Session 29 December 2018

sid

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
That was a powerful session, thank you very much crew. One could say that all of the current religions began as a way to bring people together and heal their trauma from cometary bombardments and then got co-opted by later pathologicals to further STS agenda. I mean once the bombardments stop and don't occur for few centuries then the religion should disappear once the original purpose is finished, right? Apparently not as the religions tend to take on a different role where an entire genetic pool or a large group of people can be manipulated and co-opted by twisting the religious teachings over periods of time. The trick is to give numerous godly names to comets first which people are fearing and then cleverly inject a real person into the mix who becomes the new diety in time. And rest as we know is either history. If facts prove otherwise, then its labelled as mythology. The gods must remain in social memory complex.
The joke is that the dieties are modeled on recent comets with stories repurposed from ancient gods who were also modeled on ancient comets. Who came first, gods or comets?;-)
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Fascinating session with a lot to think about.

Q: (Joe) So it wasn't your common garden variety virus, then. There was something unusual about it?

(L) Yeah, and especially if you have something that is newly introduced to a biosphere and to which there is no immunity...

A: Yes, exactly!

Q: (Artemis) Is this only the beginning?

A: Yes

Changes in our planet occur on so many levels.
 

sid

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
:-P I read that part from the book yesterday! "One of his most famous conclusions is that the huris (white eyed virgins) awaiting the faithful in paradise refer to grapes or raisins. This is consistent with earlier Christian texts in which grapes are associated with paradise. If Luxenburg is correct, some martyrs for the cause of Allah may be in for a rude shock."

Thank you all for the session. While reading Townsend's book, I have felt a sadness that so many are living such a big lie! I hope they won't be afraid to start questioning their beliefs at some point... I started reading the Koran in my teenage years and stopped after reading 2 or 3 pages, because it just didn't make sense to me. A long time ago, I spent a year or so debating Muslims and others online - and it's very difficult to get through to them! I'm very grateful to know about PaleoChristianity and for being a member.
I read a book on Sharia law a long time ago hence can't remember the name. It was postulated that Muhammad and a bunch of other rich Arabs wanted all the women to themselves so, they enacted a bunch of laws as part of Islam religion that a man can marry as many times as he desires however he must pay huge sums of dowry to girl's father. This is still normal and practiced in Islam though the number of times one can marry is limited to five I believe. This ensured that a rich person could have as many women he wanted legally as long as he could cough out the dowry money. This prohibited the poorer men in the society from getting married since they couldn't meet the dowry demands. This provided them with plenty of cannon fodder to fight the wars as well since those men had no one to return back home to.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
In relation to the part about conflict and killing:
"Q: (L) Well, since you brought that up, there has been a discussion on the forum where people are saying things like, "Well, I don't want to have a gun because it's a dirty thing, it’s just about death" and so on and so forth. Or, "I just couldn't kill anybody even to protect myself, or if I had to I'd feel like I failed as a human being." Yet you're saying that there are battles in 4D and it's reflected in 3D. So, what's going on right here in 3D is basically a reflection of this battle that's taking place in this higher...​
(Joe) Are there wars in 4D?​
A: Yes​
Q: (L) Their version of war.​
A: STS seeks to impose domination which must be resisted. You wrote about this yourself!!​
Q: (L) Yeah, I did. Wasn't it that Michael Topper article? I wrote about it somewhere else, too. I think in the article I wrote something about the psychopathic state of America, that we're almost required to resist that domination for the sake of the future, for the sake of the STO position itself. Well, so in other words...​
A: One thing you should consider is that the so-called "rules" that dictate that it is being less than human to defend oneself and what is right and true just may have been programmed to make one weak.
Q: (Artemis) Well, yeah, I mean if you look at Western society and values and TV, they're all about not killing people at all even if you're a good guy and even if you need to.​
(L) At the same time, they promote killing with all their shoot-em-ups and blow-em-ups. There's something about that, because... It's like Jonathan Haidt who talks about the different moral systems and that the liberal snowflake moral system foundation is mainly just about not harming anybody, and nobody should ever get hurt, nobody should have hurt feelings... And that's kinda bizarre because it doesn't accommodate the fact that...​
(Andromeda) In the wrong situation, it leads to hurt!​
(L) Yeah. Not to mention reality itself. [...]"​
And in a session from 12 July, 2014 there were some question about Caesar, including a follow up question about killing similar to the ones quoted in the excerpt above:
Session 12 July 2014:
"Q: [...](Perceval) Did Caesar himself ever kill anyone?​
A: Many, certainly.​
Q: (Perceval) So, given the times around then being very war-like, with a lot of fighting and death going on in general... and with some kind of a Great Soul at the time coming down and... it doesn't necessarily have to be a peacemaker kissing people's feet like Jesus... But is there some thing like what we would understand as a prohibition against killing other people as a requirement for being "spiritually evolved"
A: That idea is for the most part an exaggerated human philosophical construct.
Q: (L) So the idea that...​
(Perceval) That to be good, thou shalt not kill...​
(Atriedes) But which religion does that come from? The most killingest religion on the planet!​
(Perceval) It does seem to... Killing another human being for a normal human being does seem to be quite a traumatic thing.​
(Atriedes) It's socially inculcated.​
(Perceval) I doubt it. I mean, for soldiers, they come back with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, they're trained to kill, and they want to kill themselves afterwards, ya know? They can't handle the fact that they...​
(Pierre) Maybe the difference is that Caesar was aware of the very fundamental reason why he was killing...​
A: Caesar intended to eliminate or vastly reduce killing. He knew what he was up against.
Q: (L) Okay, for example... Okay, let me ask this: There is a speech alleged to have been Caesar's that is reproduced in Sallust's... The War with Catiline. Sallust reproduces this speech, supposedly Caesar's, at the Catilinarian Conspiracy debates. Now, how close is that speech to what Caesar said on the occasion?​
A: 80 percent.​
Q: (L) Because in that speech, Caesar is completely against even the death penalty. It's among the conundrums that you face when you read something like that, his words, and I mean he was risking his life giving this speech! He was surrounded by armed men, under the command of Cicero, who was bound and determined to execute those people. And yet Caesar stood up against the entire hostile senate, and advocated against the death penalty. And it's even commented that people drew their swords and wanted to kill him at that time. And in fact it's very similar to a story about Jesus in the bible, that people drew their swords and wanted to kill him, but he escaped from the mob and they didn't see him leave. So, it's really kind of an odd thing. So, for somebody to accuse Caesar of being this murdering psychopath is like, it's very difficult. And then supposedly these body counts in Gaul, and these horrible cruel events, and it just doesn't reconcile.[...]"​

