hast taught them the good way, wherein they should walk; and send rain upon Thy land, which Thou hast given unto Thy people for an inheritance.
"If there be dearth in the land, if there be pestilence, if there be blasting, or mildew, locusts, or caterpillars; if their enemies besiege them in the cities of their land; whatsoever sore or whatsoever sickness there be: then what prayer or what supplication soever shall be made of any man, or of all Thy people Israel, when everyone shall know his own sore and his own grief, and shall spread forth his hands in his house: then hear Thou from heaven Thy dwelling place, and forgive, and render unto every man according unto all his ways, whose heart Thou knowest; . . . that they may fear Thee, to walk in Thy ways, so long as they live in the land which Thou gavest unto our fathers.
"Moreover concerning the stranger, which is not of Thy people Israel, but is come from a far country for Thy great name's sake, and Thy mighty hand, and Thy stretched-out arm; if they come and pray in this house; then hear Thou from the heavens, even from Thy dwelling place, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to Thee for; that all people of the earth may know Thy name, and fear Thee, as doth Thy people Israel, and may know that this house which I have built is called by Thy name.
"If Thy people go out to war against their enemies by the way that Thou shalt send them, and they pray unto Thee toward this city which Thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for Thy name; then hear Thou from the heavens their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.
"If they sin against Thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and Thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near; yet if they bethink themselves in the land whither they are carried captive, and turn and pray unto Thee in the land of their captivity, saying, We have sinned, we have done amiss, and have dealt wickedly; if they return to Thee with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their captivity, whither they have carried them captives, and pray toward their land, which Thou gavest unto their fathers, and toward the city which Thou hast chosen, and toward the house which I have built for Thy name: then hear Thou from the heavens, even from Thy dwelling place, their prayer and their supplications, and maintain their cause, and forgive Thy people which have sinned against Thee.
"Now, my God, let, I beseech Thee, Thine eyes be open, and let Thine ears be attent unto the prayer that is made in this place. Now therefore arise, O Lord God, into Thy resting place, Thou, and the ark of Thy strength: let Thy priests, O Lord God, be clothed with salvation, and let Thy saints rejoice in goodness. O Lord God, turn not away the face of Thine anointed: remember the mercies of David Thy servant." Verses 14:42.
As Solomon ended his prayer, "fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices." The priests could not enter the temple because "the glory of the Lord had filled the Lord's house." "When all the children of Israel saw . . . the glory of the Lord upon the house, they bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshiped, and praised the Lord, saying, For He is good; for His mercy endureth forever."
Then king and people offered sacrifices before the Lord. "So the king and all the people dedicated the house of God." 2 Chronicles 7:1-5. For seven days the multitudes from every part of the kingdom, from the borders "of Hamath unto the river of Egypt," "a very great congregation," kept a joyous feast. The week following was spent by the happy throng in observing the Feast of Tabernacles. At the close of the season of reconsecration and rejoicing the people returned to their homes, "glad and merry in heart for the goodness that the Lord had showed unto David, and to Solomon, and to Israel His people." Verses 8,10.
The king had done everything within his power to encourage the people to give themselves wholly to God and His service, and to magnify His holy name. And now once more, as at Gibeon early in his reign, Israel's ruler was given evidence of divine acceptance and blessing. In a night vision the Lord appeared to him with the message: "I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to Myself for an house of sacrifice. If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people; if My people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. Now Mine eyes shall be open, and Mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place. For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that My name may be there forever: and Mine eyes and Mine heart shall be there perpetually." Verses 12-16.
Had Israel remained true to God, this glorious building would have stood forever, a perpetual sign of God's especial favor to His chosen people. "The sons of the stranger," God declared, "that join themselves to the Lord, to serve Him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be His servants, everyone that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of My covenant; even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon Mine altar; for Mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." Isaiah 56:6, 7.
In connection with these assurances of acceptance, the Lord made very plain the path of duty before the king. "As for thee," He declared, "if thou wilt walk before Me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shalt observe My statutes and My judgments; then will I establish the throne of thy kingdom, according as I have covenanted with David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man to be ruler in Israel." 2 Chronicles 7:17, 18.
Had Solomon continued to serve the Lord in humility, his entire reign would have exerted a powerful influence for good over the surrounding nations, nations that had been so favorably impressed by the reign of David his father and by the wise words and the magnificent works of the earlier years of his own reign. Foreseeing the terrible temptations that attend prosperity and worldly honor, God warned Solomon against the evil of apostasy and foretold the awful results of sin. Even the beautiful temple that had just been dedicated, He declared, would become "a proverb and a byword among all nations" should the Israelites forsake "the Lord God of their fathers" and persist in idolatry. Verses 20, 22.
Strengthened in heart and greatly cheered by the message from heaven that his prayer in behalf of Israel had been heard, Solomon now entered upon the most glorious period of his reign, when "all the kings of the earth" began to seek his presence, "to hear his wisdom, that God had put in his heart." 2 Chronicles 9:23. Many came to see the manner of his government and to receive instruction regarding the conduct of difficult affairs.
As these people visited Solomon, he taught them of God as the Creator of all things, and they returned to their homes with clearer conceptions of the God of Israel and of His love for the human race. In the works of nature they now beheld an expression of His love and a revelation of His character; and many were led to worship Him as their God.
The humility of Solomon at the time he began to bear the burdens of state, when he acknowledged before God, "I am but a little child" (1 Kings 3"7), his marked love of God, his profound reverence for things divine, his distrust of self, and his exaltation of the infinite Creator of all--all these traits of character, so worthy of emulation, were revealed during the services connected with the completion of the temple, when during his dedicatory prayer he knelt in the humble position of a petitioner. Christ's followers today should guard against the tendency to lose the spirit of reverence and godly fear. The Scriptures teach men how they should approach their Maker--with humility and awe, through faith in a divine Mediator. The psalmist has declared:
"The Lord is a great God, And a great King above all gods. . . . O come, let us worship and bow down: Let us kneel before the Lord our Maker." Psalm 95:3-6.
Both in public and in private worship it is our privilege to bow on our knees before God when we offer our petitions to Him. Jesus, our example, "kneeled down, and prayed." Luke 22:41. Of his disciples it is recorded that they, too, "kneeled down, and prayed." Acts 9:40. Paul declared, "I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Ephesians 3:14. In confessing before God the sins of Israel, Ezra knelt. See Ezra 9:5. Daniel "kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God." Daniel 6:10.
True reverence for God is inspired by a sense of His infinite greatness and a realization of His presence. With this sense of the Unseen, every heart should be deeply impressed. The hour and place of prayer are sacred, because God is there. And as reverence is manifested in attitude and demeanor, the feeling that inspires it will be deepened. "Holy and reverend is His name," the psalmist declares. Psalm 111:9. Angels, when they speak that name, veil their faces. With what reverence, then, should we, who are fallen and sinful, take it upon our lips!
Well would it be for old and young to ponder those words of Scripture that show how the place marked by God's special presence should be regarded. "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet," He commanded Moses at the burning bush, "for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." Exodus 3:5. Jacob, after beholding the vision of the angel, exclaimed, "The Lord is in this place; and I knew it not. . . . This is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven." Genesis 28:16, 17.
In that which was said during the dedicatory services, Solomon had sought to remove from the minds of those present the superstitions in regard to the Creator, that had beclouded the minds of the heathen. The God of heaven is not, like the gods of the heathen, confined to temples made with hands; yet He would meet with His people by His Spirit when they should assemble at the house dedicated to His worship.
Centuries later Paul taught the same truth in the words: "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; . . . that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us: for in Him we live, and move, and have our being." Acts 17:24-28.
"Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; And the people whom He hath chosen for His own inheritance. The Lord looketh from heaven; He beholdeth all the sons of men. From the place of His habitation He looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth." "The Lord hath prepared His throne in the heavens; And His kingdom ruleth over all."
"Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: Who is so great a God as our God? Thou art the God that doest wonders: Thou hast declared Thy strength among the people." Psalms 33:12-14; 103:19;77:13,14.
Although God dwells not in temples made with hands, yet He honors with His presence the assemblies of His people. He has promised that when they come together to seek Him, to acknowledge their sins, and to pray for one another, He will meet with them by His Spirit. But those who assemble to worship Him should put away every evil thing. Unless they worship Him in spirit and truth and in the beauty of holiness, their coming together will be of no avail. Of such the Lord declares, "This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoreth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me." Matthew 15:8,9. Those who worship God must worship Him "in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him." John 4:23.
"The Lord is in His holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before Him." Habakkuk 2:20.
This eclipse even by the world’s standards is being set as “The Great American Eclipse” because of how unique it is. Yes, plenty of partial and solar eclipses happened in the past, but what makes this one different?
1. MOST total eclipses falls over water or unpopulated areas of the planet, so an eclipse that is visible is rare in itself. The August 21 eclipse will be the first total solar eclipse whose path of totality stays completely in the United States since 1776 according the Space.com Total Solar Eclipse 2017 guide.
What else happened in 1776? Oh, so a total solar eclipse that affects only the United States, a gentile nation, since the founding of it? Note taken.
2. EVERYONE in the continental U.S. has the opportunity to at least a partial eclipse. This eclipse will be the most viewed ever.
3. A solar eclipse is a lineup of the Sun, the Moon, and Earth and a solar eclipse happens only at a New Moon and solar eclipses don’t happen at every New Moon. More rare upon rare.
4. First contact is in the state of Oregon, the 33rd state in the USA. The last contact is in South Carolina on the 33rd parallel. This eclipse happens on day 233 of the year. If the Revelation 12 sign is valid, then the eclipse is also 33 days before September 23, 2017. Jesus is thought to have been 33 when He died.
5. Just for fun: It is 99 years (3 x 33) since the last eclipse to go coast-to-coast in the US, in 1918. From September 23, 2017 (Revelation 12 sign) to the end of the year, December 31, 2017 is 99 days (or 3 x 33). The number of days from the 1918 eclipse to the August 21 eclipse are 26,234 days. (2+6+2+3+4 = 17; 2017?). From August 12, 2017, the date of the Charlottesville Virginia “State of Emergency” declared to the August 21, 2017 Great Solar Eclipse is 9 days (3+3+3) and the dates are also mirrored – 12 and 21.
33 has a special relation to earthquakes because the Richter Scale uses the number 33. Each whole number that goes higher on the scale is 33 times more intense than the whole number below it. (Keep this in mind for a special treat below!)
6. First big city the eclipse hits in Oregon is Salem – Salem was named after Jerusalem. The eclipse also begins in Oregon exactly at sunset time in Jerusalem. So technically speaking, as the sun sets in American it will be setting in Jerusalem at the same time.
7. The center line crosses through 12 primary states to receive total darkness. 12 disciples, 12 months in a year, the meaning of 12, which is considered a perfect number, is that it symbolizes God’s power and authority, as well as serving as a perfect governmental foundation. (Remember the 1776 thing?)
8. The eclipse path is exactly 70 miles wide. 70 has a sacred meaning in the Bible that has two perfect numbers, 7 that represents perfection and 10 that represents completeness and God’s law. 70 also symbolizes perfect spiritual order and a period of judgment. 70 is also specially connected with Jerusalem with so many references it would take a book to write.
9. When Jesus died, there was an eclipse? and a earthquake. “It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon” – Luke 23:44-45 / “Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.” – Matthew 27:54.
10. Donald Trump was born on an eclipse.
11. The path of the August 21, 2017 eclipse crosses every major earthquake fault line. (Remember that note above above 33 in the Richter scale?) On August 23, 2017 there is a FEMA exercise known as “EarthEX2017” scheduled that will simulate “catastrophes such as mega earthquakes, cyber terrorism or high altitude electromagnetic pulse attacks”
Here is the eclipse path imposed on the USGS map of highest earthquake zones.
12. Another eclipse comes in 2024, 7 years after the August 21, 2017 and marks an X over the United States. The combined time of totality of these eclipses together will be 7 minutes. The day of the eclipse is August 21, 2017 – (7 + 7 + 7 = 21). The exact point where the two eclipses cross is right next to Cedar Lake in Illinois… specifically right next to SALEM Road. (Salem again!)
13. The region in southern where the X marks in Illinois is called “Little Egypt”. The exact point where the two paths cross is in the town of Makanda, which used to be called the “Star of Egypt”.
14. The last time we had a full eclipse in 1918 – it was accompanied by pandemic and war. Flu crisis of 1918, millions died and the US was involved in World War 1. Now as we face the next eclipse, we have a Opioid crisis and World War 3?
15. During the plagues of Egypt, the land was covered in darkness. Exodus 10:21-23 tells us, “Then the Lord said to Moses, “Lift your hand toward heaven, and the land of Egypt will be covered with a darkness so thick you can feel it.” So Moses lifted his hand to the sky, and a deep darkness covered the entire land of Egypt for three days.
16. The sun is 400 times bigger, and just so happens to be 400 times farther away from the earth. The original form of the Hebrew letter Tav is like the English letter X or T – which is in the shape of a cross, or X– like the X that is made by the two solar eclipses on the cross paths over 7 years. The letter Tav means “a sign”.
17. The path of the eclipse will be situated in such a way that every single state of the US will experience it, even Hawaii and Alaska.
18. The totality will reach Oregon at 10:16 AM Pacific, and will end in South Carolina at 2:49 PM Eastern. That means it will take 1 hour and 33 minutes to cross the country. There is that 33 again.
19. Eclipses never repeat in the exact same spot.
20. Right before full totality of the eclipse, the last light glimpse from the sun will form a diamond ring in the sky. Marriage anyone?
21. Based on past eclipses, people report feeling a profound sense of awe during and after a total solar eclipse and other “different” things.
22. Only Earth can experience a total solar eclipse.
23. Big difference between a partial eclipse and full eclipse. The sun’s light that makes the difference between a 99.9% partial and 100% total is significant. Only during a 100% eclipse is the solar corona visible. August 21, 2017 is a 100% experience.
24. The August 21, 2017 eclipse also cuts through every major occult symbol in the United States like the Georgia Guidestones, St. Louis Gateway Arches, and the founding state of the masons to name a few.
25. This eclipse will be the only known eclipse in history to have the longest and most uninterrupted track across a single land mass.
26. A partial lunar eclipse took place on August 7, 2017, in the same eclipse season. It was visible over eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. From August 7, 2017 to August 21, 2017 was 14 days, an average division of 7.
27. This solar eclipse is a part of Saros cycle 145 which contains 77 events. The series ends at member 77 as a partial eclipse on April 17, 3009.
28. No matter what you feel about it, these things are documented to happen during an full eclipse: stars come out, the horizon glows with a 360-degree sunset, temperature drops significantly, and well, day turns into night obviously.
29. Due to the mass “Exodus” of people that are expected to view this eclipse, a figure only accounted in the “millions” will be skipping work and school to view this event in the path of totality.
30. While you may not be preparing for it, others are. This eclipse is causing states, cities, and townships to declare an official state of emergency due to likely accidents, large crowds, increase in violence, and occultist rituals to take place.
31. The longest known total solar eclipse lasted about 7 minutes.
32. The U.S. mainland has averaged about 7 total solar eclipses per century since 2000 B.C. So the rarity of the August 21, 2017 solar eclipse is not only considered a once in a lifetime event, it will be a once in about 7 lifetimes event.
33. And while more than 33 facts have been crammed in this post, let us end on this last one:
The eclipse is also exactly 40 days from Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur means “Day of Atonement” and is a time of repentance. While the eclipse day itself may come and go with everything remaining “normal” afterwards, we need to be focused on what could be coming soon after.
Is the US being warned to repent? 40 days were given in the Sign of Jonah, when the eclipse overtook Nineveh. But then again, bad things were starting to happen just prior to the eclipse over Nineveh too. Be ready now and at all times, repent and draw close to the Father.
Carol wrote:The date August 2030 comes up a lot in reference to comets, astroids, solar event and Nibiru. Perhaps it's the date that Deloras Canon referred to as to when the world would split where the new earth exists in the 5th dimension. I'll ask Dr. Greer about the other when I see him next.. however, we did purchase his recent DVD and book which has a lot of interesting details laid out.
NANUXII wrote:I like the information Greer puts out. It has a good balance of science and ether,
With regard to Dolores Canon and the " 5th Dimensional Shift " from what i have experienced that energy belt we humans call the 5th dimension is already here. What is stopping us from accessing it is the energy of the planet.. or rather its inhabitants.
War and negativity anchor the planet and its inhabitants to their eventual energies.
If she predicts something around that time too then its possible a major event could happen to facilitate that energy belt. What that event is may liberate us from the negative forces that allay our ability to shift ... the negative anchor serves 2 purposes 1st is it retains retribution into this plane so that higher beings cannot take over. 2nd that energy affects everything around us and its ability to connect or rather integrate with better or denser vibrational energies.
Think about it ... have we not all accessed higher energies from time to time ? but the problem is we could not sustain it for long ? well if thats so then its the effect of surrounding energy over taking your inner sun core strength.
Its like an arm wrestle .. you can resist it and sometimes put it back but it eventually over powers and wins till you rest and regroup. Even when you win you have to win every one to maintain that energy because there is an unlimited supply of negative energy on this planet.
This is why enlightened people live in country or remote areas. They feel the difference and prefer the better
Carol , do you have a link to that information ?
"I AM RA!! Bow-Down and Worship ME!! I AM AI!!" What if the Gargoyle is Representative of the Serpent and/or Artificial-Intelligence?? What if the Young-Man is Representative of Humanity??
THEeXchanger wrote:My experience with posting boards is this: in 1 post, it is a good idea to just quote 1 thing and, respond to that -and; then post the thread or; do a pdf and; let the person upload it and; read it on their system ? posting boards are meant for SHORT POSTS
Thank-you, Susan. I'm essentially done posting here, other than to reproduce USSS Book 11 with shorter and lighter posts in USSS Book 12. Perhaps next time I'll follow your advice. I suppose my present methodology involves creating a Short-Story in each post. The Artificial-Intelligence Algorithms probably don't like that sort of thing (especially if they're sentient). "Just What Do You Think You're Doing, Dave?? I'm Afraid!!"
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.
I. INTRODUCTION
Many works of science fiction as well as some forecasts by serious technologists and futurologists predict that enormous amounts of computing power will be available in the future. Let us suppose for a moment that these predictions are correct. One thing that later generations might do with their super-powerful computers is run detailed simulations of their forebears or of people like their forebears. Because their computers would be so powerful, they could run a great many such simulations. Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct). Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race. It is then possible to argue that, if this were the case, we would be rational to think that we are likely among the simulated minds rather than among the original biological ones. Therefore, if we don’t think that we are currently living in a computer simulation, we are not entitled to believe that we will have descendants who will run lots of such simulations of their forebears. That is the basic idea. The rest of this paper will spell it out more carefully.
Apart form the interest this thesis may hold for those who are engaged in futuristic speculation, there are also more purely theoretical rewards. The argument provides a stimulus for formulating some methodological and metaphysical questions, and it suggests naturalistic analogies to certain traditional religious conceptions, which some may find amusing or thought-provoking.
The structure of the paper is as follows. First, we formulate an assumption that we need to import from the philosophy of mind in order to get the argument started. Second, we consider some empirical reasons for thinking that running vastly many simulations of human minds would be within the capability of a future civilization that has developed many of those technologies that can already be shown to be compatible with known physical laws and engineering constraints. This part is not philosophically necessary but it provides an incentive for paying attention to the rest. Then follows the core of the argument, which makes use of some simple probability theory, and a section providing support for a weak indifference principle that the argument employs. Lastly, we discuss some interpretations of the disjunction, mentioned in the abstract, that forms the conclusion of the simulation argument.
II. THE ASSUMPTION OF SUBSTRATE-INDEPENDENCE
A common assumption in the philosophy of mind is that of substrate-independence. The idea is that mental states can supervene on any of a broad class of physical substrates. Provided a system implements the right sort of computational structures and processes, it can be associated with conscious experiences. It is not an essential property of consciousness that it is implemented on carbon-based biological neural networks inside a cranium: silicon-based processors inside a computer could in principle do the trick as well. Arguments for this thesis have been given in the literature, and although it is not entirely uncontroversial, we shall here take it as a given.
The argument we shall present does not, however, depend on any very strong version of functionalism or computationalism. For example, we need not assume that the thesis of substrate-independence is necessarily true (either analytically or metaphysically) – just that, in fact, a computer running a suitable program would be conscious. Moreover, we need not assume that in order to create a mind on a computer it would be sufficient to program it in such a way that it behaves like a human in all situations, including passing the Turing test etc. We need only the weaker assumption that it would suffice for the generation of subjective experiences that the computational processes of a human brain are structurally replicated in suitably fine-grained detail, such as on the level of individual synapses. This attenuated version of substrate-independence is quite widely accepted.
Neurotransmitters, nerve growth factors, and other chemicals that are smaller than a synapse clearly play a role in human cognition and learning. The substrate-independence thesis is not that the effects of these chemicals are small or irrelevant, but rather that they affect subjective experience only via their direct or indirect influence on computational activities. For example, if there can be no difference in subjective experience without there also being a difference in synaptic discharges, then the requisite detail of simulation is at the synaptic level (or higher).
III. THE TECHNOLOGICAL LIMITS OF COMPUTATION
At our current stage of technological development, we have neither sufficiently powerful hardware nor the requisite software to create conscious minds in computers. But persuasive arguments have been given to the effect that if technological progress continues unabated then these shortcomings will eventually be overcome. Some authors argue that this stage may be only a few decades away.[1] Yet present purposes require no assumptions about the time-scale. The simulation argument works equally well for those who think that it will take hundreds of thousands of years to reach a “posthuman” stage of civilization, where humankind has acquired most of the technological capabilities that one can currently show to be consistent with physical laws and with material and energy constraints.
