Do current conflicts herald the return of the old gods?

[SOTTREADER]

I couldn't think of where else to post this. A thought came to my mind that I’d very much like to try to articulate.

Basically, what are the limits of war from a 3D perspective? If we were to strip away the imagery and horrors of war from our perspective, what might its purpose and limits look like from a 4D perspective?

From our perspective, war appears to ultimately serve the purpose of extracting suffering from the targeted population. At the same time, the act of warring seems to indirectly drive other developments e.g. technology, laws, the so-called “rules-based order”, culture etc. Since the post-industrial age, natural resources, including human capital, can also be siphoned from the conquered to the conqueror and used to drive innovation in those societies. All in all, it feels as though warring has been a central feature of our evolution, at least since the last Ice Age.

Furthermore, there has been an interesting evolution in the nature of wars and conflict. For the majority of our history, wars were a very personal affair. The butchery was done at a level I can only describe as personal - people hacking each other with swords or similar instruments, or fighting at extremely close quarters. I imagine the emotional intensity of such conflicts would have had a certain esoteric flavour to them for 4D STS. It’s also worth noting that, for the most part, such conflicts largely left the wider natural environment undisturbed. It is almost as if the “gods” who those wars fed had different requirements - they wanted visceral human suffering without it spilling over into the destruction of the natural world.

Fast forward to more recent times, with the invention of bombs and missiles. It feels as though war, while now more destructive and industrial, is of a different flavour to the wars of the past (and this is not meant to downplay the horrors of modern warfare). To explain the thought more clearly: a missile or bomb is dropped on a location and, while these are extremely destructive, the killing is very efficient and often instantaneous -thousands of souls departing in an instant. Compare this to a medieval army marching to a city, laying siege, breaking through the walls, and soldiers having to carry out the very manual and labour-intensive work of ending lives.

Another aspect of bombs and missiles is the pronounced damage to the natural environment. Not only are the intended targets attacked, nature itself is also attacked. It’s almost as if the gods have changed, and we are now under the rule of different gods than before. The gods of today seem to prefer industrial methods of destruction that also damage nature, whereas the gods of the past seemed to prefer more personal and visceral methods that largely left nature untouched.

With bombs and missiles, one begins to wonder where the limit of what humanity is allowed to do is set by higher forces. If there were truly no limits, then there could be 3D civilizations capable of developing technologies that destroy entire planets. I would even hazard the guess that such civilizations might have arisen in the distant past on this planet. Yet life is still here, and so are humans. How can this be explained?

The only explanation I can think of is that the gods who preferred the visceral and personal methods that left nature largely intact must always have prevailed against the gods who favour industrial methods that also obliterate nature.

Putin, in his method of warfare, appears to appeal to the former gods, while Trump, in his method of warfare, seems to call upon the latter. Oreshnik appears to respect the ways of the former gods, while Tomahawks represent the latter.

If true, it makes you wonder why the former gods eventually always win against the latter?!? Maybe Putin figured it out.

In any case, I wonder whether there is intrigue at play in the conflicts we are now witnessing between so-called superpowers, and whether, rather than heralding the destruction of humanity and nature, they might instead herald the return of the old gods.

Whatever it is they herald, I much rather be on a planet, where the central defining feature of civilization is not war or intergroup conflicts.

Feel free to move this post somewhere else. Perhaps to the conspiracy theory section if it fits better there.

 

[T.C.]

I’ve been thinking today about the quote from Ra that talked about two sides coming into conflict, and when one side refuses to have its free will violated, it results in a loss for both sides.

What if groups of us in 3D are just microreflections of a larger single God higher up. Well then a God above losing a battle with another God and losing some energy would be reflected down here by percentages of a group being killed somehow. For example, the God who the Palestinians are a part of has been losing to the God of Israel in a very big way.

I think up there it’s a zero sum game, and the energy goes upwards to a single reflection of non-being at 6D, so at 4D, the game is to subsume, absorb and assimilate.

Right now, the Iranians are refusing to have their free will violated, and they’re having to lose and/or give up energy in order to sustain that decision. But it’s not ‘them’ making it as individuals. They’re just a reflection of the God they represent, who is taking a stand against the God whom the Americans and Israelis represent. I don’t think that old Gods have returned. They’ve always been here. They’re us, but higher up.

So it brings a new perspective on the idea of choosing your own alignment. If you pick the wrong God, you’re basically toast.