If what is practised and preached at present is the outcome of an "exaggerated human philosophical construct", I wonder what a legal and moral code or guideline that would allow for the right "to defend oneself and what is right and true" would read like in terms of practical legislation. To make a law that fits all circumstances may not be found, but to even reconsider the basis of the philosophical constructs with a view to find more balance when deciding what to do and what not to do in critical circumstances might be rewarding.
 

EricG

Jedi
Thank you for another great session. And Thorbiorn for mentioning the part of Ceasar in the session from 12 july 2014.
Conflict, killing and defending is something I still have some mixed feelings with

In relation to the part about conflict and killing:
"Q: (L) Well, since you brought that up, there has been a discussion on the forum where people are saying things like, "Well, I don't want to have a gun because it's a dirty thing, it’s just about death" and so on and so forth. Or, "I just couldn't kill anybody even to protect myself, or if I had to I'd feel like I failed as a human being." Yet you're saying that there are battles in 4D and it's reflected in 3D. So, what's going on right here in 3D is basically a reflection of this battle that's taking place in this higher...​
(Joe) Are there wars in 4D?​
A: Yes​
Q: (L) Their version of war.​
A: STS seeks to impose domination which must be resisted. You wrote about this yourself!!​
Q: (L) Yeah, I did. Wasn't it that Michael Topper article? I wrote about it somewhere else, too. I think in the article I wrote something about the psychopathic state of America, that we're almost required to resist that domination for the sake of the future, for the sake of the STO position itself. Well, so in other words...​
A: One thing you should consider is that the so-called "rules" that dictate that it is being less than human to defend oneself and what is right and true just may have been programmed to make one weak.
Q: (Artemis) Well, yeah, I mean if you look at Western society and values and TV, they're all about not killing people at all even if you're a good guy and even if you need to.​
(L) At the same time, they promote killing with all their shoot-em-ups and blow-em-ups. There's something about that, because... It's like Jonathan Haidt who talks about the different moral systems and that the liberal snowflake moral system foundation is mainly just about not harming anybody, and nobody should ever get hurt, nobody should have hurt feelings... And that's kinda bizarre because it doesn't accommodate the fact that...​
(Andromeda) In the wrong situation, it leads to hurt!​
(L) Yeah. Not to mention reality itself. [...]"​
And in a session from 12 July, 2014 there were some question about Caesar, including a follow up question about killing similar to the ones quoted in the excerpt above:
Session 12 July 2014:
"Q: [...](Perceval) Did Caesar himself ever kill anyone?​
A: Many, certainly.​
Q: (Perceval) So, given the times around then being very war-like, with a lot of fighting and death going on in general... and with some kind of a Great Soul at the time coming down and... it doesn't necessarily have to be a peacemaker kissing people's feet like Jesus... But is there some thing like what we would understand as a prohibition against killing other people as a requirement for being "spiritually evolved"
A: That idea is for the most part an exaggerated human philosophical construct.
Q: (L) So the idea that...​
(Perceval) That to be good, thou shalt not kill...​
(Atriedes) But which religion does that come from? The most killingest religion on the planet!​
(Perceval) It does seem to... Killing another human being for a normal human being does seem to be quite a traumatic thing.​
(Atriedes) It's socially inculcated.​
(Perceval) I doubt it. I mean, for soldiers, they come back with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, they're trained to kill, and they want to kill themselves afterwards, ya know? They can't handle the fact that they...​
(Pierre) Maybe the difference is that Caesar was aware of the very fundamental reason why he was killing...​
A: Caesar intended to eliminate or vastly reduce killing. He knew what he was up against.
Q: (L) Okay, for example... Okay, let me ask this: There is a speech alleged to have been Caesar's that is reproduced in Sallust's... The War with Catiline. Sallust reproduces this speech, supposedly Caesar's, at the Catilinarian Conspiracy debates. Now, how close is that speech to what Caesar said on the occasion?​
A: 80 percent.​
Q: (L) Because in that speech, Caesar is completely against even the death penalty. It's among the conundrums that you face when you read something like that, his words, and I mean he was risking his life giving this speech! He was surrounded by armed men, under the command of Cicero, who was bound and determined to execute those people. And yet Caesar stood up against the entire hostile senate, and advocated against the death penalty. And it's even commented that people drew their swords and wanted to kill him at that time. And in fact it's very similar to a story about Jesus in the bible, that people drew their swords and wanted to kill him, but he escaped from the mob and they didn't see him leave. So, it's really kind of an odd thing. So, for somebody to accuse Caesar of being this murdering psychopath is like, it's very difficult. And then supposedly these body counts in Gaul, and these horrible cruel events, and it just doesn't reconcile.[...]"​