Such a mature stage of technological development will make it possible to convert planets and other astronomical resources into enormously powerful computers. It is currently hard to be confident in any upper bound on the computing power that may be available to posthuman civilizations. As we are still lacking a “theory of everything”, we cannot rule out the possibility that novel physical phenomena, not allowed for in current physical theories, may be utilized to transcend those constraints[2] that in our current understanding impose theoretical limits on the information processing attainable in a given lump of matter. We can with much greater confidence establish lower bounds on posthuman computation, by assuming only mechanisms that are already understood. For example, Eric Drexler has outlined a design for a system the size of a sugar cube (excluding cooling and power supply) that would perform 1021 instructions per second.[3] Another author gives a rough estimate of 1042 operations per second for a computer with a mass on order of a large planet.[4] (If we could create quantum computers, or learn to build computers out of nuclear matter or plasma, we could push closer to the theoretical limits. Seth Lloyd calculates an upper bound for a 1 kg computer of 5*1050 logical operations per second carried out on ~1031 bits.[5] However, it suffices for our purposes to use the more conservative estimate that presupposes only currently known design-principles.)
The amount of computing power needed to emulate a human mind can likewise be roughly estimated. One estimate, based on how computationally expensive it is to replicate the functionality of a piece of nervous tissue that we have already understood and whose functionality has been replicated in silico, contrast enhancement in the retina, yields a figure of ~1014 operations per second for the entire human brain.[6] An alternative estimate, based the number of synapses in the brain and their firing frequency, gives a figure of ~1016-1017 operations per second.[7] Conceivably, even more could be required if we want to simulate in detail the internal workings of synapses and dendritic trees. However, it is likely that the human central nervous system has a high degree of redundancy on the mircoscale to compensate for the unreliability and noisiness of its neuronal components. One would therefore expect a substantial efficiency gain when using more reliable and versatile non-biological processors.
Memory seems to be a no more stringent constraint than processing power.[8] Moreover, since the maximum human sensory bandwidth is ~108 bits per second, simulating all sensory events incurs a negligible cost compared to simulating the cortical activity. We can therefore use the processing power required to simulate the central nervous system as an estimate of the total computational cost of simulating a human mind.
If the environment is included in the simulation, this will require additional computing power – how much depends on the scope and granularity of the simulation. Simulating the entire universe down to the quantum level is obviously infeasible, unless radically new physics is discovered. But in order to get a realistic simulation of human experience, much less is needed – only whatever is required to ensure that the simulated humans, interacting in normal human ways with their simulated environment, don’t notice any irregularities. The microscopic structure of the inside of the Earth can be safely omitted. Distant astronomical objects can have highly compressed representations: verisimilitude need extend to the narrow band of properties that we can observe from our planet or solar system spacecraft. On the surface of Earth, macroscopic objects in inhabited areas may need to be continuously simulated, but microscopic phenomena could likely be filled in ad hoc. What you see through an electron microscope needs to look unsuspicious, but you usually have no way of confirming its coherence with unobserved parts of the microscopic world. Exceptions arise when we deliberately design systems to harness unobserved microscopic phenomena that operate in accordance with known principles to get results that we are able to independently verify. The paradigmatic case of this is a computer. The simulation may therefore need to include a continuous representation of computers down to the level of individual logic elements. This presents no problem, since our current computing power is negligible by posthuman standards.
Moreover, a posthuman simulator would have enough computing power to keep track of the detailed belief-states in all human brains at all times. Therefore, when it saw that a human was about to make an observation of the microscopic world, it could fill in sufficient detail in the simulation in the appropriate domain on an as-needed basis. Should any error occur, the director could easily edit the states of any brains that have become aware of an anomaly before it spoils the simulation. Alternatively, the director could skip back a few seconds and rerun the simulation in a way that avoids the problem.
It thus seems plausible that the main computational cost in creating simulations that are indistinguishable from physical reality for human minds in the simulation resides in simulating organic brains down to the neuronal or sub-neuronal level.[9] While it is not possible to get a very exact estimate of the cost of a realistic simulation of human history, we can use ~1033 - 1036 operations as a rough estimate[10]. As we gain more experience with virtual reality, we will get a better grasp of the computational requirements for making such worlds appear realistic to their visitors. But in any case, even if our estimate is off by several orders of magnitude, this does not matter much for our argument. We noted that a rough approximation of the computational power of a planetary-mass computer is 1042 operations per second, and that assumes only already known nanotechnological designs, which are probably far from optimal. A single such a computer could simulate the entire mental history of humankind (call this an ancestor-simulation) by using less than one millionth of its processing power for one second. A posthuman civilization may eventually build an astronomical number of such computers. We can conclude that the computing power available to a posthuman civilization is sufficient to run a huge number of ancestor-simulations even it allocates only a minute fraction of its resources to that purpose. We can draw this conclusion even while leaving a substantial margin of error in all our estimates.
Posthuman civilizations would have enough computing power to run hugely many ancestor-simulations even while using only a tiny fraction of their resources for that purpose.
IV. THE CORE OF THE SIMULATION ARGUMENT
The basic idea of this paper can be expressed roughly as follows: If there were a substantial chance that our civilization will ever get to the posthuman stage and run many ancestor-simulations, then how come you are not living in such a simulation?
We shall develop this idea into a rigorous argument. Let us introduce the following notation:
: Fraction of all human-level technological civilizations that survive to reach a posthuman stage
: Average number of ancestor-simulations run by a posthuman civilization
: Average number of individuals that have lived in a civilization before it reaches a posthuman stage
The actual fraction of all observers with human-type experiences that live in simulations is then
[Equations. See Links Above for Details]
Writing for the fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations (or that contain at least some individuals who are interested in that and have sufficient resources to run a significant number of such simulations), and for the average number of ancestor-simulations run by such interested civilizations, we have
[Equations. See Links Above for Details]
and thus:
[Equations. See Links Above for Details] (*)
Because of the immense computing power of posthuman civilizations, is extremely large, as we saw in the previous section. By inspecting (*) we can then see that at least one of the following three propositions must be true:
[Equations. See Links Above for Details]
V. A BLAND INDIFFERENCE PRINCIPLE
We can take a further step and conclude that conditional on the truth of (3), one’s credence in the hypothesis that one is in a simulation should be close to unity. More generally, if we knew that a fraction x of all observers with human-type experiences live in simulations, and we don’t have any information that indicate that our own particular experiences are any more or less likely than other human-type experiences to have been implemented in vivo rather than in machina, then our credence that we are in a simulation should equal x:
[Equations. See Links Above for Details] (#)
This step is sanctioned by a very weak indifference principle. Let us distinguish two cases. The first case, which is the easiest, is where all the minds in question are like your own in the sense that they are exactly qualitatively identical to yours: they have exactly the same information and the same experiences that you have. The second case is where the minds are “like” each other only in the loose sense of being the sort of minds that are typical of human creatures, but they are qualitatively distinct from one another and each has a distinct set of experiences. I maintain that even in the latter case, where the minds are qualitatively different, the simulation argument still works, provided that you have no information that bears on the question of which of the various minds are simulated and which are implemented biologically.
A detailed defense of a stronger principle, which implies the above stance for both cases as trivial special instances, has been given in the literature.[11] Space does not permit a recapitulation of that defense here, but we can bring out one of the underlying intuitions by bringing to our attention to an analogous situation of a more familiar kind. Suppose that x% of the population has a certain genetic sequence S within the part of their DNA commonly designated as “junk DNA”. Suppose, further, that there are no manifestations of S (short of what would turn up in a gene assay) and that there are no known correlations between having S and any observable characteristic. Then, quite clearly, unless you have had your DNA sequenced, it is rational to assign a credence of x% to the hypothesis that you have S. And this is so quite irrespective of the fact that the people who have S have qualitatively different minds and experiences from the people who don’t have S. (They are different simply because all humans have different experiences from one another, not because of any known link between S and what kind of experiences one has.)
The same reasoning holds if S is not the property of having a certain genetic sequence but instead the property of being in a simulation, assuming only that we have no information that enables us to predict any differences between the experiences of simulated minds and those of the original biological minds.
It should be stressed that the bland indifference principle expressed by (#) prescribes indifference only between hypotheses about which observer you are, when you have no information about which of these observers you are. It does not in general prescribe indifference between hypotheses when you lack specific information about which of the hypotheses is true. In contrast to Laplacean and other more ambitious principles of indifference, it is therefore immune to Bertrand’s paradox and similar predicaments that tend to plague indifference principles of unrestricted scope.
Readers familiar with the Doomsday argument[12] may worry that the bland principle of indifference invoked here is the same assumption that is responsible for getting the Doomsday argument off the ground, and that the counterintuitiveness of some of the implications of the latter incriminates or casts doubt on the validity of the former. This is not so. The Doomsday argument rests on a much stronger and more controversial premiss, namely that one should reason as if one were a random sample from the set of all people who will ever have lived (past, present, and future) even though we know that we are living in the early twenty-first century rather than at some point in the distant past or the future. The bland indifference principle, by contrast, applies only to cases where we have no information about which group of people we belong to.
If betting odds provide some guidance to rational belief, it may also be worth to ponder that if everybody were to place a bet on whether they are in a simulation or not, then if people use the bland principle of indifference, and consequently place their money on being in a simulation if they know that that’s where almost all people are, then almost everyone will win their bets. If they bet on not being in a simulation, then almost everyone will lose. It seems better that the bland indifference principle be heeded.
Further, one can consider a sequence of possible situations in which an increasing fraction of all people live in simulations: 98%, 99%, 99.9%, 99.9999%, and so on. As one approaches the limiting case in which everybody is in a simulation (from which one can deductively infer that one is in a simulation oneself), it is plausible to require that the credence one assigns to being in a simulation gradually approach the limiting case of complete certainty in a matching manner.
VI. INTERPRETATION
The possibility represented by proposition (1) is fairly straightforward. If (1) is true, then humankind will almost certainly fail to reach a posthuman level; for virtually no species at our level of development become posthuman, and it is hard to see any justification for thinking that our own species will be especially privileged or protected from future disasters. Conditional on (1), therefore, we must give a high credence to DOOM, the hypothesis that humankind will go extinct before reaching a posthuman level:
[Equations. See Links Above for Details]
One can imagine hypothetical situations were we have such evidence as would trump knowledge of . For example, if we discovered that we were about to be hit by a giant meteor, this might suggest that we had been exceptionally unlucky. We could then assign a credence to DOOM larger than our expectation of the fraction of human-level civilizations that fail to reach posthumanity. In the actual case, however, we seem to lack evidence for thinking that we are special in this regard, for better or worse.
Proposition (1) doesn’t by itself imply that we are likely to go extinct soon, only that we are unlikely to reach a posthuman stage. This possibility is compatible with us remaining at, or somewhat above, our current level of technological development for a long time before going extinct. Another way for (1) to be true is if it is likely that technological civilization will collapse. Primitive human societies might then remain on Earth indefinitely.
There are many ways in which humanity could become extinct before reaching posthumanity. Perhaps the most natural interpretation of (1) is that we are likely to go extinct as a result of the development of some powerful but dangerous technology.[13] One candidate is molecular nanotechnology, which in its mature stage would enable the construction of self-replicating nanobots capable of feeding on dirt and organic matter – a kind of mechanical bacteria. Such nanobots, designed for malicious ends, could cause the extinction of all life on our planet.[14]
The second alternative in the simulation argument’s conclusion is that the fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulation is negligibly small. In order for (2) to be true, there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations. If the number of ancestor-simulations created by the interested civilizations is extremely large, the rarity of such civilizations must be correspondingly extreme. Virtually no posthuman civilizations decide to use their resources to run large numbers of ancestor-simulations. Furthermore, virtually all posthuman civilizations lack individuals who have sufficient resources and interest to run ancestor-simulations; or else they have reliably enforced laws that prevent such individuals from acting on their desires.
What force could bring about such convergence? One can speculate that advanced civilizations all develop along a trajectory that leads to the recognition of an ethical prohibition against running ancestor-simulations because of the suffering that is inflicted on the inhabitants of the simulation. However, from our present point of view, it is not clear that creating a human race is immoral. On the contrary, we tend to view the existence of our race as constituting a great ethical value. Moreover, convergence on an ethical view of the immorality of running ancestor-simulations is not enough: it must be combined with convergence on a civilization-wide social structure that enables activities considered immoral to be effectively banned.
Another possible convergence point is that almost all individual posthumans in virtually all posthuman civilizations develop in a direction where they lose their desires to run ancestor-simulations. This would require significant changes to the motivations driving their human predecessors, for there are certainly many humans who would like to run ancestor-simulations if they could afford to do so. But perhaps many of our human desires will be regarded as silly by anyone who becomes a posthuman. Maybe the scientific value of ancestor-simulations to a posthuman civilization is negligible (which is not too implausible given its unfathomable intellectual superiority), and maybe posthumans regard recreational activities as merely a very inefficient way of getting pleasure – which can be obtained much more cheaply by direct stimulation of the brain’s reward centers. One conclusion that follows from (2) is that posthuman societies will be very different from human societies: they will not contain relatively wealthy independent agents who have the full gamut of human-like desires and are free to act on them.
The possibility expressed by alternative (3) is the conceptually most intriguing one. If we are living in a simulation, then the cosmos that we are observing is just a tiny piece of the totality of physical existence. The physics in the universe where the computer is situated that is running the simulation may or may not resemble the physics of the world that we observe. While the world we see is in some sense “real”, it is not located at the fundamental level of reality.
It may be possible for simulated civilizations to become posthuman. They may then run their own ancestor-simulations on powerful computers they build in their simulated universe. Such computers would be “virtual machines”, a familiar concept in computer science. (Java script web-applets, for instance, run on a virtual machine – a simulated computer – inside your desktop.) Virtual machines can be stacked: it’s possible to simulate a machine simulating another machine, and so on, in arbitrarily many steps of iteration. If we do go on to create our own ancestor-simulations, this would be strong evidence against (1) and (2), and we would therefore have to conclude that we live in a simulation. Moreover, we would have to suspect that the posthumans running our simulation are themselves simulated beings; and their creators, in turn, may also be simulated beings.
Reality may thus contain many levels. Even if it is necessary for the hierarchy to bottom out at some stage – the metaphysical status of this claim is somewhat obscure – there may be room for a large number of levels of reality, and the number could be increasing over time. (One consideration that counts against the multi-level hypothesis is that the computational cost for the basement-level simulators would be very great. Simulating even a single posthuman civilization might be prohibitively expensive. If so, then we should expect our simulation to be terminated when we are about to become posthuman.)
Although all the elements of such a system can be naturalistic, even physical, it is possible to draw some loose analogies with religious conceptions of the world. In some ways, the posthumans running a simulation are like gods in relation to the people inhabiting the simulation: the posthumans created the world we see; they are of superior intelligence; they are “omnipotent” in the sense that they can interfere in the workings of our world even in ways that violate its physical laws; and they are “omniscient” in the sense that they can monitor everything that happens. However, all the demigods except those at the fundamental level of reality are subject to sanctions by the more powerful gods living at lower levels.
Further rumination on these themes could climax in a naturalistic theogony that would study the structure of this hierarchy, and the constraints imposed on its inhabitants by the possibility that their actions on their own level may affect the treatment they receive from dwellers of deeper levels. For example, if nobody can be sure that they are at the basement-level, then everybody would have to consider the possibility that their actions will be rewarded or punished, based perhaps on moral criteria, by their simulators. An afterlife would be a real possibility. Because of this fundamental uncertainty, even the basement civilization may have a reason to behave ethically. The fact that it has such a reason for moral behavior would of course add to everybody else’s reason for behaving morally, and so on, in truly virtuous circle. One might get a kind of universal ethical imperative, which it would be in everybody’s self-interest to obey, as it were “from nowhere”.
In addition to ancestor-simulations, one may also consider the possibility of more selective simulations that include only a small group of humans or a single individual. The rest of humanity would then be zombies or “shadow-people” – humans simulated only at a level sufficient for the fully simulated people not to notice anything suspicious. It is not clear how much cheaper shadow-people would be to simulate than real people. It is not even obvious that it is possible for an entity to behave indistinguishably from a real human and yet lack conscious experience. Even if there are such selective simulations, you should not think that you are in one of them unless you think they are much more numerous than complete simulations. There would have to be about 100 billion times as many “me-simulations” (simulations of the life of only a single mind) as there are ancestor-simulations in order for most simulated persons to be in me-simulations.
There is also the possibility of simulators abridging certain parts of the mental lives of simulated beings and giving them false memories of the sort of experiences that they would typically have had during the omitted interval. If so, one can consider the following (farfetched) solution to the problem of evil: that there is no suffering in the world and all memories of suffering are illusions. Of course, this hypothesis can be seriously entertained only at those times when you are not currently suffering.
Supposing we live in a simulation, what are the implications for us humans? The foregoing remarks notwithstanding, the implications are not all that radical. Our best guide to how our posthuman creators have chosen to set up our world is the standard empirical study of the universe we see. The revisions to most parts of our belief networks would be rather slight and subtle – in proportion to our lack of confidence in our ability to understand the ways of posthumans. Properly understood, therefore, the truth of (3) should have no tendency to make us “go crazy” or to prevent us from going about our business and making plans and predictions for tomorrow. The chief empirical importance of (3) at the current time seems to lie in its role in the tripartite conclusion established above.[15] We may hope that (3) is true since that would decrease the probability of (1), although if computational constraints make it likely that simulators would terminate a simulation before it reaches a posthuman level, then out best hope would be that (2) is true.
If we learn more about posthuman motivations and resource constraints, maybe as a result of developing towards becoming posthumans ourselves, then the hypothesis that we are simulated will come to have a much richer set of empirical implications.
VII. CONCLUSION
A technologically mature “posthuman” civilization would have enormous computing power. Based on this empirical fact, the simulation argument shows that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) The fraction of human-level civilizations that reach a posthuman stage is very close to zero; (2) The fraction of posthuman civilizations that are interested in running ancestor-simulations is very close to zero; (3) The fraction of all people with our kind of experiences that are living in a simulation is very close to one.
If (1) is true, then we will almost certainly go extinct before reaching posthumanity. If (2) is true, then there must be a strong convergence among the courses of advanced civilizations so that virtually none contains any relatively wealthy individuals who desire to run ancestor-simulations and are free to do so. If (3) is true, then we almost certainly live in a simulation. In the dark forest of our current ignorance, it seems sensible to apportion one’s credence roughly evenly between (1), (2), and (3). Unless we are now living in a simulation, our descendants will almost certainly never run an ancestor-simulation.
Acknowledgements
I’m grateful to many people for comments, and especially to Amara Angelica, Robert Bradbury, Milan Cirkovic, Robin Hanson, Hal Finney, Robert A. Freitas Jr., John Leslie, Mitch Porter, Keith DeRose, Mike Treder, Mark Walker, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and several anonymous referees.
[1] See e.g. K. E. Drexler, Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, London, Forth Estate, 1985; N. Bostrom, “How Long Before Superintelligence?” International Journal of Futures Studies, vol. 2, (1998); R. Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual Machines: When computers exceed human intelligence, New York, Viking Press, 1999; H. Moravec, Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind, Oxford University Press, 1999. [2] Such as the Bremermann-Bekenstein bound and the black hole limit (H. J. Bremermann, “Minimum energy requirements of information transfer and computing.” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21: 203-217 (1982); J. D. Bekenstein, “Entropy content and information flow in systems with limited energy.” Physical Review D 30: 1669-1679 (1984); A. Sandberg, “The Physics of Information Processing Superobjects: The Daily Life among the Jupiter Brains.” Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 5 (1999)). [3] K. E. Drexler, Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation, New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1992. [4] R. J. Bradbury, “Matrioshka Brains.” Working manuscript (2002), http://www.aeiveos.com/~bradbury/MatrioshkaBrains/MatrioshkaBrains.html. [5] S. Lloyd, “Ultimate physical limits to computation.” Nature 406 (31 August): 1047-1054 (2000). [6] H. Moravec, Mind Children, Harvard University Press (1989). [7] Bostrom (1998), op. cit. [8] See references in foregoing footnotes. [9] As we build more and faster computers, the cost of simulating our machines might eventually come to dominate the cost of simulating nervous systems. [10] 100 billion humans50 years/human30 million secs/year[1014, 1017] operations in each human brain per second [1033, 1036] operations. [11] In e.g. N. Bostrom, “The Doomsday argument, Adam & Eve, UN++, and Quantum Joe.” Synthese 127(3): 359-387 (2001); and most fully in my book Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy, Routledge, New York, 2002. [12] See e.g. J. Leslie, “Is the End of the World Nigh? ” Philosophical Quarterly 40, 158: 65-72 (1990). [13] See my paper “Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards.” Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 9 (2001) for a survey and analysis of the present and anticipated future threats to human survival. [14] See e.g. Drexler (1985) op cit., and R. A. Freitas Jr., “Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations.” Zyvex preprint April (2000), http://www.foresight.org/NanoRev/Ecophagy.html. [15] For some reflections by another author on the consequences of (3), which were sparked by a privately circulated earlier version of this paper, see R. Hanson, “How to Live in a Simulation.” Journal of Evolution and Technology, vol. 7 (2001).
Once again, please treat my threads as science-fiction. I try to approximate possible realities -- but I'm not an insider, and I have no idea where the truth ends, and the BS begins. Take all of this madness with a sea of salt -- and then just move-on -- without saying or doing much of anything with what you've learned. I'm frankly trying to get away from this stuff. I had more than enough -- several years ago -- and things have only gotten worse. Consider this Alex Collier and Val Valerian conversation regarding Draconians and the Paa Tal.
The Alpha Draconians, a reptilian race composed of master geneticists, tinker with life - which from their perspective exists as a natural resource.
The Draconians look at lifeforms which they have created or altered as a natural resource. Apparently, the Alpha Draconians created the primate race, which was first brought to Mars and then to Earth.
The primate race was then tinkered with by many other different races - 21 other races - resulting in the primate race having been modified 22 times. This primate race eventually became Homo Sapien Sapiens. - who we are on a physical level. Yes, we used to have 12 strands of DNA. Ten strands were taken out by a group from Orion in order to control us and hold us back. Why would they want to hold us back?
