Who created the creator?

[Woodsman]

Speculation is fun and even useful as it stretches the mind and reveals new tools and concepts. But in the end...

The C's themselves, when asked what 7th Density was like, replied (paraphrasing), "How should we know? We're only 6th Density!"

I also like the way South American sorcerers, (as per Carlos Castaneda's writings) dealt with such problems...

They described the Tonal and the Nagual.

The Tonal being everything we can possibly know, up to and including our understandings of the spiritual realm and all that entails. -Everything you can sort of wrap your head around and apply rule systems to. The Nagual is the word you use for all the stuff you cannot know, which will never make sense, so don't break your head even trying.

That kept things simple.

The cool part was that having recognized and labeled the Nagual, they could identify it as separate from the world, and while utterly inexplicable, if approached with care, then something they could allow to work through them.

I've always wondered how that old symbolical system lines up with the cosmology presented by the C's.

 

[Sol Logos]

We are here to gain wisdom to what? What I believe because I do not know to know I have to have an experience of something to know something I can't believe and know at the same time. So I believe we bring this wisdom back to something or this something benefits from our gained wisdom. This is as close as I can get to answering who the creator is...

The idea of knowledge distinct from beliefs reminds me of something my second great grandfather wrote in the 1850s. He wrote a book call “Religion of God not of men” based on a talk he gave. He had an interesting story. Apparently he was one of the earliest Homeopaths in Australia and was a very public of critic of Allopathy. In one old paper I found, he was considered the first spiritualist in Australia too, conducting seances and starting spiritualist circles in Victoria. Anyway, here’s that extract from his book:

The first question only will occupy me this evening. Is there a Deity? Who is He? If I were to say to my most pious friends that I do not believe in the existence of God, they would cry blasphemy! and stay my speaking, yet my sentiments would be candidly expressed, though, I apprehend, misunderstood; such as if I were to say that I do not believe in the existence of the sun, when its light is so intense that I cannot penetrate it. I say that the existence of God is no matter of belief, but of knowledge, as it is with the knowledge that one and one make two. No one believes in a mathematical problem so simple because he knows it. So it is with God: the existence of a universal Ruler, Sustainer, or Providence is answered by the presence of the smallest atom in the creation, as the existence of a manufactured article reveals the existence of the manufacturer; or as the existence of a force presupposes the existence of a superior force. I may now say, without giving offence, that I do not believe in the existence of God, since you understand that I know from the evidences of my senses that He is! But Who is He? This is a more difficult question.

He goes on describing his answer that comes across progressive for the time, online here:

The religion of God not of men

nla.gov.au

 

[syldan]

Sounds about right. I guess what STS vs STO comes down to is choosing which potential future creator selves you will collaborate with.

I think it goes beyond that somewhat.... We incarnate as a 'correction' - so if we are to correct ourselves, we must begin our journey as STS, and ultimately 'correct' that which needs correction in order to graduate to STO (while alive) and glide to the next phase! Same as in the 'necessary' sin. If we show up without anything to 'correct', in my mind an individual will go to the next level rather quickly or through severe disability (health, mind, etc) - my own 2 sense (cents) - Notice how some very advanced souls, slip into bodies suffering from diseases that deteriorate the body and eventually pass away without having had to change much spiritually, as they arrive advanced without a great need to correct, just to contemplate the awesome power that flows through us as bodies.

 

[Menna]

We are ALL creating our own creation with the help of our previous and future selves?


And our situational life experiences. There’s a what happens to you or the people you know in your sphere of influence that is outside you that leads you to make decision we don’t create just based on our selves but based on what is out there...we see, hear, witness and experience even when you create “bad or good “ luck that interviens is separate from or selves and also intertwined. You can’t always control which way the ball bounces it’s not only up to ourselves future or past we can’t control how we create there is another force

 

[Menna]

The idea of knowledge distinct from beliefs reminds me of something my second great grandfather wrote in the 1850s. He wrote a book call “Religion of God not of men” based on a talk he gave. He had an interesting story. Apparently he was one of the earliest Homeopaths in Australia and was a very public of critic of Allopathy. In one old paper I found, he was considered the first spiritualist in Australia too, conducting seances and starting spiritualist circles in Victoria. Anyway, here’s that extract from his book:



He goes on describing his answer that comes across progressive for the time, online here:

The religion of God not of men

nla.gov.au

And by knowing something doesn’t mean you are right about this think you “know” you may know it to be true to you but it can be wrong. All the evidence and experiences could give you a wrong answer

look at scientists with their knowledge of subject and experience through experiments and in the lab. They write hypothesis’s based on what they know this far in their experience of their career. They aren’t saying I believe this to be true, now, let’s spend millions of dollars man power and years of time on this belief. They are saying I “know” this is true based on my prior experiences through prior experiments and my prior decades of knowledge gained and collaboration with others experience and knowledge and guess what they still have to find out if their knowing is objective because it’s a new hypotheses how can you know something that is new that you just found out?