If what is practised and preached at present is the outcome of an "exaggerated human philosophical construct", I wonder what a legal and moral code or guideline that would allow for the right "to defend oneself and what is right and true" would read like in terms of practical legislation. To make a law that fits all circumstances may not be found, but to even reconsider the basis of the philosophical constructs with a view to find more balance when deciding what to do and what not to do in critical circumstances might be rewarding.
 

bozadi

Jedi
Thank you all for this most thought-provocative session.

Thank you for doing and sharing all this research.
 

happyliza

The Living Force
Thank you everyone for a truly informative session again. Hehe no wonder they could not find any drones around the airports. Instead innocent people were falsely accused.
Would the UFO's have been terrestrial ones?

Looks like the drone idea was to deflect from the 'surprise' tptb could not handle, and an alternative explanation needed to be given IMO.
 

Ant22

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
A HUGE thank you for another information packed session! :wizard: :flowers:

There's a scene in the Matrix movie where the Cypher says to Neo: "I don’t even see the code. All I see is blonde, brunette, red-head." It's like us here. We don't see random explosions, crazy weather, people going bonkers or dead cows anymore, but the signs of what's coming. :grad:

Q: (Joe) What were they doing, just freaking people out?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) Just for fun, eh?

A: Yes

Q: (Artemis) For the kicks!

(Joe) It certainly caused the Brits to freak out.


So they pretty much did to us what we do to 2D, take the cats and cucumbers video below. Excuse the lighter note, I guess apart from protecting, knowledge also expands opportunities for having a laugh at one's own situation: :lol:


 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
If what is practised and preached at present is the outcome of an "exaggerated human philosophical construct", I wonder what a legal and moral code or guideline that would allow for the right "to defend oneself and what is right and true" would read like in terms of practical legislation. To make a law that fits all circumstances may not be found, but to even reconsider the basis of the philosophical constructs with a view to find more balance when deciding what to do and what not to do in critical circumstances might be rewarding.

Notice the Cs said "exaggerated human philosophical construct", which to me implies that the philosophical construct itself (i.e. "as a general rule, killing is bad") might be on the right track, but it has been exaggerated. Obviously, Western legal systems make exceptions to the "no killing" rule, such as self-defense, wars and so on. Increasingly however, people are being weakened with simplistic "love and light" philosophies, which makes them cringe at the very idea of violence, guns and so on. Not only that, it's extended to "psychological violence" with all the hate speech nonsense. There are also pacifistic camps that say "war in of itself is bad, always" (except of course when Trump ends wars, then wars are good :umm:). I'd say Jordan Peterson is right when he points out that weakness is not a moral virtue (quite the opposite actually), but when to apply force and in what way depends entirely on the specific circumstances. FWIW
 

SlavaOn

Jedi Master
Thank you for one more session!

(L) Because I think about it a lot lately! Years and years ago the Cs talked about 4D battles as weather, and darned if we are not seeing it now in spades!

(Joe) I know, but... When they say 4D battles, what do they mean?

(L) What do you mean by "4D battles?"

I would like to pose a question, based on the above quote, please.
If some weather events in 3D are mirrors of 4D battles, what could the appearance of a rainbow, after a rain storm, signify? It is such a beautiful sight.
 
Top Bottom