Fundamentalist Christians and its Wrong Approach to Spiritual Teachings (15):

Flat Earth; Enclosed Creationism; Conspiracy (Theory), Intuition and Imagination – Part Nine:

Act Four: Returning to the Source [taken from the philosophy of the matrix, with added parts]:The last act plays on the subsequent history of humanity and the gradual recovery of the elements of the perfect light. The spiritual realm is gradually returning to become one from where it once belonged. The final story is that everything returns to the one (source), and the imperfect mistake disappears with it. Consequently, there is no end to this cosmic play; the four-act play is merely archetypal timeless key-frames in what seems to be a play that never ends. As the play continues, we make history. However, the soul will inevitably return to its source for the individual.

Fundamentalism’s expectation of prophecy of the One (messiah), the son of Man who dies and gets resurrected, and does miracles are Christian notions that began in Gnostic traditions. They frame the fundamental human problem regarding ignorance, the solution being enlightenment. While the orthodox sect frames it as sin and repentance, it is really a system built upon guilt and shame, which can be used as a selfish construct; the effectiveness of this narcissistic construct is evident in the whole sociological environment.

In revelation, it suggests that the Man in the Sky, which we know as the first Adam, Horus, or Jesus (the Logos, the messiah, or the One), would be revealed at the beginning of the end. And if he is the first and the last – it points to a fundamentalist notion that the Man in the Sky will return. However, before the return of Christ, the anti-Christ will appear first – then, a great battle of Armageddon will ensue. After that, the second coming of Christ would appear and herald a victory over the dark forces. And this means apocalyptic doomsday for humanity, as this cosmic birth pain takes place; He will embark on a vast cosmic reincarnation or a cosmic eternal return. This would then be followed by the (millennium) one thousand-year rule of Christ, where the last judgment will begin before the world’s end. After that, it will bring forth a new heaven and Earth.

The new Earth also aligns with the conception of the new age of Aquarius, which insists history will end. This thinking is what the Buddhists call impermanence. And this is natural as one life’s journey begins; it must also end at some point. Impermanence can also relate to field good schemes that don’t last, like the new age notions of thinking positively. It can also relate to political schemes, which have limitations exemplified in World War Two and the Nazi regime. Also, socialism and the Soviet Union have all broken down in one way or another. These political schemes were driven by a final judgment mindset slightly different from the end of the world but the end of history. This was inspired by the secularist Marxist and neo-Hegelians, which the evolutionary concept of Darwin had influenced – that history is moving towards something (worldly) and that something is the end of history. After that, there is no more development.

The apocalyptic alarm to the end of the world and the vision of the golden living dream of Aquarius – are inspired by the perception of the end of time or history. Historical time has only really been taken seriously by Mediterranean and monotheistic civilizations that bore Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The truism for highly abstract metaphysics, as well as theological concepts and their doctrines, lie at the back of this circumstance and is very much a religious concept. Comparatively, scientism has the same notion that involves the universe breaking apart; stars journeying towards the edge of the cosmos to where it will inevitably fade away or break apart to a nothingness void. Our concept of history within time is grounded – in the idea that the world has all been created at a particular time (or at the beginning of history). From then on, historical time continues in linearity but will eventually end.                    

What distinguishes fundamentalists is the delusion that they can capture something unquantifiable while attempting to interpret these uncertainties with religious policies for political schemes. But, unfortunately, these unquantifiable uncertainties are abstractions – and abstractions only exist to be held in mind, which has a habit of acting like a virus that can deceive, but only if you let it.                          

This fundamental problem parallels the interpretation found in the Apocryphon of John. It describes our souls being trapped in a material body and needing to escape. And given how the world is set up through various social engineering modes, which are essentially types of simulations, it makes us feel trapped. It can also match the Buddhist term samsara, which is about how we perceive our world in which ignorance is the problem, and the solution is awakening – achieved through knowledge.         

However, one of Demiurge’s objectives is to keep us in a reality of his making a simulacrum of his design. This repurposing programmer hides the true reality with a false one. Some have equated this true reality to the Pleroma. Moreover, the Demiurge; the Architect and Creator-God of this dimensional reality –wants to deny knowledge to all humanity. This is brought about through his Archon agents, who set levels of hierarchies garnered through people’s choices that often lead to blind submission to authority. People that play their roles so blindly to a point they become trapped in their construct, which has a habit of influencing people’s minds to rigid thinking that gives purpose to institutionalized control. In this case, being awake merely means being aware of those social and political constructs people are entangled in.    

Although there is more to blind obedience to authority, which is about creating choices and decisions, to break away from the herd mentality, man will overcome man and become uber-man (a spiritual evolution in man that ignites in the gestation of enlightenment). And this parallels the notion of God becoming man so that Man can become God. Nietzsche’s philosophy describes certain types of people locked in their constructs. Those born into systems of evaluation in which one thing is good and the other is bad must do this and do that. What defines the hero (Heru, overman, ubermensch, or Superman) is that he rejects all of those constructs. He doesn’t give them force; he sees through them and decides to use his own will, his sense of volition.