On another note if I believe something to be true without a hypothesis based knowledge experience I can still follow the believer path and stumble upon objectivity and answer. I can also following the knowing path and be wrong

in the end 2+2 doesn’t = 4 in life. It’s not logical Not alla questions have an answer.

how the ***** can anyone in 2021 know who the creator is? By asking the question it tells that there is no answer that will suffice the asker AS they are asking the question because they want or are seeking or are looking for even believes there’s an answer. In asking what does that tell? In all of ya’lls knowings and beliefs what does it tell when someone asks who is the creator?

if I ask what will the weather be like on March 7th 2031 what can I expect as an answer do I think there’s an objective answer? Am I trying to engage in friendly banter trying to pass time?

 

[syldan]

Sounds about right. I guess what STS vs STO comes down to is choosing which potential future creator selves you will collaborate with.

Maybe we could agree that we are co-creators of a process which we cannot precisely explain? Then again, once we have crossed over from being used as a tool of STS to a creative STO tool, one KNOWS that something powerful is helping them one inch/ millimeter along the ruler that leads to the full measure of what we can become. In relation to what we were at one point before...

Personally I think that this thread will yield some very interesting and powerful ideas, if we keep plucking away at ourselves with open minds.

 

[Sol Logos]

And by knowing something doesn’t mean you are right about this think you “know” you may know it to be true to you but it can be wrong. All the evidence and experiences could give you a wrong answer.

What do we know and what do we believe?

...I have to have an experience of something to know something I can't believe and know at the same time...,

Experience I’m led to believe is how you distinguished belief and knowledge above.

I could say that I experience time and space, and say I know that experience to be true - in a subjective sense. My experience suggests that most things seem to have an opposite - night / day, hot / cold, STO / STS. Is there an opposite to time and space? I can’t say for certain - that a no-time and no-space was, is or will be. But I could speculate that it’s possible as a statement of logic, following the premise that everything has an opposite. I suppose that’s what he meant by knowing 1 and 1 makes 2, my 2nd great grandfather I mean - or at least I’m lead to believe he did :)

 

[whitecoast]

Maybe we could agree that we are co-creators of a process which we cannot precisely explain?

I suppose during your second response I had some resistance to the concept of us being here to “correct” something. I definitely like the notion of participating in an unfolding we are always on the road to discovering and seeing. This quote from a book I’m reading stood out for me, and I want to share it here:

(from The Path is Everywhere by Matt Licata)

Love has brought you to this very place that you are now, as it continues its journey to know itself, through you and as you — by way of your perception, emotions, feelings, and imagination; and by the signs and symbols that it places along your path. Not so you can fix something that is broken, or even “heal” in any conventional sense, but so that you can connect more deeply with your longing, to more clearly hear the call of the beloved within you, and become more transparent the feast of the offering that has been laid out before you: to be fully alive and to fully participate in the mystery as it makes its way into the world of time and space.

 

[Kay Kim]

According from the Transcripts, that all of the beings in exist in the Universe is the Creator.
Maybe that’s why STS beings are creating chaos that destroy others and everything. But, STO beings keep creating something new, thus universe is balancing by two opposing force.

October 18, 1994

Q: (L) Is there only one ultimate creator of the universe

A: All is one. And one is all.

Q: (L) From the one what was the first division?

A: Mass division and disbursement.

Q: (L) Was this simultaneous?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Was this what we refer to as the "Big Bang?"

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Is there any reference to this event in terms of time?

A: Always.

Q: (L) Can we say that all that exists in the material universe is, say, "x" number of years old?

A: No. It is the eternal now. Not only did happen, is happening and going to happen. The expanded presence.
.......
Q: (L) Is the ultimate creator self-conscious and self-aware?

A: Yes and no.