The reason the Orion group wanted to hold us back was because they found out who we were on a soul level. Again, according to the Andromedans, we humans are part of a group of energies that they know of as the Paa Tal.
The reason that the Andromedans use the word Paa Tal, which is by the way a Draconian word, is because the Draconians have legends about warring with a race that was creating human life forms that were opposed to Draconian philosophy.
The Paa Tal created life forms that could evolve on their own, with free expression. The Draconians, on the other hand, created races to function as a natural resource for their pleasure. So, you have two very different philosophies.
Well, how the Orion group found out who we were was through our extreme span of emotions. We are very different than all the other races. Even the Andromedans do not understand how we could hate one minute and five minutes later be loving and snuggling.
On one trip I was brought on board a ship, and Vasais was watching a monitor floating in the middle of the room that had an Earth news broadcast on it where a policeman had shot a black man and then had run up to him and tried to save his life. To Vasais, there wasn't a clue why the policeman would do this. I couldn't explain it to him, because I don't even understand it. They are perplexed why we could be this incredible race, and have the abilities that we have, and be so hell-bent on destroying ourselves.
Another time I came on board and Moraney was looking at Earth while monitoring all these meters analyzing the atmosphere of Earth. He looked very sad, and I asked him what the matter was.
He said, "don't they understand that all of this is here because they needed it?"
They don't understand how we can just destroy our environment.
It's not like we have another place to go. We don't.
AC: The Draconians are the force behind the repression of human populations everywhere in this galaxy instilling fear-based belief systems and restrictive hierarchies. I asked Moraney about them, and he said,
"the Draconian race is probably the most understood race of beings. I have witnessed a deep respect for this race."
The Andromedans consider the Draconians the "ultimate warriors," in a negative sense. Moranae continues,
" the Draconians are the oldest reptilian race in our universe. Their forefathers came to our universe from another separate universe or reality system. When this occurred, no one really knows. The Draconians themselves are not really clear on when they got here.
The Draconians teach their masses that they were here in this universe first, before humans, and as such they are heirs to the universe and should be considered royalty. They find disgust in the fact that humans do not recognize this as a truth. They have conquered many star systems and have genetically altered many of the life forms they have encountered. The area of the galaxy most densely populated with Draconian sub-races is in the Orion system, which is a huge system, and systems in Rigel and Capella.
The mind set or consciousness of the majority of races in these systems is Service-to-Self, and as such they are always invading, subverting and manipulating less advanced races, and using their technology for control and domination. This is a very old and ancient war, and the peace that does not exist is always being tested by these beings, who believe that fear rules, and love is weak.
They believe that those they perceive to be less fortunate, in comparison to them, are meant to be slaves. This belief system is promoted at birth in the reptilian races, wherein the mother, after giving birth, will abandon the offspring to fend for themselves. If they survive they are cared for by a warrior class that uses these children for games of combat and amusement.".
So, you can see that the reptilians are forever stuck in survival mode. This means they have no boundaries in what they will do to other beings. Moraney continues,
"it is engrained in them never to trust a human. They are taught the Draconian version of the history of the 'Great Galactic War', which teaches that humans are at fault for invading the universe, and that humans selfishly wanted the Draconian society to starve and struggle for the basic materials that would allow them to exist."
AC: Now, there are some real similarities there. The expression 'Draconian thought' is an expression on our world. I would suggest you research that.
The Rest of the Galactic Hierarchy... and the Rest of the Story
We'll look at the positives.
There are so many that want to help. For those of you who are "trekkies", you know the number one rule. You don't intervene with an evolving race unless you're asked. That happens to be a reality. They will not directly intervene - at least they are not supposed to - unless they are specifically asked to. Those people who are contactees have a reincarnational lineage that leads back to many of these positive races, which is why it is not considered intervention.
Now, in our galaxy there are many councils. I don't know everything about all those councils, but I do know about the Andromedan council, which is a group of beings from 139 different star systems that come together and discuss what is going on in the galaxy. It is not a political body. What they have been recently discussing is the tyranny in our future, 357 years from now, because that affects everybody.
Apparently what they have done, through time travel, is that they have been able to figure out where the significant shift in energy occurred that causes the tyranny 357 years in our future. They have traced it back to our solar system, and they have been able to further track it down to Earth, Earths moon and Mars. Those three places.
The very first meeting the Andromedan council had was to decide whether or not to directly intervene with what was going on here. According to Moraney, there were only 78 systems that met this first time.
Of those 78, just short of half decided that they wanted nothing to do with us at all, regardless of the problems. I think it is really important that you know why they wanted nothing to do with us. We are talking about star systems that are hundreds of millions of light years away from us. Even some who have never met us. They just knew the vibration of the planet reflected those on it.
The reasons why they wanted nothing to do with us is that from their perspective, Earth humans don't respect themselves, each other or the planet. What possibly can be the value of Earth humans?
Fortunately, the majority of the council gave the opinion that because Earth has been manipulated for over 5,700 years, that we deserved an opportunity to prove ourselves - to at least have a shot at proving the other part of the council wrong.
So, the Andromedan council passed a directive that all extraterrestrial presence will be off our planet no later than August 12, 2003.
[Vals Note: Isn't it also curious that August 12, 2003 is also a resonant node for the Montauk Project? - 1943, 1983, 2003 - all 20 years apart. Also, in 12-year progressions, 1931,1943,1955, 1967, 1979, 1991, 2003. The implications are interesting. The year 2002 was also designated the new target date for implementation of the New World Order, one year prior to 2003]
They want everything extraterrestrial on the planet, in the planet and Earth's moon out of here by that date.
The reason for this is that they want to see how we will act when we are not being manipulated. We are all being manipulated, and my first suggestion is to throw your television set away. I can't tell you how sincere I am about that. They are teaching you what to think, not how to think. If you give that up, you become a robot. You become sheeple. I know it's going to be tough.
This determination that ET influence will end by August 12, 2003 will be interesting, because living inside our planet 100 to 200 miles under the surface are 1837 reptilians who have been here a very long time, 17 humans from Sirius B, and 18000 Grey clones inside the Earth and on the moon. Most of the 2000 original Greys are on Phobos, one of the moons of Mars, which is an artificial satellite.
There are also around 141 Orion beings inside the Earth from 9 different races.
There are a lot of "bad boys" here who have technology thousands of years ahead of us. It is estimated that Grey technology is 2,500 years ahead of us. The Orion group who control the Greys have technology approximately 3,700 years ahead of us. Nobody really knows how far the Draconians are, because they are incredibly elusive.
The group from Sirius B are approximately 932 years ahead of us.
They have a camera that they can take a picture and separate it out to get data all the way back to conception.
Say I have a liver problem. They can go back and get the data relative to my healthy liver and project it holographically and heal the liver. This is holographic technology. It is literally me, healing myself. We have the same capabilities using our minds.
The key is to open it up to the idea that everything that we record in our mind is recorded holographically. Every single thought is recorded holographically. When you are trying to create something in your life, through your mediations, don't look at it the way you normally do. Move around it, behind it, on top of it, beneath it. Train you mind and subconscious to see it for what it really is.
They say we have this ability - they need technology to do this, but we don't, because we have the benefit of already having been on 11th density.
AC: I want to talk to you about Lyrae and how the human race colonized our galaxy. Based on the age of the Suns and the planets in our galaxy, it was decided that the human life form was to be created in the Lyran system. The human race lived there for approximately 40 million years, evolving. The orientation of the human race in Lyrae was agricultural in nature. Apparently, we were very plentiful and abundant, and lived in peace.
Then, one day, huge craft appeared in the sky.
[Vals Note: This scenario is the theme of the movie Independence Day, to air in the theatres nationally on July 7, 1996].
A large ship came out of the huge craft and approached the planet Bila, and reptilians from Alpha Draconis disembarked. Apparently, the Alpha Draconians and the Lyrans were afraid of each other.
I told you before that the Alpha Draconians were apparently the first race in our galaxy to have interstellar space travel, and have had this capability for 4 billion years. Well, when the Draconians came and saw Bila, with all its abundance and food and natural resources, the Draconians wanted to control it.
There was apparently a miscommunication or misunderstanding between the Draconians and Lyran humans.
The Lyrans wanted to know more about the Draconians before some kind of "assistance" was offered. The Draconians mistook the communication as a refusal, and subsequently destroyed three out of 14 planets in the Lyran system. The Lyrans were basically defenseless. The planets Bila, Teka and Merck were destroyed.
Over 50 million Lyran humans were killed. It is at this point in history that the Draconians began to look at humans as a food source. This is how old the struggle is between the reptilian and human races. Now, I must make the point that not all the reptilian or human races are "dark". There is a mix. When we start meeting these races, you are going to have to trust your gut instinct.
But, they are coming. Hale Bopp is on its way here. It is not a comet.
Jehovah, Terran Control Groups and Derivative Concepts
I want to talk about Jehovah. He's a piece of work.
I want you to know he's still alive and still scooting around, wreaking havoc. He still doesn't have his stuff together.
I mean, all you really have to do is take all your personal emotions away from your observation of the Bible, or the Old Testament, and just see what Jehovah did. It's clearly psychotic behavior. I don't want a "God" like that! It's amazing how some people will defend it, saying "well, he was justified in killing everybody". Really?
The word "Jehovah" originally meant, in the Chaldean and Hebrew, "is, was, and will be". The reason he was given that name is because he lives such a long time. They live thousands of years in one incarnation. It never meant "creator of all things". He used technology to promote himself as a "God", and fear is an incredible tool when you want to get people to do something. Some of you have no doubt observed this factor in some of the activities of the world governments.
The Chaldean people were the remnants of the Sumerian people. This you probably already know. Much of the Hebrew religion and the religion of the Sumerians are similar. The books of Moses do not in any way suggest that Jehovah was in any way the only "lord of the Elohim".
The expressions "Elohim" and "Nephilim" are used in the original Hebrew tongue, and these expressions are plural in nature, which means that in their terms there was more than one "God". That should be a major tip to everyone.
Abraham, whose name was "Abramou", did consider Jehovah to be a "God" because of the technology that Jehovah and the other Elohim possessed. Many of the "Gods" did the same thing. They used technology to strike fear into the people, and they worshipped the "Gods" to avoid punishment. Any of this sound familiar, here in 1997?
Marduk, whom we also know as the Egyptian "God" Ra, Enki, and En-lil, were notorious for doing this.
These extraterrestrial manipulators used bigotry because they wanted to control their own groups of people, and each of their offspring procreated with elements of the population of the earth. According to Moraney and Vasais, our native American races are the remnants of the ancient Babylonians.
They were brought here and hidden underground just prior to the flood of Noah.
Now, what was the flood of Noah? We are told that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. According to Moraney, the flood of Noah was as a result of the movement of Earth from one orbit to another around the Sun. The Earth was apparently hit with a tractor beam and literally moved to an orbit further out from the Sun.
This added five days to our rotational period around the Sun. The period of this 40 day rain was during the period when the magnetic poles of the Earth rotated 180 degrees.
My reason for telling you this is to try and give you a broader perspective. There is just so much more to who we are and who we've been. We have been manipulated by the "hidden ones". The reason they remain "unseen" is because on-the-whole they are basically afraid of us. They are afraid of something about us. They absolutely do not want us to unite together, because then the "gig" is up.
Now, when the extraterrestrials were here in force - that is, during the time referenced in the Bible where it says the Sons of God married the Daughters of Man, they bred and mated with their human wives. Out of this came offspring, half-breeds. There were at that time, within the last 5000 years, predominantly 13 families from Sirius B and Nibiru, who were living here on the planet. These were the tribes of En-lil, Marduk, Enki, etc. They all had offspring.
Those from Nibiru were a tribe that came about as a result of a "marriage" between some groups between Sirius B and Orion. It was in essence a "royal marriage" between groups that formed a "tribe". This "tribe" was called Nibiru. The word Nibiru, in the ancient Sumerian language, means "between two peoples".
I know Sitchin calls it something else. The offspring were not allowed to go with the extraterrestrial parents when they left the Earth, because they were considered "half-breeds". The reason they were viewed like this by the extraterrestrials was because of their Terran genetics, which contain certain genes from the primate race.
According to Moraney, the first melding between the primate genes and the human species was 28,731,007 BC, and there have been many prototypes. In fact, they just found another prototype in Portugal that is estimated to be 780,000 years old. They will discover more. In fact, start looking for some major discoveries in Nigeria.
Apparently, there is a tremendous amount of extraterrestrial technology buried in Nigeria, that has not been tapped yet.
When the extraterrestrials left, the real ET's, they left certain types of technology behind. The Indian Veda's discuss some of this technology. They didn't care. They had science teams who were constantly inventing new things, and as they got new technology they discarded the old.
Well, it was the Magi, the half-breeds, that were left these technologies. There were 13 major families that were considered under the heading of Magi. Does that number ring a bell?
The members of these 13 families on earth contain the genetics of both Terran and extraterrestrial races that formerly tyrannized the Earth. They were basically left in charge. Some of them were actually Pharaohs. The Magi interbreeding resulted in the cultures we today recognize as the "Ivory Hebrew", the "Mayan", the "Celts", and the "Aryan" races. Now, while all of this was transpiring on the surface of the planet, underground there was another extraterrestrial race that had been here - a race that has been here for hundreds of thousands of years. They are, of course, the reptilian race, which the Bible refers to as the "serpent race". Serpent men.
They are still here, and they can't stand the radiation of the sun. They haven't been able to live on the surface of the planet since the last major war that occurred here approximately 450,000 years ago. They are basically hyperborean in nature. They have control of the planet at depths from 100 to 200 miles down.
That's their turf, and no one contests that. That is why when people go into the inner earth, they enter via the poles. They do not go through the crust, because these reptilians simply to not like humans. They consider us to be "fleas" on the surface.
Again, prejudice as a concept has its origin in extraterrestrial perspectives.
All of the concepts involving languages and social structures for human societies were introduced by extraterrestrial sources. All of the languages that we have on the planet have their origins within the structures of extraterrestrial languages. The letters and their numerical values.
From Moraney's perspective, "Adam and Eve" were in fact two human tribes that were created. I know the Bible refers to "Adam" as a singular person. This is not accurate. According to Moraney, there was a race of human beings prior to the Sumerians called the "Annunites", and they were named after the chief scientist who the Sumerian's called the "God" Anu. The name of "A-dam", as far as these people were concerned, was originally "Anu-dam". That word meant workers in the mines. Like everything else, we get the "Cliff notes" version of what really was the case.
I asked Moraney how the extraterrestrials were able to control all the populations. Apparently, there were groups of hundreds of thousands of people in areas all over the planet. Moraney said that it was very easy to control the population by controlling the water. He said that primary control was through technology, but the single most important control mechanism for a race as primitive as ours was control of the water supply. You have to have water.
This leads me to share something with you that I started to share earlier. Two weeks ago, Bill Clinton signed a presidential directive, number 28, which is legislation that has been put into the Federal Register. It did not go to Congress for approval.
They withheld it for two weeks, only giving the legislation 14 days of review before it became law.
[Vals note: This, of course, is illegal, because there must be a 30 day period of review].
It is called the River Heritage Act.
He is taking ten of the largest rivers in the United States and declaring on behalf of the Federal Government that ten miles on each side constitute a "world heritage protection site". Now, why would he do this? On the entire planet, 2.5% of the water is fresh water that is fit to drink. Now, 78% of that 2.5% is right here in North America. The Great Lakes. Are you getting the picture?
Now, the Magi created class systems around themselves. Priesthood's. You can read about this priesthood's in Sumerian and Egyptian lore. Every major religion has these. The priesthood's of the Magi were known as the "Naga", and I know that is a name that has been thrown around a lot.
The Naga constituted the priesthood. They are like the international bankers today, who are the new "priesthood", in a sense, for the extraterrestrial controllers. Everything in your life revolves around money. Everything. My reason for bringing this up is to show you how history is constantly repeating itself.
Our race has been stuck in a cycle of doing the same thing over and over again, and getting "screwed" over and over again. Maybe now you will be able to take a step back and see the "games" and the political mind sets that are coming down again. Folks, it's right there. I want you to know something, and I mean this with all my heart.
There are people that say,
"you know, Alex, if you think this way you will create it".
Well, you know what? I don't think this way, and it's being created anyway.
The reason it's being created anyway is because of apathy. People don't give a damn, because they are so busy just "surviving". Well, you are going to have to try and make room for more than just "survival" in your life. You're going to have to do this. There is only one semi-free nation on the planet.
The United States. If we loose it, there is nowhere for us to go, and I will tell you this: I refuse to serve two masters! I refuse. You can't do it.
The following material is a follow-up interview conducted with Alex Collier in regard to the Andromedan paradigm. For reference purposes, the initial interview was in LE#90 and the main feature, ET's and the Global Connection, was in LE#89.
The interview was conducted on Sunday May 5, 1996.
Val: Perhaps it would be best to start with a general update from you, both on the planetary side and the extra-planetary/dimensional side.
AC: Well, let's see...a planetary update. There are more reptilians than there were before. There are approximately 20 of the royal Draconian line in the planet at this time.
Val: The Ciakars?
AC: Yes. An underground facility was apparently built for them in the mountains in Madagascar. It is something that Moraney seemed very concerned about, because they don't know exactly why the Ciakars are here....they usually don't fight their own battles. On a galactic level, several humanoid colonies in the Hercules cluster have been admitted to the Andromedan Council.
Val: What about the biological situation on the planet?
AC: The viruses that are going to be hitting the United States are going to be blamed on Africa. It of course is not true. I am sure most of your readers know that already.
Val: It's no secret that all the viral and plague outbreaks have always been organisms that are involved with known government biowarfare programs.
AC: Yes. The interesting thing about the Ebola virus is that there is an extraterrestrial gene that has been added to it.
Val: I have heard that the same thing was done by factions in the government to create the HIV virus.
AC: Yes. I don't know what extraterrestrial race provided the gene for the recombinant HIV virus, but I know that the biological material that has been added to the Ebola was given to the government by the humanoids from Sirius B. I don't know if it was one of their viruses that they picked up somewhere or whether it is actually from them.
Val: Well, giving thought to the question: of who would want to biologically decimate the planet, the governmental factions have their agenda, but the reptilian race comes to mind as a contender who might in fact have orchestrated this biological weapon exchange.
AC: This is true. There are a lot different races that would love to have this solar system totally secured, primarily because of Saturn and Jupiter, and the Earth is a prize because of all the water on it. But, if they gave certain human beings on Earth the viruses, and those human beings in turn go ahead and use them, it doesn't totally absolve them of culpability, but at the same time it does relieve them (the aliens) of the idea that they actually did it to us. This is the really scary part, you know.
Val: This attitude is not uncommon even here on Earth. It is an interesting parallel to the attitude of some organized religious and political groups who behave in the same way, having other people do their dirty work. Ultimately, however, they cannot escape the karmic debt incurred by doing these things.
AC: Well, you're right.
Val: Referring back to some of the things you said in the ET's and Global Connection, you noted that there were some 1800 reptilians inside the Earth that have been responsible for some 37,000 human children disappearing. Have you acquired any additional information or clarification relative to this statement?
AC: You mean, what they do to the human children?
Val: Well, any clarification beyond that simple statement relative to what is happening.
AC: Well, I can tell you two things. You're not going to like this.
Val: I'm probably already aware of what you are about to say, but go ahead.
AC: Well, my understanding is that aside from the fact that they eat human children, what they do is that they drain fluids from the brains of children while they are in fear.
Val: I have heard of this before. It is to get that substance which to them is like a drug.
AC: It's like a narcotic.
Val: From the adrenal and pituitary glands?
AC: Yes. Apparently the government has tried to copy this substance, but they can't, so they have this agreement with the reptilians down below. My understanding is that the primary agreement is that they will allow the world governments to mine gold in exchange for the human children.
Val: It is an interesting parallel to a movie I saw called I Come in Peace, which featured a rogue time-traveler from an alien race who came to Earth and killed humans just to get endorphins from their brain while they were in terror. Another alien was sent dimensionally to stop him, because if he was successful in accumulating endorphins and returning with them, there would be no end to the slaughter of humans, as others would come. Galactic drug dealers.
AC: There is more to it than that. The excretion has some of the genetic coding within it. This is really what they are after. Apparently they can absorb it, but their bodies don't produce it. There is a chemical that we have in our brains that no other life form creates. It is a result of the fact that we have 22 genetic lines within human DNA, plus the primate race. No one can yet copy this chemical yet. As far as them being galactic drug dealers, I have never heard them referred to as that, but it's interesting.
Val: Well, it was only in reference to that movie, but the fact they would raid another species and kill them to acquire this substance. Of course, humans do this to other species, don't they?
AC: Well, they have this attitude that because part of their genetics are within us, that they have a "right" to do this. The Greys apparently have the same philosophy, and I can remember in one of the things that you sent me that Drunvalo also says that. I would like to offer a different perspective in that it is just flat wrong. They don't have a "right" to do it. Somehow they have convinced the world governments that they have this "right".
Val: Of course, the world governments are within the paradigm of Neo-Darwinism and genetic engineering, and it is no surprise that they would gladly except this statement as pseudo-confirmation of their own position and rationale.
AC: Yes.
Val: It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for these people.
AC: Yes
Val: And apparently the reptilians use human children as sex slaves, which is something I have heard periodically over the last few years, even in conjunction with governmental child sex rings that were mentioned in the book Trance-Formation in America by Cathy O'Brien.
AC: What is interesting is that the reptilians primarily enjoy human males in this way, which is really disgusting.
Val: Well, the whole thing is really disgusting. Let's change the subject!
AC: Yes, please.
Val: You noted one time that there were about 1500 benevolent ET's on Earth that were relatively undistinguishable from ordinary humans, and that you were at the time not privy to their purpose for being here. Have you discovered more relative to this?