Denying these constructs plays on the notion of Schopenhauer’s mindless desire. In his book Will and Representation, he discusses how human experience is subjective and that the only grounding you can come to is human will or human choice. Schopenhauer’s view describes our perception. Our consciousness is the physical brain seen from the inside. And what seems external on the perception of causality with all its corresponding impulses is ultimately combined into one vast will.   

Schopenhauer’s Will and Representation has hints of monism. The underlying philosophical argument against oneness philosophy is the standing concern regarding the New Testament when viewed through a protestant interpretative context, which is free will and grace, a deep philosophical problem. And that’s because, in one aspect, things have to be a certain way, but on the other hand, they can’t.  

Determinism states that everything that exists or occurs has a cause, and that cause makes the effect inevitable. Combine those two claims, and it becomes a problem for free will. If we know every position of an atom at the moment, we can predict the next instant – an omniscient that has a snapshot of the universe in an instant. We can, therefore, predict the future because what happens at every moment is simply the deterministic outcome of the interactions of those small parts. Modern physicists say quantum indeterminacy is wrong, even if that’s true; at the macroscopic level; things seem to be determined in many regards.  

Then there is causality; casualty is like figuring out what gravity is. The result is always swayed to be indefinable and immeasurable, but it’s constant, and what goes up must come down. However, with all its mystery, gravity is not consistent; given the buoyant force is the opposite of density. And this means density causes objects to fall, not gravity pulling them down. The pulling of forces is like consciousness; it needs a stage/body for it to rise. So, in one aspect, choice and free will seem like an illusion, but only as much as a certainty for gravity can be elusive. An outside force drives this illusion of choice – a sensory perception has given us the illusion of free will. This indeterminate-determinism aspect of free will is remedied by seeing through the illusion. Seeing the illusion (or the process of enlightenment) forms the basis of Eastern religion, which has existed for centuries. And if one entertains the idea that choices being made are already pre-determined – a more profound question to ask is why you made those choices. There is also a deep intuitive need to realize your identity with the All / Source point / Pleroma / Brahman, etc. Most people know they carry a spiritual reality intuitively, but that’s not enough; it’s only ever complete when you wake up.

Rationality can’t solve the problem brought about by these inherent simulated sociological situations (hoaxes, events, wars, greed, and so on); otherwise, society would have collapsed by now. You start by recognizing the limits of our knowledge; this sets the foundation for beginning to remedy those conditions beset upon us. Coupled with being awake, one begins their hero’s journey to a spiritual path to feel true enlightenment, given how we’ve established that Jesus is a hypothetical fractal simulation and simulacrum update of Horus. One can conclude the Christ figure is not an unrepeatable, non-fungible individual but something determined by the need for creation. The Man in the Sky Model is merely a particular iteration of a soul/self-type, ‘the one’ which may seem like a role only for the gods. However, it’s a universal type, as the spark, which in essence is ‘love’, was the ingredient that made the first Man comes to life, which is in everyone.  

Love is held up as the ultimate reality; it drives and motivates us. It’s no coincidence that most world traditions discuss love through abstract terms but concretize it. Not in terms of human love but divine love (cosmic consciousness), the highest love that can attain divinity. Love is what holds Nirvana and Samsara together. Love can conquer all. Love is something more than what rationality can give. Once it has attained love/light/awake-ness, something more opens up: intuition, synchronicities, perception, a kind of spiritual experience that comes in a flash. You essentially become aware or are in tune with the higher reality.          

Revelation’s apocalyptic theme is about impermanence and the acknowledgment of the one that will appear at the beginning and the end. We can view the end of time/history through the notion of love, light, the good having been attained before death, and the good being one’s heroic journey to disseminate truth throughout the world. The reveal of Christ at the end of time is Christ-consciousness in mind, revealed in one’s lifetime. This is the literal Oil of Angels or the Oil from the claustrum. A brain fluid known as the Christos comes from the cerebrum, descends the spinal cord, and reaches the sacral plexus next to the sacrum, which is connected. This sacrum is five fused bones that pump the oil back up, and when the oil returns, we have illumination. The light of enlightenment will overcome the shadow through internal means, shining through the darkness of illusions.

The eternal return is journeying to the underworld and returning to the light. We all come from the truth, the light, and the good. And we have fallen onto these ladders of material. And we need to climb back up to where we came from. Enlightenment to the true nature of reality is the solution in and itself – a spiritual practice, by taking psychedelia, or through the graces of the Pleroma-God [or God just to adhere to traditional-Christians readers]. We can see or peek at that unnamable Tao and learn that it’s honest, dreams, insight, and prophecy in a way you didn’t understand before.

Primary Jewish mysticism, Cabala, explains that in the beginning, God creates a supernal light, a divine light, not sunlight. These lights are contained in vessels, and the Shivera or the shattering cannot contain the light. The pieces scatter everywhere, releasing this light into the universe as sparks. This fundamental problem in Jewish mysticism is that these sparks must be reconstituted and returned to divinity.