Q: (L) These events that occur in our universe just sort of happen?

A: Close.

Q: (L) Are there other universes besides ours?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Are these other universes also spun off from "our" ultimate creator?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Are these universes countable?

A: Counting is artificially limiting concept.

Q: (L) Are the numbers of universes limitless?

A: In a sense.

December 10, 1994

Q: (T) What is the difference between the Prime Creator and "God?"

A: None. As long as you exist, you are of the Prime Creator.

Q: (L) Now, this stuff that goes into Black Holes, that goes into non-existence, is that, then, not part of the Prime Creator?

A: Correct.

Q: (L) How can Prime Creator lose any part of him or itself?

A: Prime Creator does not "lose" anything.

Q: (L) Well, then, how would you describe this energy that was in existence and then is no longer in existence because it has become or gone into a Black Hole?

A: Reflection is regenerated at level 1.

Q: (L) So, this energy goes into a Black Hole and... does it come out on the other side?

A: No.

Q: (L) Does it become like a primal atom?

A: No.

Q: (T) Does it go back into the cycle?

A: No. Reflection regenerates as primal atoms.

Q: (L) So, this energy that is sucked into the Black Holes... what (T) When we put out energy as positive or negative energy, and there are beings on other levels that feed on this energy, is this true?

A: Yes.

Q: (DM) Everyone has a creator.

A: We are not creator any more than you are. We are all creator!

December 12, 1995

Q: (L) Carlos Castaneda talks about the "Eagle's emanations," the Eagle being, I suppose, Prime Creator that emanates down through all the densities, and that the Nagual who can "see," sees the Eagle as a large black and white object. Are they seeing the source, or are they seeing something on just another density?

A: Source? There is no such thing.

Q: (L) You mean there is no Prime Creator, no origin or source of our existence?

A: You are Prime Creator.

Q: (L) But that is so esoteric... I am talking about...

A: The point is: stop filling your consciousness with monotheistic philosophies planted long ago to imprison your being. Can't you see it by now, after all you have learned, that there is no source, there is no leader, there is no basis, there is no overseer, etc... You literally possess, within your consciousness profile, all the power that exists within all of creation!?! You absolutely have all that exists, ever has, or ever will, contained within your mind. All you have to do is learn how to use it, and at that moment, you will literally, literally, be all that is, was, and ever will be!!!!!!!!

March 23rd 2019

A: It is actually good. Coming to knowledge that is sure by your own efforts locks it in at the belief center, and thus gives added power. All who seek to graduate to 4th density must seek knowledge. In 4D, eventually it will be your job to engineer lifeforms on new worlds.

Q: (L) Well, from what I've been reading about the engineering of the lifeforms on this world, that gives me the idea that 4th density intelligence and abilities are so...

A: Stupendous is the term.

Q: (L) Yeah, stupendous. Reading these books has just blown me away.

(Pierre) You mean the level of engineering?

(L) The level of engineering, the level of intelligence, I mean... Obviously, there have been experiments. Look at the book, Prehistoric Life. You can SEE minds working on engineering creatures. Then they decide, oh, we don't like that one. They wipe out the whole planet and then a whole new bunch appear. That's engineering. They didn't like the old design. There were some of the old designs that REALLY were bad, I'm tellin' you! [laughter] I swear, you can see in that book. There were some really BAD ideas! Serious design flaws.

(Joe) You said in the forum that every single species was individually engineered out of the experimental parts that were previously engineered through billions of years of Earth's history. So, I was wondering... They said in a previous session that life here was seeded. First, primitive life was given. But to what extent was the progress of all the species on Earth directly created?

A: As Behe suggests, at the family level.

Q: (L) Like family Canis. You can get wolves, dogs, etc.

(Joe) So all of the constituent parts of dogs were directly created somewhere else, and then...

(L) Look at the book. You can see where they started. It shows you how they started with the most basic organisms. They played around with those, and then they built on it. It's just like amazing to look at those pictures and see what they've uncovered in the fossil record. You can see they tried doing this, then they added that to it, then they used a part from this and part from that, engineered a new part or two, and so on. Every species has a certain number of genes or parts of them that no other species has.

(Joe) In the previous session they said it was more or less like a thought in 4th density of a dog. Then that's transferred to 3D and matter accretes to that.

(L) Well, I'm sure that happens the same way they were describing abductions.