 

[dervishsam]

I’ve been thinking today about the quote from Ra that talked about two sides coming into conflict, and when one side refuses to have its free will violated, it results in a loss for both sides.

What if groups of us in 3D are just microreflections of a larger single God higher up. Well then a God above losing a battle with another God and losing some energy would be reflected down here by percentages of a group being killed somehow. For example, the God who the Palestinians are a part of has been losing to the God of Israel in a very big way.

I think up there it’s a zero sum game, and the energy goes upwards to a single reflection of non-being at 6D, so at 4D, the game is to subsume, absorb and assimilate.

Right now, the Iranians are refusing to have their free will violated, and they’re having to lose and/or give up energy in order to sustain that decision. But it’s not ‘them’ making it as individuals. They’re just a reflection of the God they represent, who is taking a stand against the God whom the Americans and Israelis represent. I don’t think that old Gods have returned. They’ve always been here. They’re us, but higher up.

So it brings a new perspective on the idea of choosing your own alignment. If you pick the wrong God, you’re basically toast.

So if you believe that old Gods are still here, Is Iranian God still Ahura Mazda?

 

[jsf]

On that topic, Sédir in "Initiations" wrote (automatic translation from French) :

Imposing popular demonstrations were being announced for the first of May of that year, and I had mentioned it to Andréas, expressing my desire to know what the political agitations and social movements might correspond to in the invisible world. He asked me to meet him on the evening of the day before. And indeed I found him in the company of a woman of a certain age, whom he introduced to me as a clairvoyant.

“We cannot,” he said to me, “go together beyond the curtain: it would require a greater mastery of ourselves than we possess. The appearance of certain beings and the violence of certain whirlwinds would disconcert us. This woman will go there for us, and she will tell us what she sees.”

“But does she not run the same risks as we would?”

“No; she will not be as exposed as we would necessarily be. She will be in a kind of observatory.”

“Well then! Could you not give me that protection?”

“Yes, it would be possible if you were very well-behaved; but you are not obedient enough, you would act imprudently.”

“In that case,” I agreed, “I can only bow.”

I expected to see something resembling a magical ceremony, recitations, a mystagogic ritual. Nothing of the sort occurred. Andréas simply said to the subject:

“Take the armchair; we are going to begin.”

The subject sat comfortably and immediately fell asleep.

“Now then,” he asked me, “what do you wish?”

“I would first like to know,” I replied, “in what state she is?”

“But, doctor, she will be in whatever state you wish her to be. It is not the odic fluid that I use. You know well that there are several kinds of magnetism; the one we are about to employ is little known. I use neither passes nor suggestion; and this woman hears you just as well as she hears me. I would never permit myself to bind anything in anyone. Moreover, she can see just as well inside your card-case as in your thought, or in Peking.”

I omit here a dozen experiments that I performed in order to verify these assertions; I found them to be accurate. I even saw that the subject retained, during her visions, the consciousness of the physical plane; it was only very difficult for her to move.

Finally I asked Andréas to send her into the social invisible world, whose study interested me above all.

The clairvoyant turned toward Andréas with an interrogative look.

“Yes, your escort is arriving,” he said to her with a smile.

“What escort?” I asked.

“But would you go alone into a completely unknown country?” he replied. “And if you could get there by railway in a few days, would you prefer a journey on foot lasting several months? The beings she will meet are neither terrestrials nor even men; therefore we must spare her their inquiries and their curiosities; there are customs houses elsewhere than here below…”

“Perhaps that is what the guardians spoken of in the Pistis Sophia refer to, and the passwords of the symbolic chambers of Freemasonry?”

“Indeed. And,” turning toward the subject, “you may go now,” he said.

“How does she find her way?” I asked. “Are there different modes of space then? What senses guide her?”

“Oh! you want to know everything,” Andréas replied with a laugh. “Wait; we shall study that later.”

“Here are the bear, the unicorn, the leopard, the reindeer, the dragon, the lion, the eagle, the dromedary, the cow, the beaver, the rooster…” pronounced the subject.

“Yes, don’t recount the whole menagerie,” said Andréas. “Just see what the rooster is doing, for example, since it is France that interests us first.”

“So,” I asked, “there exists, in the Beyond, a place, a space, where nations are represented under animal forms. How is that? I thought that egregores were fluidic fields. What then is an animal?”