Schopenhauer describes the manifest world, which is our world, and outside the manifest world is a deeper world of reality; these are your other dimensional planes symbolized as other planets. There are also parallel dimensions within those dimensional planes, which are infinite. Beyond all these dimensions and planes, there is the Pleroma, also called Nirvana, Moksha, and the Eternal Unnamable Tao. All these things can be perceived but ultimately unknowable until the material body’s death. It’s only in death that the spirit can be resurrected. However, before that, the awakened must dissolve the personal ego to achieve immortality and be ready for the reunion with […]

Act Four: The Meta Morphing of Opposites: A particular part of the United States, predominately the South – has been exceptionally versed in Conspiracy Theory, the Paranormal, Ufology, Religion, etc. And for decades, radio stations like Coast to Coast have conditioned certain parts of the populace with fantastical other-worldly notions and theories. And most of them tend to lean towards a Republican political mindset, which is the Liberal Party in Australia, which is right-leaning. Australia’s Labor Party is the Democrats in the United States, which are left-leaning, and the U.S.’s version of a Liberal Party is Australia’s version of the Greens. However, these two main political polarities are not transfixed in their position of goals and policies and usually morph between their opposites. In both countries, the notion of liberalism is detached from its original meaning.   

Living in Australia, I could only capture the last five years of Coast to Coast (a widely popular radio station in the southern United States); it wasn’t broadcast in Australia until the pronouncement of the internet. In its early decades, Art Bell was behind the microphone. George Nory now holds the microphone. Given how these esoteric subjects have been disseminated for decades through the mainstream. How does an overall truth become integral to the individual? When you have a huge demographic of the populace proficient in conspiracy theory and UFO subjects that are united, especially on anything concerning a far-right Christendom that diverges into fundamentalism ideology? Whatever their notion of truth may be, they have a political mouthpiece now in the form of a leader who can cater to their ideals. In contrast, conspiracy talk now forms the basis of the Conservatives’ political movement. And this is a strange political landscape never seen before. It’s still a psychological operation, but they’re all willing to ignore that and prop up their mouthpiece as a hero for good.

The notion of liberalism in Australia is pretty much Conservative, much like the United States. In 2019, Australia’s election outcome came about through Australia’s version of the United States Conservative followers, who all have shared perspectives on nationalism, Christian Values, individualism, and anti-communism. She also defended perceived threats from socialism, authoritarianism, and moral relativism. This sense of irrational fear helped determine the outcome of the votes. Their backward notion of socialism defined through communism lifted a campaign promoting that ignorance.

The search for genuine liberalism in Australia is non-existent and only stands as a reminder of what it was once. Alfred Deakin holds this idea as a symbolic reminder (minus the racism and protectionism aspect). In early Australian political history, he supported the rights of trade unions to organise and campaigned for better factory conditions. Aspects of genuine liberalism must hold the willingness to protect minority rights and the recognition that open markets are the best way to boost prosperity. His party’s issues soon matched the labor cause, but labor members still needed to make a common cause. Throughout the years, the liberals and the conservatives (the labor Party’s ideal, which is Liberal Conservatism) would become a united front together. This union no longer exists in current political modernity, making labor the only party fully committed to the liberal notion. Labor’s central tenet is egalitarianism, which holds inequality as its primary goal to absolve. So, they introduced Medicare, superannuation, and National Disability Insurance schemes, which were drawn from aspects of liberalism. Labor is the party that introduced laws to ban discrimination by race and sex. Native title laws came about under a Labor government despite fierce opposition from the other side. You can make such examples in the United States political history and current political climate.   

These political morphing of opposites seems naturally unavoidable throughout time, which gives a natural quality. The notion of the morphing of opposites came about through Baudrillard, J – who describes the “meta-morphing of opposites to perpetuate itself in its censored form”, a notion regulated through parody. Though it would seem it comes about naturally. And this somewhat relates to the dual opposites found in T/Daoism. This notion is also used as a means of manipulation through psychological operations (hoaxes and false flags) to confuse the masses, often with the help of mainstream media.

These colliding interests can make any notion of truth murky and conflicted in mainstream, alternative, and conspiracy truth groups. It is not just a conflict related to dialectical ideologies that conflict with two opposing truths or conspiracy. At the same time, it is essential, but so is the conflict within their groups. Truth and conspiracy exist in a world where the good does not exist in a positive conscience way; this is hard to grasp when the truth is defined as an awakening (spiritual adoption of the word truth). Or when you realize how feudalistic government is, when deep down you know the Left does an excellent job doing the work of the right.

Therefore, in this world of a matrix (simulation), one cannot exist actively or passively; therefore, one must view it in a way that is fractal, a spiral of causality in which positivity and negativity are generated, and in this pool of generated things – those things will overlap. This principle also relates to manipulation. Manipulation is always transient in its approach. Within the pool of generated things, we can view and determine those things in the spiral pool without prejudice. Through this model or perspective, the act or the event can be calculated within this perspective. Through their narrow, unconventional field, the perspective of the knower, the outsider, or the awakened can be maintained, even when they’re described as ‘ wackadoo conspiracy theorists.’ The pronouncement of this influence or hidden, symbolic messaging doesn’t come from Christian-conspiracy-theorist; they’re only bad interpreters of something larger at play. Isaac Newton and his work on anagrams were about deciphering symbolic meaning (anagrams) throughout humanity’s play (or game); a researcher inserted science behind outrageous theories. This leaves the notion of needing sources, peer review, and evidence redundant (or unimportant) because the evidence is apparent within the spiral pool.