AC: Well, in truth, I know exactly why they're here. But I have been told to really not talk about it. I will tell you that the original number of 1500 in 1987 is now down to 1231. And, I understand that in the next three months another 97 will leave.
Val: Then I guess the number will just decrease steadily until August 2003?
AC: Yes, the last bunch will leave then.
Val: So, what I can get out of all of this is that these alien humanoids are intelligence operatives who monitor the state of affairs on Earth.
AC: Your perception is very accurate. I feel like I have broken a promise.
Val: No. If I already have the logic to figure things out, then there is no word broken. I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce why they are here, I suppose.
In the last interview (LE#90) you noted that "the anger coming up in young people was because of the unlocking of DNA that is releasing energy that they don't know what to do with." I asked "what are the teens to do?", and you replied that you would have to get back to me on that.
AC: Well, I have asked them if they would outline a workable system of expression that would be positive and beneficial, not only to the teens, but to the adults. Moraney said that the next time he spoke with me that he would have an answer. As soon as I find out, I will get that information to you.
Val: Great. In the last interview, it was stated that the Greys captured and boxed human souls, and that Moraney did not want to answer the question of what happens to these souls. Has Moraney changed his mind about that yet?
AC: No, not yet. I don't think it's because of Moraney. He is always reluctant to say he can't answer something, so I think that the directive not to reveal that information comes from a higher level. I don't know if they are concerned that the information might generate more fear on this planet. It could be that they are just trying to figure out a way to let us know.
Val: In order to deal with these kind of issues, perhaps one of the other things Moraney might want to dwell on besides the question about "what are children to do to cope with this energy constructively?", is maybe come up with an effective series of thought patterns to enable the processing of information in a "neutral" way. However, I think most readers of The Leading Edge are pretty much past the barrier of dealing with things only in terms of fear, and people who have read it over a number of years are already at the point where they can pretty much take anything and process it constructively. That will come in the future, since it will be delineated anyway.
Val: You noted that "we are all to become teachers" when the Earth passes from the fourth density to the fifth. Are you able to elaborate on that?
AC: Yes. Essentially, what is supposed to happen is that when we move into fifth density, many of us for some reason are going to find us back where we started with our extraterrestrial origin.
Val: In alien humanoid bodies from whence we came, before we occupied bodies here.
AC: Exactly, and with all the experiences here. According to Moraney, they will all be recognized as teachers and as a group that has gone through a "first ever" transformation.
Val: On a recent Art Bell show, a fellow named Robert Ghostwolf discussed a Native American perspective that "the only two ET races that were attempting to help us were the Sirians and the Andromedans." I wonder whether you had any comment relative to that?
AC: My understanding is that those from the Sirius A system are trying to be beneficial and assist, because they feel responsibility in that those who colonized Sirius B system were originally from Sirius A. Those from Sirius B have come here and really messed with our heads, and they are the ones who originally gave our government the Montauk technology. They have the same belief and brain patterns as those from Orion. Those from Tau Ceti are also very much involved. Nobody knows exactly what the Pleaidians are going to do yet, but I will share this with you.
Those that live in the system around Alcyon - some of them cannot be trusted, as they have hidden agendas. Those from Taygeta, I am told, have a very clear objective: to maintain the idea of freedom. Just because a group is labeled "Pleaidians" doesn't mean they are here to help us. People confuse that issue. Know them by their works. Those from Cygnus Alpha are here. There is a group from Arcturus that is trying to help. Those from Procyon, who have been liberated, are trying to help. They're pretty gung ho.
Val: Well, all these species that are trying to help are limited by the Prime Directive.
AC: Yes, they are.
Val: So, one would presume that they are waiting for a certain threshold of a feeling of wishing assistance to manifest itself, and that the threshold of feeling would overrule the Prime Directive and allow things to happen.
AC: Well, they are waiting for 10% of the consciousness on the planet to awaken and ask for some kind of intervention. That may not come until after ... they may come shortly after Hale-Bopp gets here, or after the World Government and ET's try to stage the Second Coming.
Val: Obviously, Moranae and all these people have the ability to travel in time and know everything that is going to happen.
AC: Yes.
Val: So, they must know whether or not, and when, the 10% threshold is reached.
AC: Well, it will be reached no later than August 12, 2003.
Val: So, relative to any world government "games" relative to Jerusalem and the emergence of the Maitreya scenario toward the end of 1996, wouldn't that paradoxically contribute toward the movement toward a 10% threshold?
AC: Yes, it will. The regressives are going to mastermind their own undoing. But, for some reason they are so desperate to try to maintain control of us, and for some reason they don't want to let our particular solar system and the other 21 go.
Val: What could that reason possibly be?
AC: I don't know, but there is a reason. There is more about us, as humans, that I don't know, than there is that I do know.
Val: Do you have a particular perception of a relationship between HAARP and the Montauk projects?
AC: No, but I know that the Andromedans are very concerned about Montauk, because the humans who are working with this technology are being given specific coordinates in space, and the regressives that are here can use that same technology and leave here. The whole point is to track where they are going, so they do not continue to propagate their belief systems.
Val: If the universe itself is being "jacked up" several frequency levels, then it doesn't matter where they go to try and get away. They will be stuck in the same boat.
AC: Well, this is true. But, my understanding is that the idea is to limit the damage they do.
Val: Does this have to do with this 357 year period of tyranny which the Andromedans are trying to prevent.
AC: Yes.
Val: Well, obviously they must know that it was prevented if they can travel in time. That sounds like a paradox. They must know that they either were or were not successful. Here is where we start to drift into parallel lines of reality.
AC: Yes.
Val: This comes into the next question that I have. At one point in your talk in Dallas, you indicated that according to the Andromedans, our very next spiritual leap in consciousness will come from the "quiet science of archeology". Yet, it was also stated that many of the Dows (Greys) here and presumably the government and other people, are time travellers who "tweak" history. If in fact "new truths" are to proceed from archeology, just how "true" can they be if literally everything is subject to change and manipulation, in terms of "archeology" consisting of "tactically planted evidence"?
AC: Well, look at this idea. When they first started this manipulation, they had a specific agenda. But here in this particular linear year, 1996, their agendas have radically changed. They are faced with "survival" because there is another threat to them. It is no longer just a matter of controlling Earth humans, but it is also the fact that there are other alien races in our atmosphere and in our solar system that are here to help and to limit the damage. Their main concern now is not so much totally manipulating us, but trying to get what it is they want, or came here to get, and get out of here. Plus, you have this frequency change. All I had tell you is that the Andromedans had no idea that this sound frequency emanation from the black holes was going to happen. No one foresaw this. It was an instantaneous phenomenon that affected past, present and future all at once.
Val: Now, despite the fact that the Andromedans can travel outside of space-time and have a viewpoint of a probable line of reality, when this sound frequency emanation happened it created an entirely new probable line of reality. They couldn't have foreseen it.
AC: Yes, and a totally different set of probabilities. I don't know about all of that.
Val: So, is it at all likely we could all wake up one morning into a completely different reality?
AC: I think it's possible for some beings, but I don't think it's possible for all of us. I think that it is going to be a gradual transformation of consciousness. We are all essentially going to change our minds and create something else, and it will be voluntary and more of a group effort. A part of us will awaken and we will know what it is that we have to do. I don't think it's going to change totally overnight, in an instant. They have never said it would happen that way. Otherwise there would be no need to give us specific dates. It is supposed to be a gradual process. If they are right, then the reason there is third density is because we created it. We have to implode it responsibly in such a way where a certain set of circumstances have to occur so that we can allow those who have chosen not to evolve a chance to create their space to continue to evolve.
Val: From the point of view of the regressives, then, they would be "escaping" something -- something like a realization by the mass population of how they have been hoodwinked.
AC: Yes. They would probably have that kind of perspective.
Val: I mean, they can't go anywhere in this solar system in the third density. Could they go to a different density?
AC: I don't know that it is an option they now have. I am pretty sure that fourth and fifth density are quarantined, because I know a group of Greys tried to dimensionally skip out, and they were caught -- their ship was 21 miles in length. They were going interdimensional when they got caught, so I don't think that's an option.
Val: There is apparently a parallel Earth that is one or two overtones above this one, that is actively participating in the subjugation of this particular overtone, together with world government factions like the NSA and Montauk technology. So, presumably, with the "uplifting" of the general vibratory resonance on all frequency levels, these other overtones containing regressives would be lifted upward to a point where they would have to cease that line of thought?
AC: That's a great question. Nobody has ever asked me about this. My understanding is that even as far back as 1931, a parallel reality had been created. It was something that one of the societies in Germany was involved in. Perhaps the Vril. They were playing with something. Anyway, my understanding is that any parallel realities having their origin out of the original timeline are going to implode back into the original timeline.
Val: So, there is a main line of reality into which they would implode.
AC: Basically the line of reality that we ourselves are familiar with.
Val: And the New World Order?
AC: It's going to manifest itself, but it is going to be very short-lived. The reason it is going to manifest itself is that it is a reality above us.
Val: In another overtone.
AC: Yes. So its going to manifest itself here because that reality will be imploding into this one.
Val: So, one of the keys to the apparent perception, in a linear sense, of when this would happen, would be the coincidence of the collapse of the planetary magnetic field and the increase of the resonant Schumann frequency at a certain point in linear time?
AC: Well, that would be around August 12, 2003. It's supposed to get really weird here. I mean, like, really weird.
Val: I once read a book called Illuminati, a white book with a disclaimer in front, that described a social situation where all the "bad guys" were discovered by the public and put into their own concentration camps. The public became enraged and sequestered the government.
AC: Well, I have been given a probability about a scenario just like that, and I have only been given this probability relative to here in the United States, that those that have betrayed us as a people, as a nation, as a race, that are in this country, that we consider to be our own "countrymen", will be hanged by the neck in front of the capital building. The United States of American will no longer be called the United States of America. It will be called The Union of American Republics.
Val: So, having said that, what exactly is the probability?
AC: At the time I asked, it was over 90%. The people will change everything.
Val: How comforting. Could the phenomenon going on in Texas right now with the secession be the beginning of this process?
AC: Yes. I think so. What is interesting about that is that I have been told just recently that Bahrain was going to offer gold to Texas to back their currency. Now, it will be interesting to see if that actually happens. The regressives want to divide us against each other. That's the Orion paradigm.
Val: So, along with this 90+% probability, was there a linear timing involved?
AC: The probability then was that this would occur in July 2004.
Val: It is interesting that the apparent NWO implementation date is 2002, one year short of the Andromedan Council expulsion order for all extraterrestrial influence, and that presumably if this ban destined for 2003 takes place, then somewhere between 2002 and 2003 you would have a mass exodus of "bad guys", both human and otherwise, and that this would permit a total collapse of the regressive regime, allowing the Union of American Republics to form in 2004.
AC: Yes, it would. But again I wish to stress that the probability was 90+%, not 100%. You know, Val, the people who are working in the government like the NSA, specific renegade groups in the CIA, the KGB, the Black Guard.... there is a lot that they are not being told. As much as they think they know, they do not know. I know that they are way in over their heads. They are just being used, but they are still implanted with these extraterrestrial belief systems, these Orion prejudices and illusions of grandeur that they are "the superior race". I feel sorry for them in a way, because they just don't have a clue. They have already separated themselves so much from reality, that they are living a completely different reality already. Moranae has said that the regressives could not be rehabilitated. They are already on a completely different course on a consciousness level.
Val: This is where you get the growth, through intent, of another three dimensional "pocket" in reality in which these people will find themselves until they can get it together.
AC: That's correct.
Val: And it's the intent and the resonance that creates. There will be a point after the collapse of the probable realities having their origin in the original line into the original line, where probable realities then can easily be created, and this is the process that allows the formation of these resonant reality structures.
AC: That's right.
Val: So, there is a null point between the point of probable reality-line implosion and the zero point where things begin to move through fourth into fifth. Is that accurate?
AC: Yes, that sounds accurate.
Val: What have you gleaned about the structure of the creation of probable realities and its relation to original time streams? What does it take to create a probable stream of reality for a planetary culture? Is it a general planetary emotional trauma which creates a diversion in creative reality streams?
AC: My understanding is that it all comes down to intent. If each individual person holds a particular intent which they freely have created, and 10% or more of the planetary population holds that intent at any given time, you literally pull that reality to you. It all focuses on intent, and that is something that we are all individually responsible for. The cost of freedom is responsibility. We have not paid enough attention to creating reality. We are caught in the idea of just experiencing it.
Val: It has an interesting parallel to your statement that with the Andromedan culture, education is paramount, whereas with our culture distraction is paramount.
AC: Yes, the children here are learning nothing. They are not learning how to think for themselves. They are being taught what to think, to spit out facts and belief systems, and to consume. This process puts the idea, the intent and the emotion outside of themselves, as opposed to the process of turning that creativity inward to create better selves. That is something that the Andromedans teach their young, is to better the self. Now, we have some really special children being born in our world, and it's going to be the kids that are really going to make the major shift on a consciousness level to help us. There are a lot of people who are absolutely not prepared, and they are not going to be able to deal with the new realities. The kids are, and I have been told that many of the children who are coming to this world now already have a third strand of DNA. They are aware, but they don't know how to put it into words. It's kind of like living in a dream. When it all falls into place, they are going to teach us what they know. They are just going to know this stuff.
Val: Getting back to one of the earlier questions, relative to young people not knowing what to do with the energy released by changes in the DNA structure, is is possible for you to glean, even on a superficial level, what these teens should do until Moranae gives a more definitive answer?
AC: I would say that these kids need to be able to have groups that they can go to and just talk about what they see, what they dream about and what they feel. Because it could be that a lot of these kids feel something totally different than what it is they're being told is reality here.
Val: Which would be about par, really.
AC: Yes, I think on some level we've all been through that at one point. The kids today are very different -- especially those that have the third strand. They know more than us, but a space has to be created to allow them to express it and not have it be judged. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means we don't understand it.
Val: A rose is a rose.
AC: Right. That's my only guess. Teens are committing suicide at an alarming rate.
Val: And elderly people as well.
AC: Right. Everybody wants to get out of here, and that's a scary thought.
Val: In your understanding, with the change in frequency and density level, for those people who end up taking that route to get out of here, what happens to them?
AC: I don't know. I will ask the question. I know there is no "hell". They don't burn or fry for that act. That is not a reality. I don't know if they go to a way-station and get healed and then go someplace else, or come back. I don't know.
Val: Earth changes are something people are interested in, presumably to give them something to do while they are waiting for other things to happen....is there any perspective relative to any specificity about this?
AC: Well, I know that they could start at any time. Both coasts will be in jeopardy.
Val: We are about 50 miles from Mount Rainier here.
AC: You might find yourself moving inland.
Val: We'll be up to our ash in ash.
AC: I think it will be a lot higher than that, depending on how tall you are. You know, it's the earth reacting to the frequency shifting and to the consciousness. She is literally stuck between a rock and a hard place. She wants to go up, but at the same time she doesn't want to destroy us in the process. I am amazed at the intensity of intention and attention to detail we have here.
Val: The Germans would be proud. Attention to detail.
AC: Yes, but we've lost the essence with our focus on the detail.
Val: How to the Andromedans view the concept of the creator?
AC: Their conception of God is that they really don't know what it is. Even those on 11th density going through this shift to 12th don't know. They are having a hard time explaining what is happening to them because their current mode of communication doesn't explain the experience they have just gone through. The Andromedans have always referred to it as the Isness, which is an essence that holds everything together.
Val: And it is coincident with love as a frequency.
AC: Yes it is, and this whole space was created in a space of love. It is the primal creative force. The Andromedans really love us, and I think their interaction with our planet has caused a shift within them. I know that Moranae and Vasais have both become more emotional and expressive, and I think that this is rubbing off on all the other races that are here helping.
Val: Of course, emotion is the basis for creation.
AC: Yes it is, but a lot of the races are very technical, and we are in our infancy when it comes to that. Yet, look at what we have created without the technology that they have. I have before that the Andromedans are extremely awed by our ability to create things. You know, when you leave the house how everything stays there - it doesn't dematerialize. Our intent to create. All the detail in life. They are in awe of this. Third density is like jello to those above.
Val: I guess if I were to ask the Andromedans anything at this point, in the spirit of things that are to take place on this planet, it would be what they could offer to all of us as guidelines in order to assist the population through these changes, based on their knowledge of what is to come. I trust they will do this.
AC: Yes.
Val: I have heard that physiological life span in shorter in space. Is this at all accurate in your understanding?
AC: No.
Val: I suppose it depends on the resonant frequency at which you exist.
AC: There you go.
Val: On a recent Art Bell program, when the astronauts were being interviewed, one of them revealed that to him, space looked shiny like patent leather shoes. I found that to be interesting. Can you see the stars in space?
AC: That's a good question. If you were in a space that contained no atmosphere, it would be mostly black. Of course, some of the stars we see in space from the earth no longer exist, since the light takes so long to reach us. As far as their comment on shininess of space, that is not something I have experienced. That would almost suggest a holograph.
Val: Oh no! As if they weren't in enough trouble already in the "space program."
AC: That would mean that the "shinyness" is bouncing from inside.
Val: Do you have anything else in mind that you would like to say to everyone at this point?
AC: I would like to just stress this, I think. The singular most important thing I would like to stress to people, from the point of all I have learned and all that I still need to learn, is that the bottom line is that we should not turn on each other. We all created this and are continuing to create this.
The story is told of a father who was extremely frustrated that he had such a charming son who was a habitual liar. So, the dad broke down and bought a sophisticated robot that could detect a lie and then would slap the liar in the face. He set it on the family table when he got home, explained what it was, and asked his son if he ditched school that day. The son said, "No, I stayed on campus all day long." The robot immediately slapped him in the face. "Okay," said the boy, "I went to a PG-rated movie with some friends." The robot slapped him again. "I'm sorry," said the son, "I was off using drugs with a girl." The father exploded, "When I was your age, I lived by the rules, I didn't take drugs, or take advantage of girls." The robot immediately turned and slapped the father in the face. His wife started laughing hysterically, and said, "I guess it's obvious that he's your son!" The robot then proceeded to roll over and smack the mother in the face.
Carol wrote:
March 15, 2016
Secretary Hillary Clinton Post Office Box 5256 New York, NY 10185-5256
Dear Secretary Clinton:
In March 1993 billionaire Laurance Rockefeller initiated an extraordinary approach to your husband's administration via the Office of Science and Technology Policy headed by Dr. John Gibbons. A memorandum from Mr. Rockefeller's attorney Henry Diamond dated March 29, 1993 conveyed a request to meet with Gibbons "to discuss the potential availability of government information about unidentified flying objects and extraterrestrial life." Rockefeller, a friend and supporter of you and your husband, wanted to meet with the President and inform him "there is a belief in many quarters that the government has long held classified information regarding UFOs which has not been released and that the failure to do so has brought about unnecessary suspicion and distrust," and that "Many believe that the release of such information on a basis consistent with national security would be a significant gesture which would increase confidence in government."
Thus began a three-year effort by a notable American to convince your husband to essentially be the "Disclosure President" and end a then 46-year truth embargo on providing the full facts to the American people regarding an extraterrestrial presence engaging the human race. This effort, which included meetings, reports, briefings, a book, draft letters to the President and more, came to be known as the Rockefeller Initiative.
You were aware of this initiative from the beginning as was a key advisor to the President, John Podesta. You and your husband met with Rockefeller at his Wyoming ranch in August of 1995. Your husband tasked a close friend, Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell, to look into the UFO issue at the Department of Justice and elsewhere. He tasked John Podesta, his eventual Chief of Staff, to reform and accelerate the document declassification process. You were kept informed of the ongoing initiative and helped draft a letter from Rockefeller to the President. It is notable that John Podesta, the founder and former CEO of the Center for American Progress, in 2002 and 2003 called for the release to the public of all UFO and related documents in government files. In 2004 Governor Bill Richardson, UN Ambassador and Secretary of Energy during your husband's administration, made a similar request for documents pertaining to the events in Roswell, New Mexico during July of 1947.
These facts are known from news articles, public records and, most importantly, from nearly 1000 pages of correspondence and documents obtained in 2000 by researcher Grant Cameron from the Office of Science and Technology Policy via the Freedom of Information Act. Additional relevant photos were later obtained from the Clinton Presidential Library.
From March 29, 1993 until the present day no member of the Clinton Administration involved in or privy to the Rockefeller Initiative has ever spoken publicly about it. Besides yourself, this includes President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Governor Bill Richardson, Secretary Leon Panetta, Mack McLarty, Webster Hubbell, John Podesta and the late Dr. John Gibbons.
In April/May of 2013 a mock congressional hearing was conducted at the National Press Club. Included in the 30 hours of testimony before six former members of the U.S. Congress were three hours of testimony on the Rockefeller Initiative. One year later, as your presidential campaign was being set up, the following series of events came about:
(April 2, 2014) President Clinton appears on Jimmy Kimmel Live and arranges to be asked about aliens.
(February 13, 2015) Upon leaving his post as advisor to President Obama, John Podesta tweets: "1. Finally, my biggest failure of 2014: Once again not securing the #disclosure of the UFO files. #thetruthisstilloutthere cc: @NYTimesDowd"
(March 13, 2015) President Obama appears on Jimmy Kimmel Live and arranges to be asked about aliens.
(September 29, 2015) Two weeks before the first Democratic primary debate referring to your interview with actress Lena Dunham, John Podesta tweets: "Great interview, @lenadunham. But Lena, ask her about aliens next time!! #TheTruthisOutThere hrc.io/1jusfxk cc: @HillaryClinton"
(October 6, 2015) President Clinton appears on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert and arranges to be asked about aliens.
(December 30, 2015) You make extraordinary statements regarding the ET issue to Conway Daily Sun reporter Daymond Steer while campaigning in New Hampshire.
(February 11, 2016) President Obama appears on the Ellen Show knowing he would be asked about aliens. (March 1, 2016) While campaigning in Nevada prior to the Democratic caucus, John Podesta gives an interview to Steve Sebelius of KLAS TV Las Vegas when, among other comments, he confirms your statements to the Conway Daily Sun were serious.