“But,” replied Andréas with a smile, “everything is in everything. A stone here below may have a human form elsewhere; an archangel of the invisible may be a gem in the depths of rock, or rather may dwell there. The enigma of the universe is so simple! That is why it is not solved.

An animal? Everything is an animal: myself, the earth, the Milky Way, an automobile, geometry… Jonah and his whale—that is a scene lived in some corner of the invisible.

What biologically characterizes the animal? It is a voluntary, responsible, mobile individuality that maintains under temporary domination an abstract principle, fluidic energies, minerals, vegetating organisms, viscera resembling the stars.

We see only the physical terrestrial animal species; but there also exist species that are equally terrestrial yet hyperphysical, social, religious, human, political, cosmic, industrial, intellectual, etc.

Modern theories of radiant matter, of ions, of electrons—by showing that the organic cell or the inorganic atom are miniature suns—can help to understand the ancient visions of sacred animals, of demiurgic Devas, of fiery dragons.

Does not our body appear as a small nebula, as compact and as brilliant as the one that shines above our heads, if an instrument were invented capable of rendering perceptible the ions of which it is composed?

But you are making me chatter like a one-eyed magpie… Look carefully at your rooster,” Andréas continued, addressing the clairvoyant after two seconds of examination.

“It was very beautiful,” she said; “but now it seems to dissolve into smoke, and other animals emerge from the mist it has become. It looks like an enclosed field.

Here is a flock of sheep all confused, trampling and bleating; they are very dirty. Around them there are bulldogs; they defend these frightened beasts, but they kill one of them from time to time and devour it.

Coming toward this first group, there is a horde of small animals resembling dogs; they are of all colors and shapes. A sort of immobile monster, with arms like an octopus, stands near them, excites them, and launches them to the assault of the sheep.

Among the sheep there is a fox toward which they constantly turn, and which commands the bulldogs.

In the corner, behind the bushes, a crocodile seems to be sleeping; but crows, magpies, and jays go back and forth from it to the fox and to the octopus. They alight here and there upon the two flocks, increasing their confusion with cries and pecks, while the fox and the octopus consult one another from time to time and seem to assist each other in strengthening the terror of the sheep and the momentum of the dogs.

From time to time they devour the wounded brought to them; but they do not notice that in reality it is the crocodile that directs them.

Here is a man; he carries a fisherman’s net. He spreads it between the two groups. The dogs gradually stop; the sheep begin to graze again; the man looks at the three leading animals and summons them into a corner; he speaks to them several times.”

“That is enough,” interrupted Andréas; “rest a little.”

“And what does that mean?” I asked.

“If this woman has invented her little story, or if it is I who suggested it to her, it means nothing. Perhaps it is truly a tableau that she saw unfolding before her.”

“And in that case?”

“That is for you to discover. Perhaps it is alchemy, perhaps astrology, or a social phenomenon—what do I know? The subject merely looked. She would have needed to converse with those beings; but that would have been too exhausting for her.”

“Then what is the use of this séance of somnambulism?”

“Not very much, my doctor. You see, it is very good to have enthusiasm, but one must not undertake tasks beyond one’s strength.

If you or I were pure, if we could call ourselves children of God, nothing in creation would be hidden from us; we would understand everything, and we would make ourselves understood by all.

Then, because we would be humble, it would be possible for us, for example, to enter into communication with the spirits of nations, or of political and religious sects, and to guide them according to providential views.

In the meantime, we can only work in silence, devote ourselves, and have confidence in our Friend.”

And in the same book :

At perhaps no period more than our own have so many voices been raised against the fatherlands; we must consider them sincere. Yet the formation of a fatherland is a phenomenon as natural as the formation of the different social classes. Suppose that today fortunes were shared exactly: would there not, in a century, again be rich and poor? In our body, do the legs not tire more than the muscles of the trunk? Do the cells of the heart muscle not work day and night while others rest?


We must return to the great ancient theory which modern sociology and psychophysiology are rediscovering: every individual is a collectivity, every collectivity is an individual. The human race is a being whose races and peoples are the organs and whose men are the cells. The goal toward which God directs it, the movements that He imparts to it, remain more unknowable to us than the plan of the battle to the infantryman.


We know only that the goal exists and that the battle is being fought; everything struggles ceaselessly and everywhere. A breath that sustains our life, a meal, a movement determine innumerable deaths within our organism.