An example of where it can emerge from is numbers like numerology and its unifying code theory – predictive programming and synchronicities. Both in a physical and spiritual sense (I’m sure clairvoyants predicated 9/11 or even the collective seeing it in a dream in some form of an archetypal image; it was even brought forth in pop-culture predictive programming). And often are implanted by the audacity of agents of an un-original simulator (the established order/elite). All institutions define themselves through denial, attempting to simulate truth and escaping the (absolute) truth. The proof through the anti-[…] and, in this case, the anti-Truther/Conspiracy-theorist-Christians – the anti-[…] has become normalized and is pivotal in determining political hierarchies. These strategies are about the non-rediscovery of the possibility of absolute truth through an illusion and, in this case, through the political problem of dual opposites that often merge naturally. Though it comes naturally, you can capture the process itself and thus can use the illusion to manipulate.

As for Parody’s political problem, this is natural to meta-morphing opposites. There was an attempt by the Australian government to outlaw any parody surrounding political figures. And this shows how Australia is becoming more conservative. There is something outside the scope of potential human intelligence. The media acts as a regenerator for that intelligence by diluting the truth. The media is created by people engaged in social engineering and uses conventional media and social (media) to embed esoteric symbolism. Any notion of staging an illusion seems too difficult to believe among the ordinary public. However, those aware of the manipulation also know that reality is an illusion and, therefore, can conclude that the illusion is no longer possible. Therein lays the problem with Parody. In general terms, Parody renders submissions and transgressions, and if an event is indeed a hoax or a simulation, people would assume its truth, then it’s placed in a reality that we call the ‘real’. It’s then cancelled out because the law upon which it’s based becomes impossible. It can also be exemplified in the degradation of truth through memes, which are always structured through Parody. Because of this, the implicit message is never questioned, given its structure. A transfixed malleability (if that makes sense), malleable in that truth is all but disclosed, immovable given how it’s communicated.    

In Gnostic theology, a theory describes how we might live in a world that’s a bit flawed due to a lesser creator, God/architect/intelligence, who was brought forth by accident. Due to this imperfection, the creator left traces or fingerprints on the world. Those who interpret these signs, i.e. fingerprints or synchronicities, also write the events as co-creators and align with magic. This is different from the hero’s role and is more in tune with the prophet or the attendant spirit, the helper or guardian angel. Moreover, the assistance archetype proposes a simulacrum theory.

Simulacrum theory attempts to reconcile old millennial stories embedded with a singular message working within inspired creative human faculties. This is just like Schopenhauer’s notion of one vast will, which is likened to oneness. Synchronicities’ version of one vast will points to unified synchronicities (or works their way to unification). Simulation theory is not a debasement of the objective reason but rather a thought experiment, like the thought experiment that is the theory of evolution, which, in some aspects of the theory, can be false in its grand narrative. Any other thought experiment surrounding human nature that may come to pass – aside from what we have is not to be feared. And that’s because the biggest criticizer of human nature has already taken that spot. Darwin’s evolution and society have already gone through the totalitarian aspect of it.        

Baudrillard’snotion of hyper-reality or simulations, explored in his book “Simulacra and Simulation,” which is continental or post-modern philosophy. The post-modern condition describes reality as all but disappearing or the world is in some ways, a construction of the mind (or reality existing only in your subjective experience). Leading into this abstraction was first laid out through the foundation of Descartes, who invented modernity. Then Kant proposed that the mind has structures that impose structures onto the world, so we do not perceive a pre-given world, but the structure of the mind brings forth phenomena. And this is created as much by the mind and whatever is out there. Kant was convinced that there was something beyond causes. This is reasonable because we don’t control our phenomenon; if I look at the sky, I cannot change it from blue to pink. So something out there is generating these sense perceptions and giving them to us. This notion has merit given its reason to observable facts and stands as an antithesis to oneness philosophy, or at least further analysis is needed.

Postmodernism is an extrapolation of what you get from Kant. It is comparable to conspiracy theorists, but for intellects – maybe this is an oversimplification, but it’s under threat by liberal/conservative intellects that undervalue it. Postmodernism explores phenomena and is open to infinite alternative accounts, while conspiracy theorists seize the same opportunity. However, it falls victim to its claim and purchase of “truth” through its self-created discourse. By dismissing the “truth” presented by established institutions, conspiracy theorists explain their version of “truth”. However, both opposing factions are discourses, and the Conspiracy Theory mirrors the account of the Liberal Government. And this government is no longer liberal but deeply conservative with its formation of truth.   