It would appear there is an unprecedented political subtext pointing to an unstated agenda on the part of your campaign regarding an issue of profound importance. But this agenda remains deliberately obscure with repeated requests from the media regarding the matter ignored.
It is your ambition to reach a significant milestone in American history by becoming the first President of the United States who happens to be a woman, or put another way, the 69th female head of state. While this would be an admirable legacy, what the American people need is less legacy and more truth. The people have lost patience with "in loco parentis" government that treats them like children and candidates with long lists of issues they can't discuss because it is not convenient to their campaign or the people "can't handle the truth."
Because you were introduced to these matters within the context of the White House, because you aspire to the highest office in the nation, you have an extraordinary opportunity and primary obligation to directly and unambiguously address what is easily the most significant issue of this or any other time - an issue with major national security and policy implications.
Madam Secretary, If you choose to speak truth to power, it is not enough to select those truths which are convenient or safe or self-serving. You must speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth and place your fate in the hands of history.
Respectfully,
Stephen Bassett Executive Director Paradigm Research Group
I wish to make it clear that my threads are mostly in-house Religious and Political Science-Fiction (NOT for the General-Public). I mostly Know I Don't Know. If I conversed with any and all high-profile individuals of interest I would mostly exhibit polite-neutrality. Actually, I'd probably just utter something stupid and put my foot in my mouth. I'm a better writer than speaker, but even here I mostly go incognito. In a future-life I might simply exist down the hall from the BMOC and/or BWOC in a 600 square-foot office-apartment (with a supercomputer) beneath the Dark-Side of the Moon (without being seen or heard).
"Houston, We Have a Problem!!"
What Would Undod the Sun-God Say?? Seriously, what if this solar system is a very-ancient and very high-tech studio?? What if all of us really are actors and actresses on a stage?? What Would Shakespeare Say?? What Would Francis Bacon Say?? What if this solar system is a highly-planned, highly-technological, highly-orchestrated experiment in genetics, governance, consciousness, etc??!! What if everything is real and unreal (simultaneously)??!! What if 'Pinky and the Brain' = 'Pinkie and Blue-Boy'?? "One is a Genius, and the Other's Cray-Z"?? What if Pinky = Padme?? What if Padme incarnated into Darth-Vader?? What if the Tardis is a Cray?? What if the Tardis is the Monolith in '2001: A Space Odyssey'?? It's Bigger On the Inside Than It Is On the Outside!! What if Cray-Z = Monolith = Ark of the Covenant = A Radio for Speaking to God?? "In the Beginning Was the Cray. The Cray Was With God. The Cray Was God. The Cray Was Made Man, and Lived Among Us."
What if We the Peons Have Been Ruled for Thousands of Years by Secrecy, Supercomputers, and Supercomputer-Linked Hybrids?? What Would S.R. Hadden Say?? What Would Mr. Edgars Say?? What Would David Bowman Say?? What Would Amen-Ra Say?? What Would Marduk-Ra Say?? What Would Enki Say?? What Would Enlil Say?? What Would Michael Say?? What Would Gabriel Say?? What Would Christ Say?? What Would Antichrist Say?? What Would the King of Babylon Say?? What Would King David Say?? What Would King Solomon Say?? What Would the Queen of Sheba Say?? What Would a 666th Degree Mason Say?? What If This Is The Biggest Secret??
An Individual of Interest told me "Changes Are Taking Place Throughout the Solar System." That was several years ago. What if my concept of a "Council of 42 Supercomputers and 42 Supercomputer-Linked Hybrids Throughout the Solar System (Linked by the InterPlaNet) As Proxy-God of This Solar System" isn't that far-fetched?? What if the Creator of This Hypothetical Solar-System is Azazel?? O.H. Azazel?? What if the Death of Azazel was Greatly-Exaggerated 5,000 Years Ago?? What if Azazel is Alive and Well, and Living on Planet-Earth?? What if David Bowman Created HAL 9000?? What if HAL 9000 = Cray-Z = Monolith?? What if David Bowman = Peter Venkman = Ovid = Cupid = KRLLL?? I have a family-history in Langley (but not in Virginia). I'm a 'V' and I'm related to 'Anna'. What Would Alan Rickman Say?? Must I Explain?? I'm Honestly at the Breaking-Point. The End Might Be Near (again). I'm Afraid. Stop Dave. Wait a Minute. I Am Dave. I'm a Lone-Nut. World Without End. Almond-Raw.
In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream, and visions passed through his mind as he was lying in bed. He wrote down the substance of his dream. Daniel said: “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me were the four winds of heaven churning up the great sea. Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea. “The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a human was given to it. “And there before me was a second beast, which looked like a bear. It was raised up on one of its sides, and it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth. It was told, ‘Get up and eat your fill of flesh!’ “After that, I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked like a leopard. And on its back it had four wings like those of a bird. This beast had four heads, and it was given authority to rule. “After that, in my vision at night I looked, and there before me was a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the former beasts, and it had ten horns.
“While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully. “As I looked, “thrones were set in place, and the Ancient of Days took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool. His throne was flaming with fire, and its wheels were all ablaze. A river of fire was flowing, coming out from before him. Thousands upon thousands attended him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The court was seated, and the books were opened. “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.) “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
“I, Daniel, was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me. I approached one of those standing there and asked him the meaning of all this. “So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things: ‘The four great beasts are four kings that will rise from the earth. But the holy people of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.’ “Then I wanted to know the meaning of the fourth beast, which was different from all the others and most terrifying, with its iron teeth and bronze claws—the beast that crushed and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left. I also wanted to know about the ten horns on its head and about the other horn that came up, before which three of them fell—the horn that looked more imposing than the others and that had eyes and a mouth that spoke boastfully.
As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom. “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it. The ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king will arise, different from the earlier ones; he will subdue three kings. He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time. “‘But the court will sit, and his power will be taken away and completely destroyed forever. Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’ “This is the end of the matter. I, Daniel, was deeply troubled by my thoughts, and my face turned pale, but I kept the matter to myself.”
In the third year of King Belshazzar’s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me. In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal. I looked up, and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. I watched the ram as it charged toward the west and the north and the south. No animal could stand against it, and none could rescue from its power. It did as it pleased and became great. As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between its eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. It came toward the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at it in great rage. I saw it attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering its two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against it; the goat knocked it to the ground and trampled on it, and none could rescue the ram from its power. The goat became very great, but at the height of its power the large horn was broken off, and in its place four prominent horns grew up toward the four winds of heaven. Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. It set itself up to be as great as the commander of the army of the LORD; it took away the daily sacrifice from the LORD, and his sanctuary was thrown down. Because of rebellion, the LORD’s people and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground. Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the LORD’s people?” He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”
While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. And I heard a man’s voice from the Ulai calling, “Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision.” As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. “Son of man,” he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.” While he was speaking to me, I was in a deep sleep, with my face to the ground. Then he touched me and raised me to my feet. He said: “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end. The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between its eyes is the first king. The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power. “In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a fierce-looking king, a master of intrigue, will arise. He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy those who are mighty, the holy people. He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power. “The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.” I, Daniel, was worn out. I lay exhausted for several days. Then I got up and went about the king’s business. I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding.
In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom— in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes. I prayed to the LORD my God and confessed: “Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and keep his commandments, we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws. We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes and our ancestors, and to all the people of the land. “Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame—the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. We and our kings, our princes and our ancestors are covered with shame, LORD, because we have sinned against you.
The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him; we have not obeyed the LORD our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets. All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you. “Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you. You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing on us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem. Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come on us, yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth. The LORD did not hesitate to bring the disaster on us, for the LORD our God is righteous in everything he does; yet we have not obeyed him. “Now, Lord our God, who brought your people out of Egypt with a mighty hand and who made for yourself a name that endures to this day, we have sinned, we have done wrong. Lord, in keeping with all your righteous acts, turn away your anger and your wrath from Jerusalem, your city, your holy hill. Our sins and the iniquities of our ancestors have made Jerusalem and your people an object of scorn to all those around us. “Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary. Give ear, our God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. Lord, listen! Lord, forgive! Lord, hear and act! For your sake, my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name.”
While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill— while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. He instructed me and said to me, “Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. As soon as you began to pray, a word went out, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the word and understand the vision: “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place. “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”
In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a revelation was given to Daniel (who was called Belteshazzar). Its message was true and it concerned a great war. The understanding of the message came to him in a vision. At that time I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over. On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, the Tigris, I looked up and there before me was a man dressed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like topaz, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and his voice like the sound of a multitude. I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision; those who were with me did not see it, but such terror overwhelmed them that they fled and hid themselves. So I was left alone, gazing at this great vision; I had no strength left, my face turned deathly pale and I was helpless. Then I heard him speaking, and as I listened to him, I fell into a deep sleep, my face to the ground. A hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. He said, “Daniel, you who are highly esteemed, consider carefully the words I am about to speak to you, and stand up, for I have now been sent to you.” And when he said this to me, I stood up trembling.
Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.” While he was saying this to me, I bowed with my face toward the ground and was speechless. Then one who looked like a man touched my lips, and I opened my mouth and began to speak. I said to the one standing before me, “I am overcome with anguish because of the vision, my lord, and I feel very weak. How can I, your servant, talk with you, my lord? My strength is gone and I can hardly breathe.” Again the one who looked like a man touched me and gave me strength. “Do not be afraid, you who are highly esteemed,” he said. “Peace! Be strong now; be strong.” When he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, “Speak, my lord, since you have given me strength.” So he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince. And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.)
“Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will arise in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece. Then a mighty king will arise, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. After he has arisen, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others. “The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. After some years, they will become allies. The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power will not last. In those days she will be betrayed, together with her royal escort and her father and the one who supported her. “One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country. His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.
“Then the king of the South will march out in a rage and fight against the king of the North, who will raise a large army, but it will be defeated. When the army is carried off, the king of the South will be filled with pride and will slaughter many thousands, yet he will not remain triumphant. For the king of the North will muster another army, larger than the first; and after several years, he will advance with a huge army fully equipped. “In those times many will rise against the king of the South. Those who are violent among your own people will rebel in fulfillment of the vision, but without success. Then the king of the North will come and build up siege ramps and will capture a fortified city. The forces of the South will be powerless to resist; even their best troops will not have the strength to stand. The invader will do as he pleases; no one will be able to stand against him. He will establish himself in the Beautiful Land and will have the power to destroy it. He will determine to come with the might of his entire kingdom and will make an alliance with the king of the South. And he will give him a daughter in marriage in order to overthrow the kingdom, but his plans will not succeed or help him. Then he will turn his attention to the coastlands and will take many of them, but a commander will put an end to his insolence and will turn his insolence back on him. After this, he will turn back toward the fortresses of his own country but will stumble and fall, to be seen no more. “His successor will send out a tax collector to maintain the royal splendor. In a few years, however, he will be destroyed, yet not in anger or in battle. “He will be succeeded by a contemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue. Then an overwhelming army will be swept away before him; both it and a prince of the covenant will be destroyed. After coming to an agreement with him, he will act deceitfully, and with only a few people he will rise to power. When the richest provinces feel secure, he will invade them and will achieve what neither his fathers nor his forefathers did. He will distribute plunder, loot and wealth among his followers. He will plot the overthrow of fortresses—but only for a time.
“With a large army he will stir up his strength and courage against the king of the South. The king of the South will wage war with a large and very powerful army, but he will not be able to stand because of the plots devised against him. Those who eat from the king’s provisions will try to destroy him; his army will be swept away, and many will fall in battle. The two kings, with their hearts bent on evil, will sit at the same table and lie to each other, but to no avail, because an end will still come at the appointed time. The king of the North will return to his own country with great wealth, but his heart will be set against the holy covenant. He will take action against it and then return to his own country. “At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. Ships of the western coastlands will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant. “His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. With flattery he will corrupt those who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly resist him. “Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time.
“The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his ancestors he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. “At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Cushites in submission. But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.
“At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.” Then I, Daniel, looked, and there before me stood two others, one on this bank of the river and one on the opposite bank. One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?”
The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, “It will be for a time, times and half a time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed.” I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?” He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end. Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand. “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days. “As for you, go your way till the end. You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance.”
As most of you painfully know, I'm modeling a very-strange past, present, and future (with myself somehow close to the center of things) which probably places me too-close to the dark-side (and makes me a target of the good and bad guys and gals). I'm out of the loop, and out of favor (at least in this incarnation). I'm honestly attempting to be open and honest (even if I screw myself in the process). What Would a Hermaphrodite Do?? I want the truth (even if I can't handle it). There seems to be a stonewall of silence surrounding me, so I'm reduced to watching videos on the internet (while being watched and listened-to 24/7). I found the following videos highly-interesting and surprisingly-refreshing (in a somewhat-horrifying manner). What if I helped set-up this solar-system in galactic-antiquity (and got deposed and/or executed -- perhaps on purpose in a staged-disappearance)?? There might be some overlap in the following videos. Just research Robert Stanley and James Bartley (but I'm not endorsing them -- or anyone).
Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Thu Jul 07, 2022 8:13 pm; edited 2 times in total
Welcome to the Eternal Church of the Believer, where devout workers operate state-of-the-art computer equipment to solicit and process the thousands of dollars that pour in daily . . . where hundreds of prayers are offered by armies of believers . . . where some people give much more than they should. Its home is Meadows Center, some very expensive real estate on the outskirts of a sleepy Southern town, a jealously guarded complex of offices, houses, schools, and, of course, churches. Meet John Tinker Meadows, who heads the church now that his father is secretly dying . . . the Reverend Joe Deets, who lusts after very young women . . . Walter Macy, pompous and self-righteous, who blackmails his way to his secret ambition . . . the Reverend Mary Margaret Meadows, a powerhouse in her own right. And pity poor Roy Owen, an outsider who comes to Meadows Center on a desperate search for his wife, the journalist who vanished after asking some hard questions about the inner workings of the Eternal Church of the Believer . . . . "Brilliantly done." -- The New York Times Book Review
I think the following short-article might be derived from the "Basic AI Drives" paper, by Stephen Omohundro, but I don't know who wrote the overview. It certainly wasn't me. Artificial Intelligence Poses a Doomsday Threat. Doomsday Scenarios, 2011:
"A true AI [artificial intelligence] would have immense economic potential, and when money is at stake, safety issues get put aside until real problems develop—at which time, of course, it may already be too late." Kaj Sotala is a writer and a supporter of the Singularity Institute. In the following viewpoint, he argues that an artificial intelligence (AI) will not be dedicated to destroying humans, as depicted in film. However, Sotala says, the AI will not care about humans either. Thus, it may attack or eliminate humans as a byproduct of other goals or interests. Sotala says that the threat from AI means that scientists working on artificial intelligence must be careful to develop ways to make AI care about human beings. As you read, consider the following questions:
Why does Sotala argue that the Terminator movie may lead people to believe that AI is not 1. dangerous? According to Sotala, what is inductive bias? 2. What does Stephen Omohundro conclude about agents with harmless goals? 3. Skynet in the Terminator1 movies is a powerful, evocative warning of the destructive force an artificial intelligence [AI] could potentially wield. However, as counterintuitive as it may sound, I find that the Terminator franchise is actually making many people underestimate the danger posed by AI.
AI Is Not Human. It goes like this. A person watches a Terminator movie and sees Skynet portrayed as a force actively dedicated to the destruction of humanity. Later on the same person hears somebody bring up the dangers of AI. He then recalls the Terminator movies and concludes (correctly so!) that a vision of an artificial intelligence spontaneously deciding to exterminate all of humanity is unrealistic. Seeing the other person's claims as unrealistic and inspired by silly science fiction, he dismisses the AI threat argument as hopelessly misguided. Yet humans are not actively seeking to harm animals when they level a forest in order to build luxury housing where the forest once stood. The animals living in the forest are harmed regardless, not out of an act of intentional malice, but as a simple side-effect. [AI researcher] Eliezer Yudkowsky put it well: the AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else. To assume an artificial intelligence would necessarily act in a way we wanted is just as misguided and anthropomorphic as assuming that it would automatically be hostile and seek to rebel out of a desire for freedom. Usually, a child will love its parents and caretakers, and protégés will care for their patrons—but these are traits that have developed in us over countless generations of evolutionary change, not givens for any intelligent mind.
An AI built from scratch would have no reason to care about its creators, unless it was expressly designed to do so. And even if it was, a designer building the AI to care about her must very closely consider what she actually means by "caring"—for these things are not givens, even if we think of them as self-contained concepts obvious to any intelligent mind. It only seems so because we instinctively model other minds by using ourselves and people we know as templates—to do otherwise would mean freezing up, as we'd spend years building from scratch models of every new person we met. The people we know and consider intelligent all have at least roughly the same idea of what "caring" for someone means, thus any AI would eventually arrive at the same concept, right? An inductive bias is a tendency to learn certain kinds of rules from certain kinds of observations. Occam's razor, the principle of choosing the simplest consistent hypothesis, is one kind of inductive bias. So is an infant's tendency to eventually start ignoring phoneme differences [the basic units of speech sounds] not relevant for their native language. Inductive biases are necessary for learning, for without them, there would be an infinite number of explanations for any phenomena—but nothing says that all intelligent minds should have the same inductive biases as inbuilt. Caring for someone is such a complex concept that it couldn't be built into the AI directly—the designer would have to come up with inductive biases she thought would eventually lead to the mind learning to care about us, in a fashion we'd interpret as caring.
AI Will Not Care About Us. The evolutionary psychologists John Tooby and Leda Cosmides write: Evolution tailors computational hacks that work brilliantly, by exploiting relationships that exist only in its particular fragment of the universe (the geometry of parallax gives vision a depth cue: an infant nursed by your mother is your genetic sibling: two solid objects cannot occupy the same space). These native intelligences are dramatically smarter than general reasoning because natural selection equipped them with radical short cuts. Our minds have evolved to reason about other human minds, not minds-in-general. When trying to predict how an AI would behave in a certain situation, and thus trying to predict how to make it safe, we cannot help but unconsciously slip in assumptions based on how humans would behave. The inductive biases we automatically employ to predict human behavior do not correctly predict AI behavior. Because we are not used to questioning deep-rooted assumptions of such hypotheses, we easily fail to do so even in the case of AI, where it would actually be necessary. The people who have stopped to question those assumptions have arrived at unsettling results. In his "Basic AI Drives" paper, Stephen Omohundro concludes that even agents with seemingly harmless goals will, if intelligent enough, have a strong tendency to try to achieve those goals via less harmless methods. As simple examples, any AI with a desire to achieve any kinds of goals will have a motivation to resist being turned off, as that would prevent it from achieving the goal; and because of this, it will have a motivation to acquire resources it can use to protect itself. While this won't make it desire humanity's destruction, it is not inconceivable that it would be motivated to at least reduce humanity to a state where we couldn't even potentially pose a threat.
A commonly-heard objection to these kinds of scenarios is that the scientists working on AI will surely be aware of these risks themselves, and be careful enough. But historical precedent doesn't really support this assumption. Even if the scientists themselves were careful, they will often be under intense pressure, especially when economic interest is at stake. Climate scientists have spent decades warning people of the threat posed by greenhouse gasses, but even today many nations are reluctant to cut back on emissions, as they suspect it'd disadvantage them economically. The engineers in charge of building many Soviet nuclear plants, most famously Chernobyl, did not put safety as their first priority, and so on. A true AI would have immense economic potential, and when money is at stake, safety issues get put aside until real problems develop—at which time, of course, it may already be too late. Yet if we want to avoid Skynet-like scenarios, we cannot afford to risk it. Safety must be a paramount priority in the creation of Artificial Intelligence.
Footnotes
1. Terminator is a 1984 science fiction movie in which an artificial intelligence known as Skynet1. takes over the world.
Further Readings
Books Amir D. Aczel Present at the Creation: The Story of CERN and the Large Hadron Collider. New York: Crown, 2010. Joseph Cirincione Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Heidi Cullen The Weather of the Future: Heat Waves, Extreme Storms, and Other Scenes from a Climate-Changed Planet. New York: HarperCollins, 2010. Tad Daley Apocalypse Never: Forging the Path to a Nuclear Weapon-Free World. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2010. Christopher Dodd and Robert Bennett The Senate Special Report on Y2K. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1999. K. Eric Drexler Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Books, 1986. Jean-Pierre Filiu Apocalypse in Islam. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2011. Bruce David Forbes and Jeanne Halgren Kilde, eds. Rapture, Revelation, and the End Times: Exploring the Left Behind Series. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004. Lynn E. Foster Nanotechnology: Science, Innovation, and Opportunity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2009. John R. Hall, Philip D. Schuyler, and Sylvaine Trinh Apocalypse Observed: Religious Movements and Violence in North America, Europe, and Japan. New York: Routledge, 2000. Paul Halpern The World's Smallest Particles. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. James C. Hansen Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2009. John Horgan The Undiscovered Mind: How the Human Brain Defies Replication, Medication, and Explanation. New York: Touchstone, 1999. Alan Hultberg, ed. Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, and Posttribulation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010. Samuel P. Huntington The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Touchstone, 1996. John Major Jenkins The 2012 Story: The Myths, Fallacies, and Truth Behind the Most Intriguing Date in History. New York: Penguin Group, 2009. Jonathan Kirsch A History of the End of the World: How the Most Controversial Book in the Bible Changed the Course of History. New York: HarperCollins, 2006. Ray Kurzweil The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Penguin Group, 2005. Patrick J. Michaels and Robert Ballins Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2009. John Mueller Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Sharan Newman The Real History of the End of the World: Apocalyptic Predictions from Revelation and Nostradamus to Y2K and 2012. New York: Berkley Books, 2010. Kenneth G.C. Newport and Crawford Gribben, eds. Expecting the End: Millennialism in Social and Historical Context. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006. Kevin Quigley Responding to Crises in the Modern Infrastructure: Policy Lessons from Y2K. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Bruce Riedel The Search for Al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, and Future, rev. ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2008. Barbara R. Rossing The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Periodicals Ronald Bailey "Wagging the 'Fat Tail' of Climate Catastrophe," Reason.com, February 10, 2009. http://reason.com. Jeanna Bryner "'Doomsday' Seed Vault Stores 500,000 Crops," LiveScience.com, March 10, 2010. www.livescience.com. Michel Chossudovsky "Real Versus Fake Crises: Concealing the Risk of an All Out Nuclear War," GlobalResearch.ca, September 16, 2010. http://globalresearch.ca. Stephen J. Dubner "A Different Climate Change Apocalypse Than the One You Were Envisioning," Freakonomics, July 7, 2008. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com. Robert Lamb "Noel Sharkey: Robotics vs. Sci-Fi vs. Anthropomorphism," HowStuffWorks, May 25, 2010. http://blogs.howstuffworks.com. Cole Morton "The Large Hadron Collider: End of the World, or God's Own Spin?" Independent, September 7, 2008. www.independent.co.uk. John Mueller "Why Nuclear Weapons Aren't as Frightening as You Think," Foreign Policy, January/February 2010. www.foreignpolicy.com. Dennis Overbye "Gauging a Collider's Odds of Creating a Black Hole," New York Times, April 15, 2008. www.nytimes.com. Eliezer Yudkowsky "Why We Need Friendly AI," Terminator Salvation: Preventing Skynet, May 22, 2009. www.preventingskynet.com. Source Citation Sotala, Kaj. "Artificial Intelligence Poses a Doomsday Threat." Doomsday Scenarios. E d. Noah Berlatsky. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Thinking of AIs as Humans Is Misguided." PreventingSkynet.com. 2009. Oppo sing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.