(Joe) No, but is that... So there is an evolutionary process where the component parts of a dog...

(L) I don't think they were talking about the dog.

(Joe) So some evolution happens naturally? Ya know what I mean?

(Pierre) I think what Joe means is that... Joe is reconciling intelligent design and evolution somehow by saying that yes, at our level...

(L) There is no evolution.

(Pierre) But the ideas in the mind of the engineer of the mind in 4D DOES evolve...

(Joe) Like you send a blueprint down, and the matter accretes around that blueprint and produces a dog quite quickly.

(Pierre) And then you learn from it, your thinking gets better, and you design a Dog 2.0.

(Joe) No, a dog evolves from something.

(L) No, a dog doesn't evolve from anything. A dog is created.

(Joe) And it appears out of thin air?

(L) No, it doesn't appear out of thin air. It gets... I think what they were saying was that the idea of the different small like proteins or other building blocks. But how do they get put together? And I don’t think it was exactly like the thought of a “dog” but they were talking more about basic life forms to begin with, and the engineering via DNA. If there is a “thought” that is transferred to 3D, it would be in the DNA. If you look at the book, you see how it starts off with very basic structures, like slime molds. Cyanobacteria. Then, you get things where groups of different kinds of organisms form tubes. Then they form stalks. Then they learn how to do photosynthesis. Then they make leaves. Then, somewhere along the way, sexual reproduction comes into the picture. Once sexual reproduction has entered the picture, then the door is open for seeding other things via sexual reproduction. Then, what you can do is make a code and plant it in literally by sending viruses or something through the realm curtain or even just thoughts, or something like abductions. You can plant it in an egg and it's born. It's not like something just accretes out of the air. It happens in a very practical way...

A: Following the idea there is a certain amount of experimentation and even gestation of some "parts" in other lifeforms or in other realities before transference to this one.

Q: (Joe) What I was trying to say was it's kinda like a blueprint is transferred to these lifeforms, and they follow a preprogrammed blueprint...

A: No. There is no evolution as you are thinking.

Q: (Joe) I thought you were saying that basically there IS evolution, but then these small organisms...

(L) No, that's not what I'm saying! I'm saying if you look, you can see where they created parts. And every time you can see where they did something and then it went along. If you look at the book, you see each world of... There was the Slime World. It came to an end. When the slime world ended, then there was another world. Okay, still some slime survived, but the new world had tube creatures. Then that world ended, and another one started that was plant creatures.
.......

(L)...The Cs said that STS took over about 300KYA, and by then, all the major creating and engineering of life forms as we know them now was a done deal.
If Love is the power of creation, that’s why 4D STS can’t create; they can only modify or interfere, suppress, etc. So in a real sense, our world was created by Love and is truly, jaw-droppingly amazing.

 

[Sol Logos]

According from the Transcripts, that all of the beings in exist in the Universe is the Creator.
Maybe that’s why STS beings are creating chaos that destroy others and everything. But, STO beings keep creating something new, thus universe is balancing by two opposing force.

So given that, the whole of consciousness is akin to the creator - “we are all the creator”. We also seem each to have unique configurations of that whole consciousness, existing in a kind of independent way. We can’t think, feel or act for others but only for ourselves for instance. So we’re each unique configurations of and collectively derive from this whole. Seems we experience our relationships with each other's unique consciousness by the medium of physical time and space too. And how we relate seems to depend on our unique progress. This got me considering that some more...

From Cassiwiki :

"...The four Ways lead from the outer circle into the exoteric one. The understanding of exoteric man is theoretical and contemplative; they know more than they can explain or put to practice, but some degree of shared clarity has begun to form. Then comes the mesoteric circle, the members of which understand each other precisely and possess the information of the esoteric circle but are not capable of bringing all of it to practice. Finally, the esoteric circle consists of the persons having attained the development possible in the form of human life. Their actions cannot be in contradiction with their knowledge and the same knowledge is clear to all members of this circle. The central idea is that as man progresses, the world is seen with increased clarity. Therefore misunderstanding and ambiguity decrease along the way and actions become naturally aligned since all see the same world and become increasingly capable of acting on esoteric principles. George Gurdjieff says that the universe needs a group of conscious humans. A certain number of people must have attained the esoteric level by a certain time in order for a cosmic purpose to be fulfilled. The branch of the ray of creation corresponding to the Earth will otherwise wither and be wasted."