Given that the majority of followers of conspiracy theories are Republicans (conservatives), the very nature of conspiracy theory is to be sceptical. How does one call oneself a conservative with a rigid view on postmodernism when a conservative majority populace is all about scepticism? Or maybe postmodernism is a threat to them because they’re holding on to an old ideal of Liberalism that no longer exists under its liberal banner but lives on in their counterpart. And perhaps postmodernism asks you to be self-aware and open to other sources of interpretations and, therefore, spirituality, which doesn’t necessarily adopt dogma, i.e. Gnosticism (open-source spirituality). So, denying postmodernism is somewhat akin to fundamentalists denying other world saviours.      

So, we’ve established that morphing opposites is natural. At the same time, its base ideology can be used as a means of manipulation through unquantifiable uncertainties. That fuels the imagination, which acts like a virus. However, we are made to believe there is only a left and right interpretation when it’s really both. And this is a Hegelian trap that people must get over.

The polarization of left and right duality is the central pillar of both sides of the Shekinah or the Tree of Life. In the god-body, Kether is the crown with the Binah and Chokmah rounding of the Trinity. Binah and Chokmah represent the left and right – the shoulders of the god-body, equating to the good Angel and evil demon depicted in narrative stories (animated cartoons), often whispering in the shoulders of the main character. The left and right can also represent the twins. In the last post, I outlined the resurrection process concerning the incarnation process of explaining the soul, about the soul travelling to her Twin. As the body dies, the soul is propelled upwards, which was illustrated in the third season of Twin Peaks. A scene in which a boy gets run over by a car, and then a witness sees the spectral phenomenon leaving the boy’s body and rising upwards to the sky. The soul would essentially go through the light bridge; this light bridge is called Datt, a hidden aspect within the central pillars of the Shekinah.

The perplexing worldviews of both Grant Morrison and Jordan Peterson are examples of such polarities, which are the antithesis of each other. Their base worldview is clearly in their extreme (left and right), but as hard as they try to keep it in their position. The natural quality of morphing opposites comes to light, meaning any attempts to explain their position cannot hold firm.   

Grant Morrison – disinformation lecture on magic(k)
Left – thinking [in terms of Political Dualities left & right]	Right – thinking[in terms of Political Dualities left & right]
Describes absolutism in Orthodoxy [religious or otherwise] or any sense of Binary extremes is an attempt to prop up individualism as a way to separate man and his nature.   The individual is an illusion a kind of conditioning that’s implanted in us. With the likes of Kafka, and Orwell who valued individualism, they used their doctrine to make us believe it’s important – but what if you ask yourself that it may not be as important.	We as the counter culture types that have dabbled in psychedelic drugs, and broken a few rules, but generally hate the police.     We create the police, but hate them, in spite of us (the people) putting them in those roles.   In retrospect we should love the police.

Grant Morrison describes Nazism during World War Two as something we had to go through, a dark part of humanity that’s never going to happen again, but it had to happen. We had to go through it. Everything that is evil and every image of hell emerged. The world was a wasteland, cities destroyed, people annihilated, and why did it happen? Grant Morrison describes why, through the individual’s fallacy, the individual is an illusion, a kind of conditioning implanted in us. The likes of Kafka and Orwell, who valued individualism, used their doctrine to make us believe it’s important, but what if you ask yourself that it may not be as important? When you discuss or deal with the individual, you realize it’s filled with neurosis due to how the ego structure is constructed through what Julian James calls the bicameral mind when the mind becomes one.

According to him, back in the ancient world, people didn’t have self-consciousness the way we do; they didn’t have egos, nor was the concept of “I” unheard of due to the corpus callosum limiting the brain’s two hemispheres. So, hearing voices would mean hearing the voice of God. Julian suggests that the voice of the left hemisphere communicating with the brain’s right hemisphere can be interpreted as a god. Now we have the bridge, but we still have the ego structure created when the bridge wasn’t there; now we know of the “I am that I am,” but we still think we are separated from everything, from nature and ourselves. We are stuck in the individual because we believe in it so much.

Denying the individual is not entirely the answer either because what you’re left with would be akin to collectivism, or it starts to merge into something similar. Think of the Borg in Star Trek, with the ‘one mind, one hive’ mentality. [like I said in part seven of this thesis collection, that] it’s not about his unintentional approach to monism by using the concept of individualism as something nefarious, but about how magic can influence the synchronistic whole within space and time – and how we are seemingly connected.

He used the story of his alien-abduction experience as an allegory in his comic book writings, of how we are like ‘lava’ created by the maker. And he saw lava grow out of these dimensional beings, which exist outside space and time. They watch and observe the human condition as it’s the only way to observe space and time. He says if we look into our human condition backward in time, it’s always going back into itself – so far back as to reach the source point or the birth of life. And eventually through the very micro (not to be mistaken for the Big Bang theory as it’s false, but the birth of life going back to the original human). People have forgotten this because they believe they’re separate from nature.

Moreover, we try to control it by building square cities, controlling weather patterns, and geo-engineering. We are like coral plants with different individual heads connected to one Oversoul. We are connected to the Oversoul or Gaia but with our individuality intact. However, Morrison is implying that the individual has taken over, and we cut ourselves apart (which is essentially the Lucifer effect) from the Oversoul. This result is one of many fundamental reasons for the seemingly pre-determined outcome that we are heading into, driven by the established elite.