Each race, each people plays its role, chosen by Providence. There is an ethnic specialization as necessary as the specialization of professions. If each person had to build his own house, weave his own clothes, cultivate his wheat, teach his children, educate himself, make by himself the thousand objects he uses every day, become on his own account philosopher, scientist, artist—how would we manage? The Asiatic has his work, the European, the American theirs; Italy is incapable of doing England’s work, and China that of France. Every people is chosen for a certain task, as every individual is: the intuition that animates each of them is their particular ideal.


Let us look at Europe during the distant centuries in which it was organizing itself. A race which I believe to be autochthonous first populated it: the Celts; but the other continents sent it visitors: Atlanteans, Blacks, and Yellows. Then, after cycles, the Church and the State slowly consolidated, first in Italy, in Spain, in France. But social life oscillated there between the pole of Light—a Christian communist society—and the pole of Darkness—an anti-Christian imperialist society. Among the nations, France was chosen to bear a certain torch, and she carried it through a deluge of suffering. You remember the Middle Ages, with its wars, its epidemics, its famines, and its invincible faith. Can you imagine what the Crusades and the Hundred Years’ War were?


Doubtless, while undergoing the terrible calamity from whose consequences we all still suffer, you have asked yourselves why the centuries bring no stable improvement to our condition except in the material domain: always the same miseries, the same violences, the same ruses; always the same triumph of the wicked; always the same crushing of the small. But we must recognize that such is the law of Matter: its worshippers will always hold power until the final hour of the great settling of accounts; the worshippers of the Spirit will always be victims, like their Master; such is the law of Love. Life resembles a balance of which only one pan is visible: that of Evil; the pan of Good remains hidden from the observer’s gaze. Light descends here below only to be engulfed by Darkness, which it mysteriously transforms. The epochs of great insolent perversity are the epochs of great unknown sanctities; for if evils accumulate, sacrifices and supplications multiply.

---

Now, among all the nations of Europe, France was chosen by God to accomplish among her younger sisters the work of Light. She has no reason to take pride in this election: she has only done what Heaven gave her the strength to do; besides, like the saint who remains humble before the venerating crowd, France has remained humble. We are the least chauvinistic of peoples; we find everything done abroad better than what is done at home; we have, a priori, only criticisms for everything that happens among us; and it is this unconscious modesty that makes us capable of following the impulses from Above.


What constitutes a fatherland is not its population, its wealth, or its culture, but the whole of the spiritual energies of which its visible personality is only the geographical, social, and intellectual body. When theologians or contemplatives speak to us of the angels of nations, they do not mean the radiations of the labors of its inhabitants; they are thinking of beings independent of them, pre-existing them, and appointed to transmit to collective souls the orders and direct assistance of Heaven. Like the individual, the nation possesses its psychic self, of which the earthly people is only the body. It is the self that unifies the innumerable heterogeneous elements coming from the whole planet; it is the self that inspires both this people and its leaders, according to its own intelligence, according to the temptations presented to it by the angel of Satan, according to the lights offered to it by the angel of Christ.


However, in desperate hours, the Master of the Universe sends special help to the creature in distress, whether it be a man, a country, or a star. I would willingly enumerate the various circumstances in which our fatherland was saved by a glorious or obscure arm, visible or invisible; but political opinions are touchy; the names I might cite would certainly offend one side or another; let us limit ourselves to naming Joan of Arc, whom all parties now celebrate and claim with rivalry.


Thus, between every creature and the rest of creation there is hierarchized a certain number of other creatures that help it fulfill the normal functions of its existence. Antiquity and popular traditions call these collaborators spirits, genii, gods; and the whole of this organization constitutes the natural order.


Moreover, beyond this there exists, since the descent of the Word, the supernatural order, which offers every creature the possibility of direct communication with the Creator through His Son. This order alone interests us. Christ, the Virgin, and their angels inspire the being who calls upon them, or they raise up from among a people the patriot capable of receiving the strength they infuse into him and of using it.


It also happens that when extreme danger requires the total participation of the nation, gathered together around its savior, an inspiration alone is not sufficiently compelling; even an angel may bewilder the crowd rather than inspire it, because he is of an essence too foreign to it. Then Christ chooses one of His Friends, a perfect, free, and pure human spirit. He entrusts him with the saving mission and grants him the powers and faculties necessary for its accomplishment. This messenger leaves the Kingdom of God, seeks within the people he must deliver the country and the family capable of providing him with a body suitable for his future labors, and he incarnates.


Such was the case of Joan of Arc, and thus are explained the disconcerting particularities of her life and her death.