So as we progress we likely get more attuned to this whole of consciousness. If so, this infers that a kind of natural order with underlying rules and principles exists to align to on our path to progress. We could consider it as independent, as no matter how divided and disbursed our unique and/or collective consciousness drifts, progress is always available. If such rules and principles are independent, would they reside in dimensionless, timeless, non-place, non-space, non-matter? That’s what I was wondering about before here:

...So if we ask what came first, rules or matter we could answer that. Rules came first. If rules came first before matter, how is that possible? Such rules could only exist first - in theory. It's a bit like a smart coder thinking up all code and rules of an app in their heads before pressing a single key. In this scenario, all the rules of the app exist in theory, or in the coder’s mind before they exist in reality.

Anyway, for me, this all indicates distinct nodes of consciousness. One is our unique configuration. The other is the collective of all unique configurations we are a part of. Another is this medium of our experience - that is physical space and time. And lastly the rules, principles or natural order that defines how all of those operate together.

1. Rules and principles of the whole consciousness
2. Medium (space and time) where and when consciousness experiences itself
3. Unique configuration of the whole consciousness
4. Collective set of all unique configurations

Each of these nodes directly relate with each other. So if we plot them together, it forms a Tetrahedron, like this:




What fascinates me is the six edges, which are the six direct relationships. I wondered how they might connect to the Genesis story and kind of seems to fit. I’ve been writing about that too and I’d like to post later for any feedback.

 

[Sol Logos]

This connects to above post...

There looks like a pattern with the Genesis story showing up as two groups of three. It begins with light, then atmosphere and water, then earth for three consecutive days. It follows again over the next three days. This might also correspond to classical elements. Fire that gives light, then air and water and finally earth. A comet burns and drops particles through air. This will often include rain that provides water, which falls on the earth and then creates new life. Another parallel is that shining light on oneself burns personal delusions (light). We then learn about what is distinct and separates us (air), then what is in common and binds us (water). And those insights ground us (earth) from where we take action towards a new type of living. These might also correspond to centres. The intellectual centre for thinking (light). The emotional centre for feeling and sensing (atmosphere and water). The instinctual/motor centre for making decisions and taking action (earth).

Here’s where there could be connections in Genesis:

Day 0

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

This could be “day 0” - whatever we know is not manifest. Rather its dimensionless, timeless, non-place, non-space, non-matter. What is distinct and binds it all together (atmosphere and water), and the medium of our experiences (earth) is only a thought. It might even be a meta-thought, being more like the rules and principles of thought.

Day 1

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

This is day 1 and gets described as a first separation. This could also describe self-reflection. I hear that is a part of how we come to know our unique self and also generate “light” or enlightenment. That is, by taking a good and real look at ourselves. Could this be reminiscent of a first thought - I think therefore I am? This could be the relationship between rules and the unique consciousness. That is, the possibilities (light) and limits (dark) of self-knowledge.


Day 2

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Could this be division and disbursement of consciousness into many more unique versions? We could observe water remaining water no matter how many times we divide it. This may not be physical water because that comes later in Genesis. Later passages also explain God as the spring of living water. Could this be about what divides and makes uniqueness and also what binds us to hold us as a collective? Emotions connect people together with shared feelings or empathy. An apt phrase at this point might be - I feel so I can connect.



Day 3

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Day 3 we have something solid and tangible - land and expressions of life. We tend to see life as something tangible. That is we always anchor our life experiences to something physical in space and time. Space and time is a medium where we take actions and experience life. It could be that this is the medium by which consciousness experiences itself. It could be the medium by which consciousness generates information too. That came up in some way last Cs session and this might be relevant but I’m not sure. An apt phrase with day 3 might be - I act so I can create (make something new).



Going with above description, there are 2 edges / relationships of consciousness that are not directly tied to the medium of space and time. Then there is one that is - between collective and medium of consciousness. It got me thinking about Einstein's famous formula in that context.

This led me to wonder about if there’s any clues in Einstein’s formula.

- We’ve got the universe as a medium. It has mass / weight. It’s can be harder or easier to navigate in
- We’ve got consciousness, that doesn’t have mass (as far as I know). It’s often compared to in degrees of light - e.g enlightenment and ignorance / darkness. And like light, it has a direction or intent
- Then we’ve got our will, which I learnt here is more or less free, depending on who we are and how machine-like our decision-making is. I’ve heard that’s sometimes linked with the concept of soul too.