It’s not about eliminating the individual but the relationship between ethics and responsible individualism. Yes, we are living from the results of the old ego structure, but the ego structure is the structure of the game or perhaps the nervous system. This structure was formed throughout the ages, and stepping outside while hoping for change is an illegitimate concept because you have isolated yourself from that structure. All this unpleasantness from the results of the old ego structure is destructive to personal lives and families. However, suppose you believe in change, spiritual growth, and democracy and believe legitimacy lies with the people or the responsible collective whole. In that case, you must be part of the old ego structure, and then you can cultivate a new one within the old one.

While Morrison identifies individualism as a conspiracy – his antithesis, Jordan Peterson- he describes postmodernism as a conspiratorial Marxist plot to undermine individualism. Both can be correct and incorrect simultaneously; given the apparent paradox, one must view it through the basis of Daoism that it’s neither, but a distraction Hegelian blame game between the left and right when an Oligarchy is to be blamed – a Hydra with its tentacles of power reaching into every institution and every establishment. The peak of the power pyramid is not concerned with left and right but uses both. This means notions of Postmodernist conspiracy stemming from a so-called radical left are no more valid than the conspiracy of individualism guise as nationalism – when totalitarianism is the plot. Both points are wrong because the conspiracy plot comes from a higher order.   

Peterson defines postmodernism as a tool for great social transformation that can manifest itself in many places. Reducing it to a set number of principles is very difficult, and any attempt to define it is an oversimplification. Yet he proceeds to do so through a very narrow field – with the added component of postmodernism having some allegiance with Marxism. He describes postmodernism as an attitude of scepticism. 

They do share a narrative, and that’s through one group trying to dominate another group, but this happens a lot. It’s not necessarily through Marxist ideals because that would mean attempting to encompass Marxism collectively when such oppression is through criminal-Capitalism, which is different to capitalism, that collective already sees as a credible utility. [To describe oppression in society is somehow “Marxist” this would mean right-libertarians who discuss state and crony capitalist are coercing the general public are “Marxist” even evangelicals (minus the conspiracy theory crowd) are oppressed by powerful liberal elites are “Marxist.” Peterson defines “postmodernism” too narrowly, and then uses “Marxism” in such a loose manner that it means nothing. https://notesonliberty.com/]

He describes postmodernism as a Marxist plot that’s self-evident through the works of Derrida and Foucault. [He wants to claim that postmodernism is this pernicious, all-encompassing threat that has consumed all of the humanities and social sciences, which hates Western civilization. He then intends to define postmodernism so narrowly that it merely describes the views of basically just Foucault. [https://notesonliberty.com/] – The link between the two is merely genealogical. Many thinkers who typify postmodernism were Marxists, communists, or were otherwise involved in radical leftist politics at one point in their lives. Foucault, Lyotard, D&G, Baurillard etc., postmodernism stands as a reaction against the dominance of Marxism within French academia. Marxists since have generally been pretty anti-postmodernism.

A ton of the views he champions (a pragmatic theory of truth, a respect for Nietzsche’s use of genealogy, a naturalist emphasis on the continuity between animals and humans, etc.) are all views that are often called “postmodern” depending on how broadly one understands “incredulity towards meta-narratives,” and at the very least were extremely influential over most postmodern philosophers and echoed in their work. https://notesonliberty.com/ 

At particular times, Peterson breaks his rules, akin to politicians advocating significant policies and then lying about the moment they were instilled. He has mentioned that he is a Liberal and Conservative, but would then describe himself as none of those things as he doesn’t have the temperament because he has a creative side. He is quoted as “a great sceptic of well-meaning attempts to adjust large social systems from the basis of ideology.” Doesn’t this statement lean towards postmodernism? 

Jordan Peterson – Identity Politics & The Marxist Lie of White Privilege
Right – thinking[in terms of Political Dualities left & right]	Left  –thinking[in terms of Political Dualities left & right]
The reason that the intersectionality has emerged within the postmodernist’s corpus is because the theorists themselves understand there is an infinite number of dimensions across which people differ.   This is why the west invented the concept of individualism to begin with. Because if you fractionate groups to the ultimate atomic level you end up with the individual. You have to treat the individual as a unique nexus of factors.	Christ [Logos] was the human imagination’s attempt at the representation of the “perfect man” and is therefore of more ethical value than every other domain of human thought.   Despite the fact that the human imaginations in question were those of ancient, but impressively genocidal Jews and 1st century Mediterranean livestock wranglers.

The political left holds society and culture through Ethics and community; he wants that for the political right but has to contend with it being on the left.

Morrison’s evaluation of the corpus callosum needs to be longer to find a better context, perhaps due to a short lecture. And Peterson’s interview with Iain McGilchrist fills in what is missing. Iain wrote a book called ‘the master and the Emissary’, which describes the relationship between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. He describes the brain’s right hemisphere as the more dominant, which he calls ‘the master’ – the right hemisphere is more reliable, sees more, and understands more than the left hemisphere, which he describes as a high-functioning bureaucrat (the emissary). The master and the emissary assert that the master can’t do everything and delegate it to the emissary. With the understanding that it must not get involved with specific points of view; otherwise, it loses what was captured.