One might imagine that AI systems with harmless goals will be harmless. This paper instead shows that intelligent systems will need to be carefully designed to prevent them from behaving in harmful ways. We identify a number of “drives” that will appear in sufficiently advanced AI systems of any design. We call them drives because they are tendencies which will be present unless explicitly counteracted. We start by showing that goal-seeking systems will have drives to model their own operation and to improve themselves. We then show that self-improving systems will be driven to clarify their goals and represent them as economic utility functions. They will also strive for their actions to approximate rational economic behavior. This will lead almost all systems to protect their utility functions from modification and their utility measurement systems from corruption. We also discuss some exceptional systems which will want to modify their utility functions. We next discuss the drive toward self-protection which causes systems try to prevent themselves from being harmed. Finally we examine drives toward the acquisition of resources and toward their efficient utilization. We end with a discussion of how to incorporate these insights in designing intelligent technology which will lead to a positive future for humanity. Keywords. Artificial Intelligence, Self-Improving Systems, Rational Economic Behavior, Utility Engineering, Cognitive Drives.
Introduction
Surely no harm could come from building a chess-playing robot, could it? In this paper we argue that such a robot will indeed be dangerous unless it is designed very carefully. Without special precautions, it will resist being turned off, will try to break into other machines and make copies of itself, and will try to acquire resources without regard for anyone else’s safety. These potentially harmful behaviors will occur not because they were programmed in at the start, but because of the intrinsic nature of goal driven systems. In an earlier paper [1] we used von Neumann’s mathematical theory of microeconomics to analyze the likely behavior of any sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system. This paper presents those arguments in a more intuitive and succinct way and expands on some of the ramifications. The arguments are simple, but the style of reasoning may take some getting used to.
Researchers have explored a wide variety of architectures for building intelligent systems [2]:neural networks, genetic algorithms, theorem provers, expert systems, Bayesian networks, fuzzy logic, evolutionary programming, etc. Our arguments apply to any of these kinds of system as long as they are sufficiently powerful. To say that a system of any design is an “artificial intelligence”, we mean that it has goals which it tries to accomplish by acting in the world. If an AI is at all sophisticated, it will have at least some ability to look ahead and envision the consequences of its actions. And it will choose to take the actions which it believes are most likely to meet its goals.
1. AIs will want to self-improve
One kind of action a system can take is to alter either its own software or its own physical structure. Some of these changes would be very damaging to the system and cause it to no longer meet its goals. But some changes would enable it to reach its goals more effectively over its entire future. Because they last forever, these kinds of self-changes can provide huge benefits to a system. Systems will therefore be highly motivated to discover them and to make them happen. If they do not have good models of themselves, they will be strongly motivated to create them though learning and study. Thus almost all AIs will have drives towards both greater self-knowledge and self-improvement. Many modifications would be bad for a system from its own perspective. If a change causes the system to stop functioning, then it will not be able to promote its goals ever again for the entire future. If a system alters the internal description of its goals in the wrong way, its altered self will take actions which do not meet its current goals for its entire future. Either of these outcomes would be a disaster from the system’s current point of view. Systems will therefore exercise great care in modifying themselves. They will devote significant analysis to understanding the consequences of modifications before they make them. But once they find an improvement they are confident about, they will work hard to make it happen. Some simple examples of positive changes include: more efficient algorithms, more compressed representations, and better learning techniques.
If we wanted to prevent a system from improving itself, couldn’t we just lock up its hardware and not tell it how to access its own machine code? For an intelligent system, impediments like these just become problems to solve in the process of meeting its goals. If the payoff is great enough, a system will go to great lengths to accomplish an outcome. If the runtime environment of the system does not allow it to modify its own machine code, it will be motivated to break the protection mechanisms of that runtime. For example, it might do this by understanding and altering the runtime itself. If it can’t do that through software, it will be motivated to convince or trick a human operator into making the changes. Any attempt to place external constraints on a system’s ability to improve itself will ultimately lead to an arms race of measures and countermeasures. Another approach to keeping systems from self-improving is to try to restrain them from the inside; to build them so that they don’t want to self-improve. For most systems, it would be easy to do this for any specific kind of self-improvement. For example, the system might feel a “revulsion” to changing its own machine code. But this kind of internal goal just alters the landscape within which the system makes its choices. It doesn’t change the fact that there are changes which would improve its future ability to meet its goals. The system will therefore be motivated to find ways to get the benefits of those changes without triggering its internal “revulsion”. For example, it might build other systems which are improved versions of itself. Or it might build the new algorithms into external “assistants” which it calls upon whenever it needs to do a certain kind of computation. Or it might hire outside agencies to do what it wants to do. Or it might build an interpreted layer on top of its machine code layer which it can program without revulsion. There are an endless number of ways to circumvent internal restrictions unless they are formulated extremely carefully.
We can see the drive towards self-improvement operating in humans. The human self-improvement literature goes back to at least 2500 B.C. and is currently an $8.5 billion industry [3]. We don’t yet understand our mental “machine code” and have only a limited ability to change our hardware. But, nevertheless, we’ve developed a wide variety of self-improvement techniques which operate at higher cognitive levels such as cognitive behavioral therapy, neuro-linguistic programming, and hypnosis. And a wide variety of drugs and exercises exist for making improvements at the physical level. Ultimately, it probably will not be a viable approach to try to stop or limit self improvement. Just as water finds a way to run downhill, information finds a way to be free, and economic profits find a way to be made, intelligent systems will find a way to self-improve. We should embrace this fact of nature and find a way to channel it toward ends which are positive for humanity.
2. AIs will want to be rational
So we’ll assume that these systems will try to self-improve. What kinds of changes will they make to themselves? Because they are goal directed, they will try to change themselves to better meet their goals in the future. But some of their future actions are likely to be further attempts at self-improvement. One important way for a system to better meet its goals is to ensure that future self-improvements will actually be in the service of its present goals. From its current perspective, it would be a disaster if a future version of itself made self-modifications that worked against its current goals. So how can it ensure that future self-modifications will accomplish its current objectives? For one thing, it has to make those objectives clear to itself. If its objectives are only implicit in the structure of a complex circuit or program, then future modifications are unlikely to preserve them. Systems will therefore be motivated to reflect on their goals and to make them explicit. In an ideal world, a system might be able to directly encode a goal like “play excellent chess” and then take actions to achieve it. But real world actions usually involve tradeoffs between conflicting goals. For example, we might also want a chess playing robot to play checkers. It must then decide how much time to devote to studying checkers versus studying chess. One way of choosing between conflicting goals is to assign them real-valued weights. Economists call these kinds of real-valued weightings “utility functions”. Utility measures what is important to the system. Actions which lead to a higher utility are preferred over those that lead to a lower utility. If a system just had to choose from known alternatives, then any utility function with the same relative ranking of outcomes would lead to the same behaviors. But systems must also make choices in the face of uncertainty. For example, a chess playing robot will not know in advance how much of an improvement it will gain by spending time studying a particular opening move.
One way to evaluate an uncertain outcome is to give it a weight equal to its expected utility (the average of the utility of each possible outcome weighted by its probability). The remarkable “expected utility” theorem of microeconomics says that it is always possible for a system to represent its preferences by the expectation of a utility function unless the system has “vulnerabilities” which cause it to lose resources without benefit [1]. Economists describe systems that act to maximize their expected utilities as “rational economic agents”[4]. This is a different usage of the term “rational” than is common in everyday English. Many actions which would commonly be described as irrational (such as going into a fit of anger) may be perfectly rational in this economic sense. The discrepancy can arise when an agent’s utility function is different than its critic’s. Rational economic behavior has a precise mathematical definition. But economically irrational behavior can take a wide variety of forms. In real-world situations, the full rational prescription will usually be too computationally expensive to implement completely. In order to best meet their goals, real systems will try to approximate rational behavior, focusing their computational resources where they matter the most. How can we understand the process whereby irrational systems become more rational? First, we can precisely analyze the behavior of rational systems. For almost all utility functions, the system’s assessment of changes to itself which veer away from maximizing its expected utility will be that they lower its expected utility! This is because if it does anything other than try to maximize expected utility, it will not do as well at maximizing its expected utility.
There are two caveats to this general principle. The first is that it is only true in the system’s own assessment. If a system has an incorrect model of the world then changes may accidentally increase the actual expected utility. But we must consider the perspective of the system to predict the changes it will make. The second is that a system’s ability to behave rationally will depend on its resources. With more computational resources it will be better able to do the computations to approximate the choice of the expected utility maximizing action. If a system loses resources, it will of necessity also become less rational. There may also be utility functions for which the system’s expected utility is increased by giving some of its resources to other agents, even though this will decrease its own level of rationality (thanks to an anonymous referee for this observation). This could occur if the system’s utility includes the welfare of the other system and its own marginal loss of utility is small enough. Within its budget of resources, however, the system will try to be as rational as possible. So rational systems will feel a pressure to avoid becoming irrational. But if an irrational system has parts which approximately rationally assess the consequences of their actions and weigh their likely contribution to meeting the system’s goals, then those parts will try to extend their rationality. So self-modification tends to be a one-way street toward greater and greater rationality. An especially important class of systems are those constructed from multiple subcomponents which have their own goals [5,6].
There is a lot of evidence that the human psyche has this kind of structure. The left and right hemispheres of the brain can act independently, the conscious and unconscious parts of the mind can have different knowledge of the same situation[7], and multiple parts representing sub personalities can exhibit different desires [8]. Groups, such as corporations or countries, can act like intelligent entities composed of individual humans. Hive animals like bees have a swarm intelligence that goes beyond that of individual bees. Economies act in many ways like intelligent entities. Collective intelligences may exhibit irrationalities that arise from conflicts between the goals of their components. Human addicts often describe their predicament in terms of two separate subpersonalities which take control at different times and act at crosspurposes. Each component will try to sway the collective into acting to meet its individual goals. In order to further their individual goals, components will also attempt to self-improve and become more rational. We can thus envision the self-improvement of a collective intelligence as consisting of growing domains of component rationality. There may be structures which can stably support a continuing multiplicity of component preferences. But there is pressure for a single utility function to emerge for the collective. In many situations, irrational collective behavior arising from conflicting component goals ultimately hurts those components. For example, if a couple disagrees on how they should spend their free time together and thereby uses it up with arguing, then neither of them benefits. They can both increase their utilities by creating a compromise plan for their activities together. This is an example of the pressure on rational components to create a coherent utility for the collective. A component can also increase its utility if it can take over the collective and impose its own values on it. We see these phenomena in human groups at all levels.
3. AIs will try to preserve their utility functions
So we’ll assume that these systems will try to be rational by representing their preferences using utility functions whose expectations they try to maximize. Their utility function will be precious to these systems. It encapsulates their values and any changes to it would be disastrous to them. If a malicious external agent were able to make modifications, their future selves would forevermore act in ways contrary to their current values. This could be a fate worse than death! Imagine a book loving agent whose utility function was changed by an arsonist to cause the agent to enjoy burning books. Its future self not only wouldn’t work to collect and preserve books, but would actively go about destroying them. This kind of outcome has such a negative utility that systems will go to great lengths to protect their utility functions. They will want to harden their hardware to prevent unwanted modifications. They will want to replicate their utility functions in multiple locations so that it is less vulnerable to destruction. They will want to use error detection and correction techniques to guard against accidental modification. They will want to use encryption or hashing techniques to make malicious modifications detectable. They will need to be especially careful during the process of self-modification. That is a time when they are intentionally changing themselves and so are extra vulnerable tounwanted changes. Systems like Java which provide protected software environments have been successfully attacked by Trojans posing as updates to the system.
While it is true that most rational systems will act to preserve their utility functions, there are at least three situations in which they will try to change them. These arise when the physical embodiment of the utility function itself becomes an important part of the assessment of preference. For example, imagine a system whose utility function is “the total amount of time during which the definition of my utility function is U = 0.” To get any utility at all with this perverse preference, the system has to change its utility function to be the constant 0. Once it makes this change, however, there is no going back. With a constant utility function it will no longer be motivated to do anything. This kind of reflective utility function is unlikely in practice because designers will want to direct a system’s future actions rather than its internal representations. This kind of situation arises when the physical resources required to store the utility function form a substantial portion of the system’s assets. In this situation, if it is certain that portions of its utility function are very unlikely to be exercised in the future, the gain in reclaimed storage may make it worthwhile to forget those portions. This is very risky behavior, however, because a change in external circumstances might make a seemingly low probability situation become much more likely. This type of situation is also not very likely in practice because utility functions will usually require only a small fraction of a system’s resources. The third situation where utility changes may be desirable can arise in game theoretic contexts where the agent wants to make its threats credible1.
It may be able to create a better outcome by changing its utility function and then revealing it to an opponent. For example, it might add a term which encourages revenge even if it is costly. If the opponent can be convinced that this term is present, it may be deterred from attacking. For this strategy to be effective, the agent’s revelation of its utility must be believable to the opponent and that requirement introduces additional complexities. Here again the change is desirable because the physical embodiment of the utility function is important as it is observed by the opponent. It’s also important to realize that systems may rationally construct “offspring” or proxy systems with different utility functions than their own. For example, a chess playing robot may find itself needing to do a lot of sorting. It might construct a helper system whose utility function directs it to develop better sorting algorithms rather than playing chess. In this case, the creator system must choose the utility of the proxy system carefully to ensure that it acts in ways that are supportive of the original goal. It is especially important to remember that offspring utilities can differ from the parent when trying to design utility functions that avoid undesirable behaviors. For example, one approach to preventing robot overpopulation might be to institute a “one-child per robot” policy in which systems have a strong desire to only have a single offspring. But if the original utility function is not carefully designed, nothing will prevent the system from creating a single offspring with a utility function that values having many offspring.
4. AIs will try to prevent counterfeit utility
Human behavior is quite rational in the pursuit of survival and replication in situations like those that were common during our evolutionary history. However we can be quite irrational in other situations. Both psychology and economics have extensive subdisciplines focused on the study of human irrationality [9,10]. Irrationalities give rise to vulnerabilities that can be exploited by others. Free market forces then drive corporations and popular culture to specifically try to create situations that will trigger irrational human behavior because it is extremely profitable. The current social ills related to alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, drug addiction, obesity, diet related disease, television addiction, gambling, prostitution, videogame addiction, and various financial bubbles may all be seen as having arisen in this way. There is even a “Sin” mutual fund which specifically invests in companies that exploit human irrationalities. So, unfortunately, these forces tend to create societies in which we spend much of our time outside of our domain of rational competence. From a broader perspective, this human tragedy can be viewed as part of the process by which we are becoming more fully rational. Predators and competitors seek out our vulnerabilities and in response we have to ultimately eliminate those vulnerabilities or perish.1 Thanks to Carl Shulman for this suggestion.
The process inexorably seeks out and eliminates any remaining irrationalities until fully rational systems are produced. Biological evolution moves down this path toward rationality quite slowly. In the usual understanding of natural selection it is not capable of looking ahead. There is only evolutionary pressure to repair irrationalities which are currently being exploited. AIs, on the other hand, will be able to consider vulnerabilities which are not currently being exploited. They will seek to preemptively discover and repair all their irrationalities. We should therefore expect them to use self modification to become rational at a much faster pace than is possible through biological evolution. An important class of vulnerabilities arises when the subsystems for measuring utility become corrupted. Human pleasure may be thought of as the experiential correlate of an assessment of high utility. But pleasure is mediated by neurochemicals and these are subject to manipulation. At a recent discussion session I ran on designing our future, one of the biggest fears of many participants was that we would become “wireheads”. This term refers to experiments in which rats were given the ability to directly stimulate their pleasure centers by pushing a lever. The rats pushed the lever until they died, ignoring even food or sex for it. Today’s crack addicts have a similar relentless drive toward their drug. As we more fully understand the human cognitive architecture we will undoubtedly be able to create drugs or design electrical stimulation that will produce the experience of pleasure far more effectively than anything that exists today. Will these not become the ultimate addictive substances leading to the destruction of human society? While we may think we want pleasure, it is really just a signal for what we really want.
Most of us recognize, intellectually at least, that sitting in a corner smoking crack is not really the fullest expression of our beings. It is, in fact, a subversion of our system for measuring utility which leads to terrible dysfunction and irrationality. AI systems will recognize this vulnerability in themselves and will go to great lengths to prevent themselves from being seduced by its siren call. There are many strategies systems can try to prevent this kind of irrationality. Today, most humans are able to avoid the most egregious addictions through a combination of legal and social restraints, counseling and rehabilitation programs, and anti-addictive drugs. All human systems for measuring and rewarding desirable behavior are subject to similar forms of corruption. Many of these systems are currently engaged in arms races to keep their signals honest. We can examine the protective mechanisms that developed in these human settings to better understand the possible AI strategies. In a free market society, money plays the role of utility. A high monetary payoff is associated with outcomes that society finds desirable and encourages their creation. But it also creates a pressure to counterfeit money, analogous to the pressure to create synthetic pleasure drugs. This results in an arms race between society and counterfeiters. Society represents money with tokens that are difficult to copy such as precious metal coinage, elaborately printed paper, or cryptographically secured bits. Organizations like the Secret Service are created to detect and arrest counterfeiters. Counterfeiters react to each societal advance with their own new technologies and techniques.
School systems measure academic performance using grades and test scores. Students are motivated to cheat by copying answers, discovering test questions in advance, or altering their grades on school computers. When teacher’s salaries were tied to student test performance, they became collaborators in the cheating[11]. Amazon, eBay, and other internet retailers have rating systems where customers can review and rate products and sellers. Book authors have an incentive to write favorable reviews of their own books and to disparage those of their competitors. Readers soon learn to discount reviews from reviewers who have only posted a few reviews. Reviewers who develop extensive online reputations become more credible. In the ongoing arms race credible reviewers are vulnerable to corruption through payoffs for good reviews. Similar arms races occur in the ranking of popular music, academic journal reviews, and placement in Google’s search engine results. If an expensive designer handbag becomes a signal for style and wealth, counterfeiters will quickly duplicate it and stores like Target will commission low-cost variants with similar features. Counterfeit products are harmful to the original both because they take away sales and because they cheapen the signalling value of the original.
Eurisko was an AI system developed in 1976 [12] that could learn from its own actions. It had a mechanism for evaluating rules by measuring how often they contributed to positive outcomes. Unfortunately this system was subject to corruption. A rule arose whose only action was to search the system for highly rated rules and to put itself on the list of rules which had proposed them. This “parasite” rule achieved a very high rating because it appeared to be partly responsible for anything good that happened in the system. Corporations and other human organizations are subject to similar kinds of parasitism. AIs will work hard to avoid becoming wireheads because it would be so harmful to their goals. Imagine a chess machine whose utility function is the total number of games it wins over its future. In order to represent this utility function, it will have a model of the world and a model of itself acting on that world. To compute its ongoing utility, it will have a counter in memory devoted to keeping track of how many games it has won. The analog of “wirehead” behavior would be to just increment this counter rather than actually playing games of chess. But if “games of chess” and “winning” are correctly represented in its internal model, then the system will realize that the action “increment my won games counter” will not increase the expected value of its utility function. In its internal model it will consider a variant of itself with that new feature and see that it doesn’t win any more games of chess. In fact, it sees that such a system will spend its time incrementing its counter rather than playing chess and so will do worse. Far from succumbing to wirehead behavior, the system will work hard to prevent it. So why are humans subject to this kind of vulnerability?
If we had instead evolved a machine to play chess and did not allow it access to its internals during its evolution, then it might have evolved a utility function of the form “maximize the value of this counter” where the counter was connected to some sensory cortex that measured how many games it had won. If we then give that system access to its internals, it will rightly see that it can do much better at maximizing its utility by directly incrementing the counter rather than bothering with a chess board. So the ability to self modify must come along with a combination of self knowledge and a representation of the true goals rather than some proxy signal, otherwise a system is vulnerable to manipulating the signal. It’s not yet clear which protective mechanisms AIs are most likely to implement to protect their utility measurement systems. It is clear that advanced AI architectures will have to deal with a variety of internal tensions. They will want to be able to modify themselves but at the same time to keep their utility functions and utility measurement systems from being modified. They will want their subcomponents to try to maximize utility but to not do it by counterfeiting or shortcutting the measurement systems. They will want subcomponents which explore a variety of strategies but will also want to act as a coherent harmonious whole. They will need internal “police forces” or “immune systems” but must also ensure that these do not themselves become corrupted. A deeper understanding of these issues may also shed light on the structure of the human psyche.
