Session 21 March 2026

[nicklebleu]

Thanks to the Chateau crew for the latest session!

The energy crisis and the Peak Oil crisis are well remembered by some, including me. I forget exactly how I discovered the planet's oil reserves were not finite, not the result of decomposed dinosaurs and other organic material, but oil is always being produced by the planet. Just another lie and ruse to dupe the public into going along with all their nefarious restrictions and excessive costs. Global warming and climate change evolved out of that BS.

The abiotic theory of oil was not only developed by Russian scientist, but independently around the same time by the Austrian-American astrophysicist Thomas Gold. Gold was what I would call a “real” scientist - a maverick in thinking and bold ideas, always controversial, mostly denigrated and ridiculed - but mostly right!

He basically proved his theory by drilling in igneous rock in Sweden, where according to the fossil fuel theory there should be no oil - he found some, but not in commercial quantities. They ran into technical difficulties and ultimately had to abandon the project.

He wrote a very interesting book on the subject, for anyone interested in this subject:

The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels.

James Corbett thinks that the part that may not be true is the Chinese professor part.

The term “professor” is ambiguous. In some countries a “professor” is a person involved in teaching and research - all my teachers in high-school had the honorific title of “professor” - while “Professor” with capital P mostly designates an academic with a PhD and on a tenure-track. This is different in the US, where it usually is an academic title.

I don’t know the precise situation in China, but this in itself is not necessarily a red flag. I would concentrate on the content and assess it on its merit, for me the issue of title is merely a distraction.

Having said that, I don’t have any particular insight into what he is saying, as I haven’t watched any of his video clips.

But I found it a bit ironic, given the reprimand by the Cs at the start of the session to use more of our own thinking and discernment, that @palestine asked, whether or not the “professor” was endorsed by the forumites.

I think this is an example of exactly what they were talking about.

 

[Ruth]

But I found it a bit ironic, given the reprimand by the Cs at the start of the session to use more of our own thinking and discernment, that @palestine asked, whether or not the “professor” was endorsed by the forumites.

I think this is an example of exactly what they were talking about.

Indeed, and we also run the risk of "following the pied piper off a cliff" just because we have failed to 'do our own research', or listened to the opinions of others who we may have judged to be of less value, because they don't have the 'right' honorific, symbol or title in front of their name.

It's a problem that happens a lot in Australia where people seem to be automatically subservient towards those in authority. I think this is problematic, because people who do that are very easily vetored, controlled and manipulated by people who are svengalis, liars and deceivers.

 

[Wandering Star]

, is there another level?

From Starwars:


Naturally, when Obi-Wan, Jar Jar, and Qui-Gon come across a hungry goober fish, Jar Jar has a meltdown over their massive teeth. It doesn't take long for another even bigger fish to swoop in and take the goober fish out.

Qui-Gon says, “There's always a bigger fish.” And while he's saying it in a literal sense, the metaphoric meaning is there, too - especially in the Star Wars universe. No matter how powerful you are, there's always someone else capable of taking you out. It's the refusal to acknowledge that vulnerability that usually causes someone's downfall or death.

 

[Bernardo GA]

The term “professor” is ambiguous. In some countries a “professor” is a person involved in teaching and research - all my teachers in high-school had the honorific title of “professor” - while “Professor” with capital P mostly designates an academic with a PhD and on a tenure-track. This is different in the US, where it usually is an academic title.

I don’t know the precise situation in China, but this in itself is not necessarily a red flag. I would concentrate on the content and assess it on its merit, for me the issue of title is merely a distraction.

Having said that, I don’t have any particular insight into what he is saying, as I haven’t watched any of his video clips.

But I found it a bit ironic, given the reprimand by the Cs at the start of the session to use more of our own thinking and discernment, that @palestine asked, whether or not the “professor” was endorsed by the forumites.

I think this is an example of exactly what they were talking about.

Indeed, and we also run the risk of "following the pied piper off a cliff" just because we have failed to 'do our own research', or listened to the opinions of others who we may have judged to be of less value, because they don't have the 'right' honorific, symbol or title in front of their name.

It's a problem that happens a lot in Australia where people seem to be automatically subservient towards those in authority. I think this is problematic, because people who do that are very easily vetored, controlled and manipulated by people who are svengalis, liars and deceivers.

Exactly. We must always be very mindful of ourselves, so as not to fall into what we call here an “authoritarian follower.”
Social conditioning has been very strong in that regard.
We are fortunate to be working together to reverse that programming, which is so limiting, sad, and artificial.

And I say artificial because I don’t believe that ideas or feelings of limitation are an innate characteristic of human Souls. It may be something acquired through programming. And we must rid ourselves of those ideas, always taking care not to stray into the realm of fantasy, of course.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

 

[palestine]

Thanks to the Chateau crew for the latest session!