The Corpus Callosum that Morrison discussed briefly inhabits the other hemisphere because, over time, the two hemispheres had to specialize and become more selective because it enables the two to be distinguished. Of course, they have to work together to avoid having the same individual roles; a differentiation aspect is important for the two roles to work together. Inhibition is one way of distinguishing these aspects so effectively. The two roles take on the world that the hemisphere has but are only sometimes compatible. And not being aware of that because there is a level below consciousness. There is a meta-control centre that brings them together. So, in the ordinary experience, we don’t feel we’re in two different worlds, but effectively, we are. We have other qualities, goals, values, and meaning to the world.

The right hemisphere opens up possibilities, whereas the left hemisphere wants to close it down to certainty. This is similar to Peterson’s Chaos and Order concept; chaos and order are necessary for order and balance. Peterson describes standing on the borders of order and chaos as a good idea. Iain elaborates that for anything to come into existence there needs to be an element of resistance. And things are never predicated on one pole of what is always a dipole. Certain assumptions are that certain things are good and others are bad, and getting rid of the bad is as detrimental as pursuing the good things so far that they become deficient. There is a need to be wary of left-brain certainties because it blocks out certain anomalies that the right brain detects – the right hemisphere pauses on those certainties and instead imposes a question or query that can come from insight. That could explain a better understanding. Hence, a propensity for theories to be updated with those anomalies included.                                      

Being open to uncertainty as much as you can tolerate being in an unstable position is where you can find meaning. And meaning through instinct or intuition makes you aware that you’ve balanced your left hemisphere with the open capacity of the right hemisphere – making you both aware while simultaneously expanding it. One could ultimately view determinism in this regard, where you can define the indeterminate aspect of it through time. Where time is a static slice that God has determined, and everything is just unfolding. At the same time, things are unfolding to the effect with an overall direction, alongside intuition that aligns with the co-creator aspect, which inevitability plays a role in determining the final outcome.

There has to be a need to question the notion of hierarchies through biology and naturalism as a reason to justify inequality and, therefore, criminal/global capitalism. The basis for grounding reason in nature as anchors to validate dominant power is akin to fundamentalism and its absolutes. Peterson’s evaluation of postmodernism is singular and, therefore, only partial to the whole; he also repeats the notion of hierarchies through biology as a reason to single out postmodernism through moral ethics. However, where is the middle line regarding morality, given morality needs to be invented to mean anything?  

Peterson’s evaluation of postmodernism through Foucault and Derrida’s works is problematic, but postmodernism doesn’t start and end there. And I would argue that some of the problems he recognizes within those teachings are New Age philosophical contentions, which esoteric scholars have been parsing out for decades.    

Peterson’sMarxistcritique is solely focused on one aspect of history, notably through the Soviets under Stalin, which used Marxism and claimed to be Marxists – as well as other varying supplementary examples that came from that [the ongoing anomaly that is North Korea]. This strand of interpretation or understanding of Marxism during the Cold War ceased to be relevant in 1989. Marks died around 150 years ago, but his ideas spread throughout other countries with different cultures, histories, politics, and economics, all interpreted in distinctive ways. There is no Marxism in a singular sense. The assumption of identity politics coming from a so-called radical left is perplexing because he also imparts cultural Marxism (Cultural Bolshevism) to the argument, which is a far-right argument. Cultural Marxismß has no real application in Marxist theory; the closest cultural Marxismß got to actual Marxismß is determining how culture played a role in Capitalism (economic and cultural analysis). There is merit in suggesting that Marxism and the ensuing notion of identity politics originated through Christian theology’s narrative with a significant focus on eschatology, not Marxism itself. The Christian idea is that the marginalized will triumph in the end, and in the kingdom of God, the last will become the first and the last.        

Maybe there is an attempt for a conspiratorial decent of culture, but this doesn’t come from the left – the left is only the chosen mode from which the tyrannical tentacle decides to attach itself – It comes from somewhere else. Everything left of where right-thinkers are about fear or loathing, so they focus on the identitarian aspect of how democrats hijack identity politics to sell the same ideas and institutions. You can allocate the fear of inclusion in society within those terms with a sprinkle of conspiracy theories added to the Marxist and Postmodernism philosophy. The misunderstanding lies in assuming the good can only be found in a left spectrum [or genuine good is only for the right because the left is now labelled as ‘dreaded’] – when tribal civilizations lived without the concept of Abrahamic faiths and economic credit structures for millennia. No one would dare reduce Christianity the same way, given that the Catholics once had an inquisition – or the Christians that came to the United States (as well as Australia) and persisted in wiping out the ethnic population they found there. There has to be an account of what’s been done in the name of Christianity. However, to define Christianity through this singular example would be unheard of. So, the same can be said with Marxism.    