E = mc(squared)

I been thinking about it more in human terms and less so in mathematics. So E might also relate to the available energy we need to exercise our will. And, M could be the context in this medium called the universe we need to affect (when, where, upon whom and/or what). And, C could be the drive propelling a particular direction or intent our consciousness has (how important it is)

So put into something a bit tangible. Say we could measure the importance for us to get to a direction; and say we can measure the weight of resistance for this to occur in our universe, we could say something about how likely our will - will be expressed.

That could say something about why having more people colinear helps. It increases the drive of consciousness towards a direction. And it also reduces the resistance in reality. Because more people fragmented makes for more resistance. Anyway, not sure how helpful that is.

Thanks the the session again - very interesting!

There are other connections for the next 3 days that look workable. Hope to write that down and post later here too.

 

[PabloAngello]

@Kay Kim

Q: (L) Yeah, stupendous. Reading these books has just blown me away.

What books they are reffering to?

 

[Kay Kim]

What books they are reffering to?

“Q: (L) Yeah, stupendous. Reading these books has just blown me away.

(Pierre) You mean the level of engineering?

(L) The level of engineering, the level of intelligence, I mean... Obviously, there have been experiments. Look at the book, Prehistoric Life. You can SEE minds working on engineering creatures. Then they decide, oh, we don't like that one. They wipe out the whole planet and then a whole new bunch appear. That's engineering. They didn't like the old design. There were some of the old designs that REALLY were bad, I'm tellin' you! [laughter] I swear, you can see in that book. There were some really BAD ideas! Serious design flaws.”

 

[Joan]

According from the Transcripts, that all of the beings in exist in the Universe is the Creator.
Maybe that’s why STS beings are creating chaos that destroy others and everything. But, STO beings keep creating something new, thus universe is balancing by two opposing force.

Thanks @ Kay Kim for your reminder of the C's Transcripts, and how they add to the thread.

I came across this video presentation, I think it may have been produced sometime in the early 2000's not sure. but to my mind it gives an example of the STS mindset, in an attempt to give a fascimle of what the universe and the Divine Collective Mind of STO and the difference between divine creation as opposed to STO creation.

As Laura pointed out in one of the transcripts posted by Kay Kim, that some designs were not compatible with life on the planet, they were destroyed, like engineers they go back to the drawing board, and create a more viable option, that would naturally evolve over time. Now we are discovering that plant, animal and insect life are being manipulated into something other than what was the original plan of creation.

Hybrid World | Full Transhumanism Documentary​

Hybrid World - The Plan to Modify and Control the Human Race Behind closed doors scientists and corporations have breached genetic codes that separate the individuality of all animal and plant species on earth. Laboratories around the world are honing their skills while our humanity and dignity as a species is on the operating table like a universal Frankenstein, subject to a wholesale psychic and physiological re-design under the guise of "progress." The proponents claim the field of "Transhumanism" will change the world by eliminating sickness and famine while at the same time, governments and military groups around the globe are having clandestine meetings to discuss super soldiers, super intelligence, and even super animals to maintain military dominance and control over the populations of the world. Even more horrifying they must create committees to implement plans to defend their nations against future terrorism performed by transhumans (modified human beings) with the universal.​

The blurb (apologies about the bold print) it's the way it transferred on the paste. But to my thought this is exactly what we are discovering at this moment in time. One may think that this is just nothing more than Science fiction, as the channel on which it was posted suggests.

As we a are discovering, the so called vaccines, the mRNA are a genetic material, to god knows what the bodies to humanity that willingly accept, will eventually develop into.

Apologies, if this is off topic, just wanted to add another thought to the thread. Also, my thought is, that the creators of a new world, of which I think many members of this forum are part of, we don't need the mechanical world of the STS. We can create in our own minds, through knowledge, cooperation, collaboration and imagination, and more importantly love of one another, create a new reality for ourselves and the future of our children. And to my mind, this is Prime Creation.

 

[Sol Logos]

As we a are discovering, the so called vaccines, the mRNA are a genetic material, to god knows what the bodies to humanity that willingly accept, will eventually develop into.

Perhaps the best laid plans of psychopaths have a limited shelf life in the whole scheme of things? There’s only so far overestimating oneself and underestimating the rest of the universe will go. But I guess we’ll find out.