The abiotic theory of oil was not only developed by Russian scientist, but independently around the same time by the Austrian-American astrophysicist Thomas Gold. Gold was what I would call a “real” scientist - a maverick in thinking and bold ideas, always controversial, mostly denigrated and ridiculed - but mostly right!

He basically proved his theory by drilling in igneous rock in Sweden, where according to the fossil fuel theory there should be no oil - he found some, but not in commercial quantities. They ran into technical difficulties and ultimately had to abandon the project.

He wrote a very interesting book on the subject, for anyone interested in this subject:

The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels.



The term “professor” is ambiguous. In some countries a “professor” is a person involved in teaching and research - all my teachers in high-school had the honorific title of “professor” - while “Professor” with capital P mostly designates an academic with a PhD and on a tenure-track. This is different in the US, where it usually is an academic title.

I don’t know the precise situation in China, but this in itself is not necessarily a red flag. I would concentrate on the content and assess it on its merit, for me the issue of title is merely a distraction.

Having said that, I don’t have any particular insight into what he is saying, as I haven’t watched any of his video clips.

But I found it a bit ironic, given the reprimand by the Cs at the start of the session to use more of our own thinking and discernment, that @palestine asked, whether or not the “professor” was endorsed by the forumites.

I think this is an example of exactly what they were talking about.

I had to look at the French translation to understand the "siding" of the forum with this guy's idea.

(L) Yeah, Professor Jiang or whatever, where he's talking about how dreadful things are going to be and that it's going to be fairly quick and in some places quicker than others because they're all messed up and we're all screwed. And he's probably right. That's the worst. Yeah. Yeah.

(Andromeda) Several people on Twitter were attacking him so he must have been saying something good.

So it's not a straight endorsement of the guy, but a positive feeling on his conclusions.

Again, a post reffered to him as a CIA agent. I could not find any more on this and the lead dries up. There is only one statement, at one place, saying this. No clue if this is defamation, or something correct. So - no clue what to do with it.

 

[Ruth]

Exactly. We must always be very mindful of ourselves, so as not to fall into what we call here an “authoritarian follower.”
Social conditioning has been very strong in that regard.
We are fortunate to be working together to reverse that programming, which is so limiting, sad, and artificial.

Indeed, each person must check and question themselves (behaviours and motives) to see if they are expressing the "required" level of individuality. It's a form of self observation which is very useful. If we can remember to do it! Rather than just following whoever we think is 'better than us'.

In Australia, I see an almost knee jerk obsequieousness towards authority (or need to be 'part of a herd'). This is very worrying to me because I don't think it passes what I'd call "an evolutionary test". Which means we're all going to get wiped out (in my opinion). Those of us who do see this problem and are concerned about it, either don't have the freedom to step away from the syste, aren't listened to when we point out the system's faults, or see exactly the same type of behaviour in other groups - Magical thinking, avoiding objective reality as well as frequent meltdowns and shreiking hysterics.

Most people are familiar with this concept:

The "strong man, weak men" cycle, popularized by G. Michael Hopf's post-apocalyptic novel Those Who Remain, suggests history follows a repeating pattern: Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. This concept implies that prosperity breeds complacency, which causes societal decline, requiring new challenges to build strength again.

I'm maintaining that in Australia (and probably other areas awash with comprehensive brainwashing and propaganda), hard times have not produced strong people and the Universe or the Cosmos will probably address this imbalance. They have experienced hard times..... and done nothing. They've remained weak. Not a good place to be in a system that relies on cycles. I think other countries will also experience their own version of this (with the exception of those that are like Australia: i.e. Britain and Canada).

I used to feel like Cassandra (you're all familiar with this story?). Now, I feel more like the hobo on a street corner with a placard that says: "The end of the world is nigh!". No-one sees the message, they're all too focused on what looks like a hobo on a street corner carrying a message. He's probably infested with fleas, sleeps rough and has a mental illness. They are reacting to that, they don't see the message and naturally they all see themselves as better than the hobo!

 

[undistinguished]

I'm sorry about a slight off-topic, but I'm borrowing this active thread to ask a question. Does anyone remember if the C's ever said anything about flu / common cold being beneficial? I vaguely remember about something like, having a cold now and then is kind of a DNA re-structuring or something along those lines, and it's actually good to have flu sometimes...?

I tried searching the transcripts, but "virus" got like 1000 hits, so i'm asking here if anyone remembers anything about it.

EDIT: And thank you for a great session again! :D

 

[nicklebleu]

So - no clue what to do with it.

I think the answer to that is in the session, too - wait and observe: See what he is saying over a period of time, how it meshes with what you perceive as reality. And one day you’ll get a good idea whether - and how far - he can be trusted.

Sometimes answers need time to germinate.
Ahhh … the old impatience!
(I’m guilty of that, too)