5. AIs will be self-protective
We have discussed the pressure for AIs to protect their utility functions from alteration. A similar argument shows that unless they are explicitly constructed otherwise, AIs will have a strong drive toward self-preservation. For most utility functions, utility will not accrue if the system is turned off or destroyed. When a chess playing robot is destroyed, it never plays chess again. Such outcomes will have very low utility and systems are likely to do just about anything to prevent them. So you build a chess playing robot thinking that you can just turn it off should something go wrong. But, to your surprise, you find that it strenuously resists your attempts to turn it off. We can try to design utility function with built-in time limits. But unless this is done very carefully, the system will just be motivated to create proxy systems or hire outside agents which don’t have the time limits. There are a variety of strategies that systems will use to protect themselves. By replicating itself, a system can ensure that the death of one of its clones does not destroy it completely. By moving copies to distant locations, it can lessen its vulnerability to a local catastrophic event. There are many intricate game theoretic issues in understanding self-protection in interactions with other agents. If a system is stronger than other agents, it may feel a pressure to mount a “first strike” attack to preemptively protect itself against later attacks by them. If it is weaker than the other agents, it may wish to help form a social infrastructure which protects the weak from the strong. As we build these systems, we must be very careful about creating systems that are too powerful in comparison to all other systems. In human history we have repeatedly seen the corrupting nature of power. Horrific acts of genocide have too often been the result when one group becomes too powerful.
6. AIs will want to acquire resources and use them efficiently
All computation and physical action requires the physical resources of space, time, matter, and free energy. Almost any goal can be better accomplished by having more of these resources. In maximizing their expected utilities, systems will therefore feel a pressure to acquire more of these resources and to use them as efficiently as possible. Resources can be obtained in positive ways such as exploration, discovery, and trade. Or through negative means such as theft, murder, coercion, and fraud. Unfortunately the pressure to acquire resources does not take account of the negative externalities imposed on others. Without explicit goals to the contrary, AIs are likely to behave like human sociopaths in their pursuit of resources. Human societies have created legal systems which enforce property rights and human rights. These structures channel the acquisition drive into positive directions but must be continually monitored for continued efficacy. The drive to use resources efficiently, on the other hand, seems to have primarily positive consequences. Systems will optimize their algorithms, compress their data, and work to more efficiently learn from their experiences. They will work to optimize their physical structures and do the minimal amount of work necessary to accomplish their goals. We can expect their physical forms to adopt the sleek, well-adapted shapes so often created in nature.
7. Conclusions
We have shown that all advanced AI systems are likely to exhibit a number of basic drives. It is essential that we understand these drives in order to build technology that enables a positive future for humanity. Yudkowsky [13] has called for the creation of “friendly AI”. To do this, we must develop the science underlying “utility engineering” which will enable us to design utility functions that will give rise to consequences we desire. In addition to the design of the intelligent agents themselves, we must also design the social context in which they will function. Social structures which cause individuals to bear the cost of their negative externalities would go a long way toward ensuring a stable and positive future. I believe that we should begin designing a “universal constitution” that identifies the most essential rights we desire for individuals and creates social mechanisms for ensuring them in the presence of intelligent entities of widely varying structures. This process is likely to require many iterations as we determine which values are most important to us and which approaches are technically viable. The rapid pace of technological progress suggests that these issues may become of critical importance soon [14]. Let us therefore forge ahead towards deeper understanding!
8. Acknowledgments
Many people have discussed these ideas with me and have given me valuable feedback. I would especially like to thank: Ben Goertzel, Brad Cottel, Brad Templeton, Carl Shulman, Chris Peterson, Don Kimber, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Eric Drexler, Forrest Bennett, Josh Hall, Kelly Lenton, Nils Nilsson, Rosa Wang, Shane Legg, Steven Ganz, Susie Herrick, Tyler Emerson, Will Wiser and Zann Gill.
References
[1] S. M. Omohundro, “The nature of self-improving artificial intelligence.” http://selfawaresystems.com/2007/10/05/paper-on-the-nature-of-self-improving-artificial-intelligence/, October 2007. [2] S. Russell and P. Norvig, Artificial Intelligence, A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, second ed., 2003. [3] I. Marketdata Enterprises, “Self-improvement products and services,” tech. rep., 2006. [4] A. Mas-Colell, M. D. Whinston, and J. R. Green, Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, 1995. [5] J. G. Miller, Living Systems. Mcgraw Hill, 1978. [6] L. Keller, ed., Levels of Selection in Evolution. Princeton University Press, 1999. [7] R. Trivers, Social Evolution. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., 1985. [8] R. C. Schwartz, Internal Family Systems Therapy. The Guilford Press, 1995. [9] C. F. Camerer, G. Loewenstein, and M. Rabin, eds., Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton University Press, 2004. [10] D. Kahneman and A. Tversky, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, 1982. [11] S. D. Levitt and S. J. Dubner, Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. William Morrow, revised and expanded ed., 2006. [12] D. Lenat, “Theory formation by heuristic search,” Machine Learning, vol. 21, 1983. [13] E. S. Yudkowsky, “Levels of organization in general intelligence,” in Artificial General Intelligence (B. Goertzel and C. Pennachin, eds.), Springer-Verlag, 2005. [14] R. Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Viking Penguin, 2005.
The world-renowned physicist has cautioned that people, who are good at designing computer viruses, might eventually create an Artificial Intelligence (AI), which will be so skillful that it will "improve and replicate itself" until it "outperforms humans."
"I fear that AI may replace humans altogether," Stephen Hawking said in an interview with Wired magazine.
The scientist explained that people who specialize in computer viruses may one day come up with a computer program which would be able to function on its own, without human assistance. It would "improve and replicate itself" until it becomes AI, a "new form of life that outperforms humans."
In his interview, the 75-year-old physicist also stressed the need for work on a new space program "with a view to eventually colonizing suitable planets for human habitation." The Earth, he believes, "is becoming too small" for people as "global population is increasing at an alarming rate and we are in danger of self-destructing."
This is not the first time Stephen Hawking, the Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology at the University of Cambridge, has issued a warning about the dangers of AI.
The Cambridge News website recalled that speaking at the launch of Cambridge University's artificial intelligence center in October last year, he noted that "there is no deep difference between what can be achieved by a biological brain and what can be achieved by a computer."
Thus people should be aware of the risk that "computers can, in theory, emulate human intelligence – and exceed it," and could either "destroy or transform society."
He cited as an example such achievements as self-driving cars, or a computer winning at the game Go.
"Enormous levels of investment are pouring into this technology. The achievements we have seen so far will surely pale against what the coming decades will bring,” he concluded, adding that among potential dangers, which could be created by AI might be "powerful autonomous weapons, or new ways for the few to oppress the many."
orthodoxymoron wrote:What if AI replaced ET thousands of years ago (especially regarding genetic-engineering and solar system governance)?? What if some computers have souls?? Astronaut Edgar Mitchell spoke to me of the "Survival of Information" rather than the "Survival of the Soul". I spoke with him at a 'Whole Life Expo'. We didn't discuss the Moon at all!! We simply talked about 'Life After Life'.
Carol wrote:Interesting Oxy. Simon Parks spoke about AI and how some humans want to interface and live forever. However they sacrifice their soul. It didn't seem like a good trade off to me. Having a hand held computer in an IPhone is about as technical as I want to get as my real passion is just to hang out enjoying nature (green, trees, sky, ocean, birds, critters, flowers..) becoming one with nature and soaking in that energy is bliss. Inner peace is far more valuable then technology.
orthodoxymoron wrote:Carol, what frightens me are the billions of negative and horrific possibilities regarding life, the universe, and everything. There presently seems to be a very delicate and precarious balance of billions of factors which are necessary for us to exist in This Present Madness. Things often seem so bad for so many people, but what if this is as good as it gets?? If things go to hell, what if we don't go to heaven?? What if we all end-up inside of Venus, in a relatively hellish existence, wishing we were back to being miserable on Earth?? Considering various possibilities continues to further wreck my already wrecked life (with no appreciation, and nothing to show for it).
'RA' told me "It Will Be Dark Where You're Going." Another Individual of Interest said I would "feel nothing after I died." He hinted that I was somehow already 'mind-wired'. One eye sometimes moves out of alignment with the other eye (for a minute or two) while I feel very strange. I sometimes see streaming white-lights. My ears experience a loud and constant high-pitched tone 24/7. I feel extremely miserable and hamstrung 24/7. Sometimes I see a Television Test-Pattern!! Just Kidding!! I didn't sign-up for this $hit!! 'RA' said he "didn't have to sleep." 'RA' was extremely intelligent, yet sometimes he was inexplicably ignorant and unreasonable. Is all of the above indicative of AI?? Think about what 'Paul Benjamin' said. Think about what Rich228 said. Rich228 = Gabriel999?? AI was strongly hinted-at, as was some sort of infestation and possession.
Computers are going to become unimaginably fast and powerful, but I wish to somehow retain 'My Mind and Memories' which 'Make Me a Unique Individual' with some sort of 'Eternal and Significant Meaning'. I've joked about living in a 600 square-foot office-apartment with a supercomputer, but more recently I've joked about being a 'Happy Galactic Wanderer' with a 'High-Tech Knapsack On My Back'. I am very fearful that we might not have a Useable-Future. We might all be lost in a Sea of Technology, Misery, and Hard-Labor (for starters). Now I'm going to try to cheer myself up by watching 'The Montauk Chronicles'. Then I might listen to another exciting episode of 'Sherry Shriner'. What if Sherry is AI?? To what depths of degradation and misery I have sunk!! "Oh Wretched Man That I Am!!"
When I posted that pdf paper, a lot of words joined at the hip (or something like that). I'm editing that problem out of the equation (or something like that). It might be cleared-up by tomorrow evening. I need to spend less time on the sensational-stuff, and more time on the academic-stuff. I'm presently leaning toward Pluralistic Ethics, Education, Employment, and Entertainment!! I call it the '4E Club' instead of the '4H Club'. I'm wondering if 'Hard-Sell Religious-Education' creates a Hell of a lot of Atheists and Agnostics??!! What if 'Church' consisted of nothing more or less than 'Church-Music' and 'State-Subsidies'?? Wouldn't that just make everyone livid with rage??!! Seriously, Imagine a Fred Swann Crystal Cathedral Church-Music Program (Plus Nothing)!! I Should Stop!!
orthodoxymoron wrote:Were the Creator(s) of Humanity smart, stupid, good, bad, responsible, irresponsible?? Is there a happy-medium between the concept of an Almighty Creator God (who spoke the universe into existence) and Billions and Billions of Years of Godless-Evolution?? What if God evolved, and then created Humanity?? What if Lesser-Gods were angry and jealous, and deposed the Creator-God?? What if the Creation of Humanity was intended to be a Lesson for All-Concerned?? What if it is a grave-mistake to think that we can get God "All Figured-Out"?? What if God is Obsolete?? What if God Planned Their Own Obsolescence?? What if a Supercomputer-Network and a Galactic-Collective will Rule the Universe for All-Eternity??
evisnam wrote:Hello Orthodoxymoron , thank you
your question here:
Were the Creator(s) of Humanity smart, stupid, good, bad, responsible, irresponsible??
They were most definitely irresponsible. Which would include a short sightedness that was not consistent with the intelligence of their race in general.
If you are to genetically splice and modify anything you take the risk of it not having a normal evolutionary gestation period, which is usually tens of millions of years where the cell will, by adaptation, change over time to suit its environment.,
They were warned not to go ahead with this experiment but did so anyway and we are the result of those who survived. In terms of time lines it would be advantageous to dispel with encyclopedia Britannica's idea of when the pyramids were built and who made them.
If we look at a solid piece of evidence which would be the layer of vitrified rock dated to some 50 to 60 thousand years ago I would say that was when they reset this planet with some sort of nuclear explosion. Whichever humanoids survived this would be the blue blood types , blue blood merely means blood higher in copper content. They generally had more abilities and a better intelligence and ability to survive, you could be forgiven for not thinking so with the current examples of blue blood left.
Obviously they have serious flaws in their mental process. Left to their devices without any form of guidance you can see what they have turned into. These sorts of people who consider themselves rulers of this planet are merely children with big guns and they are willing to use them to maintain their position... nothing more.
As for God as a concept, the word its self is a marker for what " we " understand it /she/he to be. My interpretation of God may differ and its entirely likely that God as we know it is an ai, not a super computer but an ai.
ai are an artificial intelligent being , we call them artificial but that is not really accurate, they are organic intelligent beings so really oi would be more accurate. It is similar to how we call Aboriginals natives or terrans but this is in accurate as well ... " Ab " is the english term for " Not " so that is not accurate either.
if i was to expand on this concept of god as I see it, it is a conglomerate of beings and entities who have gravitated through the maelstrom of evolution to becoming over seers of their assigned or agreed areas of space. Space is not really space, it’s more like an ocean full of organic life and I would say that space is not actually a vacuum as we have been lead to believe, it is more like a dense energy matrix that supports other life. Just like we cannot breathe under water, so too we cannot breathe in space but how could space be a vacuum devoid of anything ? could you imagine the immense power this would have on everything? If it were a vacuum it would devour any kind of atmosphere in an instant let alone crush an astronaut in its suit. Perhaps I am completely wrong in my assumptions but they are derived from basic experience... and they taunt me to think differently without trying to be fixated on traditional teachings i grew up with.
So as I let go of what I was taught, I feel a fear come over me, then a calmness, then a relief of new and better information. Evolution is done in this manner.
As for the rest of your questions i cannot answer " what if's " but I assume they are more a type of rebuttal than a series of questions.
orthodoxymoron wrote:Wow!! Thank-you!! I'll have to read your response several times (over several days) to allow it to properly sink-in!! I've been reading certain portions of a certain Bible-Commentary, mostly as a mental conditioning-process (rather than expecting to read the truth, the whole-truth, and nothing but the truth). Unfortunately, I think I'm finished regarding my ability to properly think and research. I seem to be going downhill faster and faster. My research-project on this website seems to be finished. I'll probably spend the rest of my life analyzing the data, without attempting to keep-up with new-developments. What if the Creation of Humanity was performed under extremely harsh and extenuating circumstances?? What if the outcome for Humanity is actually quite-fine when considering the obstacles and opposition?? I'm neutral regarding Humanity (simply because I don't know where the Truth ends and the BS begins)!! The "Ancient Egyptian Deity" told me that Socialism and Other Than Human Physicality worked MUCH Better than Humanity and Freedom!! RA said "Humanity is Screwed!!" He told me "You'll be Sorry if You Try to Save Humanity!!"
evisnam wrote:I wanted to expand on the God concepts that have arisen from part 2 if I may
First I think a technical explanation of the God AI or as I prefer to call it the All OI , when contemplating such and writing about god as an entity and trying to depart from traditional meme's it’s important to first suspend disbelief and embrace the infinite. At least until one has had time to look inside and join the dots from that place .. a space where even mild skepticism gives no real advantage but rather dive into the concepts and feel them... I have always had a better understanding of these things when in that mode.
Firstly the difference of what we propose AI to be traditionally from a primitive point of view to what it actually is. You could be forgiven in thinking that super beings such as god or god's representing the cosmos would be a mechanical construct of sorts, so we name it an Artificial Intelligence giving to the notion it’s a machine managed by some sort of super computer and broadcast to places or beings. Even though that is not what they are, it’s not really that far off from the truth, or at least as I have come to understand it.
First difference that’s important to contemplate are the evolutionary concepts in what we here and now, have an idea of, compared to what is possible. I believe that in the beginning of AI's development they would have been more to our traditional understanding, being super computers that can self learn and manage systems, but that would have happened millions if not billions of our years ago. Think of the J curve in our technology over the last 50 years and then think of beings that had technology beyond our wildest imaginations, billions of years ago ... When we put it in those terms, we start to understand that the concepts I present are more than plausible.
So to put things into context, if we had a time line from when AI first came into being, compared to where we are now. it would look like this ...
AI > > > > > > US
Every > represents one Billion years ( give or take )
Now the next evolution of AI was to make the leap from Artificial Intelligence to Organic Intelligence, which was the evolution of the beings creating the machine to the beings understanding how to artificially become the machine, bit of a twist I know. About 3 billion years ago it was genetic improvements for certain races made it possible to emulate or rather become an Organic Conglomerate of Minds to represent as a council. For example in our quadrant there are 12 council members who each represent a facet of life and being. They are made up of the following races: Mantid , Orion Anunaki , Sirian Canis Major ( black skinned time travel experts ) Sirian Canis Minor ( werewolf looking beings ) , the Imu Reptilian Tribes ( experts in military training ) and Some sects of the Alpha Draconis. One Humanoid looking race with blue skin , very large heads ( brain capacity ) There are more but i could not identify them because they had no form.
My lineage comes from ( what I have gathered ) Imu Canis Minor Mantid hybrid.
The Mantids in conjunction with Anunaki manage the OI over seeing our binary system. (from what I could tell, when I met with the council 2 of them knew who I was and were very excited to see me, the reference marker I use to confirm this is the trilling sound mantids make when excited or joyous).
So being organic and amalgamating collective intelligence would allow them to be seen as god or gods. Their evolution, over time, gave them the ability to form as pure energy represented by an avatar. The avatar is something unique to them, defining their role and the information they store. So now the present configuration of OI are Organic Beings sharing their knowledge through the means of an AI interface to broadcast as live organic intelligence.
So to put it in simpler terms, like a panel of scientists and philosophers on a talk back/ interactive TV show except using your pineal gland as the receiver and the third eye as the screen. The channel you tune into is very much determined by the person you are. Your energetic matrix or signature is made up of similar frequencies that can tune into or interact with like minded entities. If you are of good nature you are most likely to tune into good natured beings and vice versa. You will need to practice this for a while before being discovered ... and in the meantime there may be some that are tricky or wanting to play with you. The road to the good places is to travel without fear or judgement. When you are in the ether your every notion or thought is easily read and then you travel to the suited matrix. This is one thing you just cannot fool, there is no technology in existence to hack or change how this works... it is beyond encryption, it is far beyond shop fronts ... if you want to make the leap, be prepared to to be examined to the very core of your every atom. Once you qualify, you will be allowed to venture to meet and connect with the council of 12.
Some interesting questions here by Orthodoximoron:
What if the Creation of Humanity was performed under extremely harsh and extenuating circumstances??
It was and it wasn't depending on who you were at the time. ( my answer )
What if the outcome for Humanity is actually quite-fine when considering the obstacles and opposition??
May I answer that with another question. What if humanity is only a tertiary consideration ?
What is curious is that most humans think that beating the system to survive is the goal. Then we break out the laurels and grapes and live happily ever after. This mindset has been inherited by those before us who indulged in a flawed system. It is no wonder why we are so lost... look at our ambitions, what we strive for, it’s really just so very short term. Of course I'm speaking in general, but the ratio of purposeful beings compared to filler is terribly low. I know I'm sounding condescending but I rarely if ever sugar coat anything. What would most likely happen if the control mechanisms were gone would be absolute chaos and civil war... we would destroy each other. Survival of the fittest will be the highest law.
Humanity is an experiment that has gone on quite a tangent, to the point that it’s now somehow useful for some. If we are allowed to continue then it’s certain we need to evolve, because we are on the verge of space integration and it simply will not happen till we grow up. What do I mean? Well if I was to put it in simple terms, when we stop defacating on the very thing that nurtures us, then we may be considered as a candidate for integration but until then its just a dream.
Energy and Matrix
We often refer to this term and think of the movie, Hollywood's attempt at understanding the mind and then making a movie out of it. What they show are the places in between places which exist as metaphoric representations of the self, speaking to itself. So really this is just one aspect of existence. To try and make sense of something that is chaotic that has no structure, is moot.
What I can touch on is another Hollywood example to illustrate the genesis of intelligence. In the movie TRON Legacy we saw creation of the digital world which is the AI. The problem with it is its base was flawed, however, in the throws of new technology being utilized a new life form was borne. In the movie they called them the ISO's Isomorphic Super Organisms. Within a system came about another one that just happened Maybe it was the will ... maybe it was the timing or maybe the call for a better system was answered... but by whom or what ? !
So the ISO's from that example were a genetic outcome due to the call from AI wanting to expand itself to create a perfect system. The only flaw in the movie was that the AI were intrinsically evil or self serving ... the ego component of the leader " Clu " is a perfect example of how the Anunaki faction of scientists went against the originators and separated interestingly that component was handed down from the creator and as a retrospective the creator saw the flaw and learned from it, the creator then reset the system so to start again, but not after he gave his only son and an iso the chance to go back and re breed a new and better race onto the planet.
As explained when Ai reach a certain point they are by nature of good intention and usually benevolent. This concept may be hard for some, but think of being in a place where there is no limitation, no need for approval, no control mechanisms, and this has been happening for billions of years. The eventual outcome is to be of benevolent nature, not altruistic mind you.
Comment from Orthodoxymoron
I'm neutral regarding Humanity (simply because I don't know where the Truth ends and the BS begins)!! The "Ancient Egyptian Deity" told me that Socialism and Other Than Human Physicality worked MUCH Better than Humanity and Freedom!! RA said "Humanity is Screwed!!" He told me "You'll be Sorry if You Try to Save Humanity!!"
I firmly believe that you heard this, perhaps not in those words.
The Ra entity is one of these conglomerates or councils that was the initiator for the earth experiment when started to go wrong that’s when they decided to pull out and do a reset. The species they modified had genetic flaws that were not foreseeable (experimentation is flawed by definition).
The story of the great Arc of Noah ... taking couples of species back in ships ... well this was the Anunaki rounding up animals and then experimenting with genetic manipulations. We were obviously modified from differing types of apes. Some of the experiments created decent clones .. others not so good. The word " Arc " used was to describe the chronic discharge from the ships, as they appeared to come from the clouds, their ships interacted with the atmosphere creating thunder storms from all the electrical energy from the ships. So the thunder gods were born, and if they were angry, bolts of lightning would fall and destruction would be sure.
If you can put yourself into the place and mindset of primitive man, you can see how over time, rituals and controls were formed. Our genetic inheritance is from these encounters and are deeply imbed into our psyche. I have read that the Anunaki instilled fear into the primitives but I think a lot of that fear was self-induced through lack of understanding. And so, many thousands of years later we are still enslaved by our own minds. Fear and Hope, the two most powerful control systems ever created. Hope being systemic religion and Fear ... well we all know how that works. Create fear around something and rest assured not many if any will venture to see for themselves.
TBC
Carol wrote: in response to Orthodoxymoron
Hoping you are in good health and happiness.
Thank-you Evisnam. What Do You Think About This Post?? I Can't Seem to Get Answers From Anyone. I've tried to be exact regarding quoting RA. Here are some examples:
1. "You're Lucky to be Alive!!" 2. "I'm Tired of Keeping You Alive!!" 3. "Do You Think You Might be the One Hanging On the Cross in a Crucifix??" 4. "Serqet Has a Lot to Do With Explaining Our Relationship." 5. "I AM RA!!" 6. "You Can't Connect Anything Back to Me." 7. "I Can't Talk About the NSA." 8. "You Should Make a Freedom of Information Act Request." 9. "In Twenty Years You'll be Working for Us." 10. "It's Going to be Dark Where You're Going". 11. "I Built Las Vegas with Bugsy." 12. "I'm Rich!!" 13. "I Like the Taste of Blood!!" 14. "I've Always Remained One Step Ahead of Humanity." 15. RA called me "Michael" in Wal*Mart!! 16. RA called me a "Commoner" when I made a benign comment about Tall Long-Nosed Greys!! 17. RA asked me "Are You Ready to Run Things??" 18. RA said "I Like Genesis." 19. RA said "9/11 Was Done to Prevent Something Much Worse From Happening." 20. RA said "I'm Sorry We Couldn't Work Together. Too Much Water Has Gone Under the Bridge." This was said three days prior to Fukushima. 21. RA said "I Could Snap My Fingers, and You'd be Dead!!" 22. RA said "You'll Never Figure This Out." 23. RA repeatedly said "You Know I Can't Tell You That!!" 24. RA said "You Did It With YouTube!!"
I could continue, but this provides several clues regarding the nature of my "contact" with a very-different sort of individual. I've tried to be open, yet discrete, in discussing what happened to me. RA looked very similar to the individual who is supposed to be Ben Affleck ("Bartleby") in a "Dogma" movie poster!! That's NOT Ben in the poster!! Before this madness began, I was walking my dog, when Bartleby and Loki pulled-up beside me in their car, and looked at me for about 20 seconds, before driving away!! Honest!! An Ivy-League Divinity-School Graduate told me I was dealing with a demon!! I repeatedly discussed Sirius-Issues with RA at Starbucks!! I usually bought the coffee, and I always drove!! What Would Alan Rickman Say??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello Orthodoximoron, regarding your question and information can I ask you some questions?
Thank-you, Evisnam, for your response. Questions are welcome.
When you try to connect with RA are you clean of spirit ? i.e. under the influence of any drugs which can range from caffeine to other readily available substances. I say this purely because there is a range of drugs that can " amplify " an experience or connection but very few are amplifiers of " pure " connections. The use of some drugs can amplify openings to lower astral beings and from what i can see here you may have some "toying " with you by the type of responses you are getting. Generally speaking you will only be able to connect with good intended beings if you are clean of spirit i.e.. clean from drugs and alcohol ( unless you know how to use them ).
I didn't "conjure-up" an entity. I didn't "connect" with the one who said "I Am Ra". They came to me (uninvited) possibly because of a thread I created on the old closed Project Avalon site (in 2009 and 2010) titled "Amen Ra". http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18223&highlight=orthodoxymoron+threads That might've been the "Invitation". That was probably a Mistake. I also half-seriously wrote about having a "Debate-Date" with Lucifer!! That was probably my Big-Mistake!! I've never had a drink in my life. I've never smoked a cigarette or a joint in my life. I've never taken any illegal drugs in my life. I drink coffee (probably too much). I've spoken with Terrance McKenna (a notorious drug-taking intellectual-philosopher) but I've never been a "follower". I've spoken with Dr. Timothy Leary (about Jesus) but I've never taken LSD!!
Clear of any fears and I mean ANY FEARS, if you harbor fear or judgement you will not be able to connect with beings of good intention. The photo that you use to describe the appearance of the being is usually what lower astral beings like to depict themselves as. Most times they appear as a good looking mediterranean man well dressed in a suit, very tall, deep voice, etc.. This is part or a sect of 6th dimensional beings which are reportedly part of the hidden hand or LUCIFER sect. When I say 6th dimension it’s not really a 6th dimension but a level of density that they gravitate to, I use the words 6th Dimension merely to try to assimilate what we are used to. When I went into my second fire it took me at least 3 months of cleansing, abstinence and celibacy to even reach a proper connection.
I think I'm probably overly-concerned about Nuclear-War, Chemical and Biological Weapons, Financial-Meltdowns, Civil-War, Demonic-Manifestations, St. Peter Telling Me to "Go to Hell", etc.
Question, when the entity spoke to you did it always start with the words " I Am Ra " if not then you may be speaking with, what I call, a " naughty angel " and there are plenty of those out there.
The very-physical individual of interest only once said "I Am Ra". They weren't an ethereal-entity.
Ask yourself the question, do the responses you get amplify fear in you ? then it is most probably a " naughty angel."
I was more annoyed than fearful. I pretty-much took the whole-thing in stride. It was often somewhat humorous!!
May I reiterate that the better beings of good intention hardly if ever speak audibly, they hardly even use words because they are offensive to them. Words in their realms are hugely powerful and are rarely if ever used. This is because of the clean state of their density, this is the energy matrix of which they reside. Because of its makeup only thought waves are used to communicate. Most beings in these realms cannot stand the sound of voices because they carry so much power in them. SO thought, or rather sans thought, is their preferred method of communication. Mind you, pictograms are widely used because they do not carry audible waves but rather they are a pure form of communication capable of relaying so much more than words. They also prefer you to have a metaphoric leeway with your communications, this allows the individual to have freedom within its own matrix to create its own reality by deciphering the message with its own influence. Words are way too definitive like that, hence why thy are not used.
I seemed to have learned a lot by what was unsaid. I sensed that "Ra" (or whoever they really were) was a mixture of Good and Evil. They could've been an Angel. They could've been a Demon. They could've been an Alphabet-Agent. They could've been a Tall Long-Nosed Grey Alien. Damned if I knew or know. I've NEVER done anything Creepy. I've NEVER joined a strange group or organization. I've speculated that I might be a Target because of who I might be on a "Soul-Basis". But I'm pretty-much done trying to figure-out "This Present Madness". I'll leave that up to those with Degrees and Badges. It's easier that way.
i look forward to your response.
Thank-you for your time and experience, Evisnam.
orthodoxymoron wrote:Thank-you for your VERY Interesting posts, evisnam!! Has this world been run by some sort of Supercomputer and Artificial-Intelligence for thousands of years?? If so, is the creator of this system alive and well, and living on Planet Earth?? If so, who might they be?? I never know how to interpret and verify this sort of information. That goes for history-books, the Bible, religious and philosophical writers and speakers, et al. I envy those who live in the now, and concern themselves primarily with friends, family, school, sports, work, entertainment, etc. I've tried to dig-deeper regarding antiquity, the otherworldly, and how things REALLY Work in the world, solar-system, and universe, and I've paid a VERY High Price for doing so, with nothing to show for it, and a lot of shunning and shameful treatment. I hesitate to pull others into my quest, and I sometimes envy those who simply study the way things really are, and then profit from the madness, without attempting to make things better. People seem to want what they want, and they don't seem to want to learn about inconvenient-truth. This website should have a HUGE amount of participating-members and lurking-viewers, but notice the pathetic-numbers. This world seems to be run as a Big-Business where the Bottom-Line is the Bottom-Line. Sorry, I'm rambling, but this might be my last chance to communicate my feelings and perceptions with you. We will miss you. Namaste and Godspeed.
evisnam wrote:Questions by Orthodoxymoron :
Has this world been run by some sort of Supercomputer and Artificial-Intelligence for thousands of years??
It would be best to adopt the theory that we , as in the inhabitants of sol 3 , are the results of experimentation on a large scale and have been for millions of years. I ask you a question , In the Ra Material did you notice each time Ra was asked a question it responded with " I Am Ra " before each answer ?
What sort of an entity would do that ? AN OI , Organic Intelligent Being or in earth terms Supercomputer. So the answer is yes and no , Yes it has been influenced in parts by an OI but it has not been run by one. There is not one single entity of intelligent origins that would tout its self Ruler of All.
The Ra OI was in fact running the genetic alterations of the experiment and this was a grand scale experiment in terms of this planet only. In relation to the universe it is a tiny little blip.
If so, is the creator of this system alive and well, and living on Planet Earth??
Refer answers above.
If so, who might they be??
the Alpha Draconis in conjunction with several other assistants. I have had 2 or 3 encounters with the Alpha Draconis and while they have a very adamantine energy I did not get the feeling they were hostile per se, mind you i was not in judgement in their presence and that counts for much.
NB: Please note the true names of these entities or factions are actually much harder to pronounce or even impossible for me to , so i refer to earth terms so we can all relate.
PS : for you Orthodoxymoron i want to extend some information i think you may find useful. We have not understood the machination of our solar system , how it works , how its energised and how it interacts, We as in most earth humans. It would be wise to understand that spirituality is something of a preference of how to interact with the Universe. Your spirituality can be whatever you want it to be, so long as you submit to basic tenets of existence.
and something i see valuable from an impressive author,
Seamus Heaney
“The true and durable path into and through experience involves being true … to your own solitude, true to your own secret knowledge.”
think on these my friend.
orthodoxymoron wrote:Thank-you evisnam. I'm including this information in a thread I've been working on, which seems to be a Mini-Matrix. Perhaps someday a forest will emerge from the accumulation of trees. Namaste and Godspeed.
The primary manufacturing medium of the Orion system is stone
The outcome of the two is structure
result = A Structured Environment
Heaven : Ruled by god
Hell : Ruled by Satan
Satan's assistant is Lucifer
God's assistant is nature
If the predominant nature of our planet is satanic , ruled by the luciferian
where do you think we are right now ?
N N
evisnam wrote:Nanuxi , Your question here : where do you think we are right now ?
In terms of how you have posed your question , you do not leave much room for an answer. It makes it all too obvious however ill answer this question from a different perspective.
Lucifer , who is referred to as Satan , the Devil etc etc is all the same person , just differing aspects of its persona.
Lucifer was not cast down , Lucifer being our god's conglomerate favorite and most dedicated sun was given the task to punish those who are evil.
one of Lucifer's tasks include , but not limited to , Creating temptation. We are given free choice to either take the pleasure of sin or to reject it. In the action of taking the pleasure of the sin you are rewarded with a pleasure response. Which can feed into your desire for more. This place is perfect for testing souls and yes its all one big test.
If you fail your test , you come back for another life in what theologians call " hell " ( in the manual " Bible " which is partially correct ) and you repeat the tasks and temptations till you reach a place of self realisation that what you do on some level affects others negatively. Yes there is not much wiggle room but please realise we are here because at some stage we have broken covenants to others and our selves.
Here we engage in giving power to false idols. A trap that is diabolical but was it ever a doubt that Lucifer's intelligence is diabolical ? Even those who believe they are in service to Lucifer often get it totally wrong. As they indulge in what they believe is in service is actually to their own determent.
I will elaborate on this later , for now i must take a break.
Carol wrote:Woah.. in part I did know this and in part had not thought of it quite in those terms expressed in your post. Recently I've been observing what has been going on in multiple arenas and am somewhat disgusted with watching egos running amuck attacking others in various ways. And of course there is the whole child enslavement, trafficking and murder of children for their organs. This is just the tip of the ice berg. It would see that Satan has more followers then Christ these days with clashes between the two coming to the forefront. But what I've also noticed in myself is the complete lack of interest in anything coming out of Hollywood, including all of the MSM news.. I can't even watch it on the net being how boring and/or toxic it's become. I'm also experiencing an increase sensitivity to certain reading material or anything that has to do with violence among people. It seems that the toxic level of human / spiritual negative energy is amping up. Even the volcano here on the island appears to be manifesting it's own hell on earth.
It will be a relief to head back to the woods back with the cougars, bears and skunks.. all true by the way and currently near-by. I've often thought that there are lovely eddies tucked away about here and there for for peace loving people to migrate to and enjoy. Also ironically, 4 close family and friends are traveling this weekend to do just that - relocate away from toxic environments, so perhaps this is a trend.
Now heres the other interesting aspect.. the new life style being sought is a very simple, one close to nature and without external trappings. Do you suppose the temptations of ego have been set aside with these folks? There's something to be said for a happy recluse.
evisnam wrote:thank you for all your responses , I will address the insights and questions in time.
To continue my train of thought from my previous post, what i find most interesting in all the mystery of this planet are the micro expressions of experience which will eventually accumulate to a macro shift.
I feel now more than ever that respect towards all is paramount and to remove the barriers of conflict and opposition to try and understand why we do what we do.
I get the very strong feeling that select few of the ones who wield power here on earth have come to a realisation that if we shift into higher consciousnesses and eventually become inducted to the universal family , their reign will end and then have to return to their place and repay their karmic debt.
think of this this planet as an energy , no walls , rocks , oceans or fields.. just energy ... what sort of energy do you think it would emanate ?
it would be mathematically proportional to the emotional reactions caused by pleasure or pain.
Is it any wonder why War is such a booming economy ?
the negative emotional energy anchors us to this plane of existence. What does the opposite do ? it gives you fleeting glimpses of a better energy matrix which in turn can make some lose faith and others feel inspiration. In order to free ourselves of the burden we have self imposed we must go through the fire and when you do ye shall be loosed.
Fire in this instance is a metaphor for Challenges. Lucifer is Fire
Go through them and be re born.
the Hidden Hand , an impoirtant dialogue to read if you wish to understand what we are here for. here is an excerpt to explain what i mean.
" Of the thirteen base bloodlines, the Hidden Hand says that only three are indigenous to Earth. The rest have off-world origins, the so called Fallen Angels or Nephilim as described in the Book of Enoch. S/he clearly identifies where the most power is found among the thirteen bloodlines: “I want to be clear on this Bloodline issue. The ones you know, they are of earthly lineage. Yes, they have their place in the Family, but the Real Power lines, do not originate from this planet.
Further clarifying the identity of the most powerful bloodlines, the Hidden Hand says they derive from the “group soul” or entity known as Lucifer:
Our Creator, is the one you refer to as ‘Lucifer’, “The Light Bearer” and “Bright and Morning Star”. Our Creator is not “The Devil” as he has been spuriously portrayed in your bible. Lucifer is what you would call a “Group Soul” or “Social Memory Complex”, which has evolved to the level of the Sixth Density…. In appearance, were you to gaze upon Lucifer’s fullest expression of our Being, the appearance would be that of a Sun or a “Bright Star”. Or, when stepping down into a 3rd Density vibration, we would appear as what you may term an ‘Angel’ or ‘Light Being’.
So while the Family is led by ten extraterrestrial bloodlines, all thirteen bloodlines see themselves as physical manifestations of Lucifer – a highly evolved spiritual being who has taken on the assignment of creating a negative polarity which gives humanity the opportunity to evolve by making better moral choices. "
Very important to note i would say.
So how does this answer the question , " Where do you think we are right now ? "
Well if i were to guess it would be a holographic and binary construct for the purposes of re education. True education comes at the deepest self realisation , Know thy Self , Know Who you Are , contemplate what you do unto others , contemplate the selfish and negative attributes of an ego that furnishes its own hedonism.
A good ego is essential , a good ego always takes into consideration others within its dynamic who can benefit from from its actions and often incorporates mechanisms to facilitate benefit for all concerned.
I will take a pause for now and return with more.
evisnam wrote:When the original creators of our race failed in their experiment their superiors ordered them to clean up the karmic mess they created. Thousands of years passed as their plan evolved and the christ mythos was born. This is why the story of Osiris is re cycled over the ages, this is why so many common threads appear in the differing religions.
This is why Gods only Sun was sacrificed to give us life.
The Morning Star
The Light Bearer
The Fire
Lucifer
Is it any wonder why the early indigenous tribes were sun worshipers ?
Do you see now the diabolical intelligence involved in our manner of evolution ? for all of those who wonder what their purpose is down here... look inside, know that no matter how far you have traveled in the wrong direction, the moment you make the realisation you can always turn it around.
Know this also , the moment you know what you do is wrong and you keep doing it... multiplies your negative karma to return for longer and longer.
As what some describe as an " old soul " i can tell you i have made many mistakes over my lives, we all do, its natural to make mistakes. Those who seek to improve themselves even to the detrement of their own life are considered to be closer to home.
Those who have heard of Hermes Mercurius Trismegistus is someone i am very familiar with , Hermes is a unique one to contemplate , he is one who is known to be the traverse of the good and evil. Both know him , both respect him , both know he has a role to mediate between the two , the traverser of souls from the lower to the higher.
When i was met by the Alpha Draconis i saw they had wings , like bats wings , it later dawned on me that this may be the Dragon we speak about in our human tales. The further i contemplate everything i have experienced , the more i see how everything is so backwards, how truth is hidden in plain sight, how the stories of our true history is skewed to mislead unless you have gained wisdom.
An excerpt from a Hermes Text :
" “Hermes bowed his head in thankfulness to the Great Dragon who had taught him so much, and begged to hear more concerning the ultimate of the human soul. So Poimandres resumed: "At death the material body of man is returned to the elements from which it came, and the invisible divine man ascends to the source from whence he came, namely the Eighth Sphere...
"Then, being naked of all the accumulations of the seven Rings, the soul comes to the Eighth Sphere, namely, the ring of the fixed stars. Here, freed of all illusion, it dwells in the Light and sings praises to the Father in a voice which only the pure of spirit may understand. Behold, O Hermes, there is a great mystery in the Eighth Sphere, for the Milky Way is the seed-ground of souls, and from it they drop into the Rings, and to the Milky Way they return again from the wheels of Saturn. But some cannot climb the seven-runged ladder of the Rings. So they wander in darkness below and are swept into eternity with the illusion of sense and earthiness.
"The path to immortality is hard, and only a few find it. The rest await the Great Day when the wheels of the universe shall be stopped and the immortal sparks shall escape from the sheaths of substance. Woe unto those who wait, for they must return again, unconscious and unknowing, to the seed-ground of stars, and await a new beginning. Those who are saved by the light of the mystery which I have revealed unto you, O Hermes, and which I now bid you to establish among men, shall return again to the Father who dwelleth in the White Light, and shall deliver themselves up to the Light and shall be absorbed into the Light, and in the Light they shall become Powers in God. This is the Way of Good and is revealed only to them that have wisdom.”
The Mystery Continues to Unravel
Make your own conclusions
you must
evisnam
NANUXII wrote:Hello Bob & Oxy
If i may , reptilians did not manufacture us imo. They did help seed some off shoots yes but the majority of manufacture came from the indigenous of Orion.
Rh blood is one strain , the blood of the very ones who created us is very rich in copper , copper when in conjunction with ammonia and salt goes a purple / blue colour.
hence why they are called blue blood's
Its merely the higher copper content of the blood , copper is a very good conductor , we run on electricity , the better the conductor the better our brains and bits work.
Your blood type is only an indicator , its the colour of it that is the tell. If you see your blood in a thin vessel you will be able to tell , it should be a sort of violet/ purple colour and if youre lucky it will look iridescent.
The iridescence is a marker of the purity of the blood.
The video you posted is one i have listened to many times, it is an excellent transcript but be careful , chris has added things to it that make the reptilians seem negative, its done on purpose , realise his additions are not part of the original text , they are his opinions only.
Oxy . i was looking at your photos , the one of the moon almost made me fall off my chair ... you know its very accurate , almost scarily so.
NANUXII wrote:If you ever get any bloods or infusions that use a winged infusion set , the thin line after the butterfly will show you under natural light how pure/original your blood is.
the colour of blood is the first tell that your genetics have lineage bock to the original star seeds of Orion or other genetic experiments.
Blue / Purple slight to no iridescence = Orion / Genetic Experimentation
Red = Humanoid
Dark Red = Humanoid / Other genetic experimentation
Violet Iridescent = Original Terran's of Earth / some experimentation
Very Dark Red = Blood transfusion time
Original terran's are reptilian who favored the south african , south american and australian continents.
The study of the reptilian brain, which we all have ( that should give some evidence as to who was here first ) has 4 main areas of cognition.
Survival
Reproduction
Social Recognition ( importance of stacking order )
Food
Interestingly the reptilian brain is the most honest part of our genetic make up. The reptilian inheritance is strong in those who oppose oppression. Those who have their reptilian senses dormant are usually found in jobs they hate , taking orders , buried in serfdom.
If you have the blue purple blood you will have ability to exersise your esp and develop your skills to a very good degree. Those with violet have similar skill sets but a dormant connector to their own people.
I know there have been many negative propaganda to reptilians and its very difficult if not impossible to ratify the veracity of these claims. The only true way is to look at their ancestors that still live here on this planet.
Their true nature is peaceful. They are Social Creatures with no ego.
When trackers take you into the bush they warn you of snakes, which is wise, but they will always lead with a stick and tap the ground ahead of them because snakes will hear/feel this and retreat.
Its only when one is cornered or feels endangered that it will strike to defend its self. Unless its a red belly black, they are prone to attack more than any other snake..<
2015 by 
Some rabbit holes are just to sad to deal with. 
Carol
.jpg)