Socialism is the critique of capitalism, a product of Marxist theory, and even those who aren’t Marxist were critical of capitalism. Marxism is the most developed tradition of that. You can identify China as the best-developed form of Marxism. It would be challenging to identify China as a communist country; given the country’s objective has little to do with class. China can be described as a Communist country with a veneer of market economics, or is it a capitalist country with a nominally Communist government? Perhaps it is both: ‘state capitalism’ with a framework of Communist party rule.  

Evidently, the most significant legislative critique of capitalism from the United States comes from the South (Oklahoma). During the great depression, there was a movement from the country’s working class. The CIO was the biggest unionization the country had ever seen. Two socialist and communist parties grew during the depression. It was the communists, socialists and unions that represented millions of workers. They initiated a meeting with the president then and proposed to the president to help the millions of workers during the depression. The president at the time didn’t want a backlash or revolution rising. He had a scenario where he could take advantage of an opportunity to hold his position of power, and he accepted the meeting. The government and businesses at the time proposed a strategy where they convinced other companies to give him finances to favour the American people on the condition the group stopped any notions of revolutions.

They divided the business community, but those who were pro-equality and the president established the social security system in the Depression era. Those from the age of 65 onwards would get a check for the rest of their lives. There was unemployment compensation, passing the first minimum wage, creating a federal employment program (those that built many of the national parks) and conservation work. WPA announced to all unemployed artists to create a group instilling cultural development throughout the United States. To do all of this, you had to have money, and for Roosevelt to make do with his claim, he taxed corporations and the rich, an action that had never been seen before. This action would gain favour from the people; he was then elected three times after that. And this all happened through a movement below from the left.     

There is a distinction between capitalism and criminal capitalism; with all its faults, capitalism is held up as a utility that people accept. The confusion comes about through the delusion that somehow it brought forth democracy, which is unfounded. While (Criminal)-Capitalism produces and reproduces inequality, exemplified by French economist Thomas Piketty’s evaluation. Capitalism promised many notions of liberty, equality, and brotherhood but never followed through. Every place capitalism settled from England in the 18th century, all across the world’s dominant system, always followed an economic downturn with it. Every 4 to 7 years, this economic system tanks from 1929-41 until 2008, and 11 downturns have become evident. J.P Morgan Chase Bank issued a regular report, predicting the next downturn would be early in 2020. 

Act Four: Wet Nurse the Flu [Dai the Flu]; Die the Flu: How convenient is it then that a (C-19)-Virus has emerged upon the prediction of this downturn, and perhaps it’s about fearing social change that gestates from the good, and not necessarily through conventions  [like in Roosevelt’s time, but a more extensive scale]. It plays on the notion of Christian Theology regarding the last shall be the first concept. And in this realization, an attendant co-creator QAnon or ‘Q ‘for short, happens to come online. Then, at a particular time, they write the script and feed the millenarianism groups’ delusions. That inherently needs to impart an apocalypticism view.

So, I mentioned before how fundamentalists use something unquantifiable and the fear of uncertainty to move specific political schemes. And recognise that these are just abstractions that are only held in mind. And any notions stemming from those abstractions have a habit of deceiving like a Virus. This has relevance because, in our modern times, a literal Virus with (Bird) )-like Flu characteristics has emerged in our modern-day landscape. With all the hallmarks of unquantifiability and uncertainties that can strike at any time, this is the problem. The reaction is to observe the creation of uncertainty as manipulation. The more you feed into the uncertainty with imagination, the more it grows, acting like a virus. A solution is a low-level form of totalitarianism through a rational process of isolationism disguised as good intentions, while a technocratic plot is being played behind the scenes. That uses uncertainty for a reason as one of its motivations. The how and the why I leave that to alarmist researchers. These are very sophisticated types of False Flags that use morphing opposites. 

We’ve discussed the rule of morphing opposites or inversions, as conspiracy theorists define it. We’ve also discussed how the US’s political climate now imbues conspiracy theory as something normal to the mainstream. The so-called millenarianism and ‘Q’ can be controlled opposition because the political marketing campaigners know how to cater to an audience inclined to outlandish notions. I’m not saying their conspiracy theory is wrong; I’m trying to infer that the paranoid types can follow any spokesperson that uses the fear of uncertainty so blindly. Perhaps it’s all a distraction for them as a looming capitalistic-technocratic-plot is about to be bestowed upon them, possibly by the same government leaders they support as heroes.  

‘Q’ is the 17th letter of the alphabet and a signifier for Horus. Finally, the Character ‘Question’ in DC comics is inspired by ‘Mr. A’ a character inspired by Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism. In some ways, this philosophy is similar to Descartes’s notions of self-contained objects. Objectivism is popular among libertarians and Conservatives. These philosophies are outside political spectrums, meaning both sides can adopt them. And the conservatives use their argument to prop up individualism, which always has a sprinkle of nationalism. Rand once said: “There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.” 

Similarly, Mr A used a calling card that was half-black and half-white, saying there was good and evil and nothing in between. The nature and rule of morphing opposites contradict these notions; nothing is ever black and white, and the middle is always evil because it’s the oligarchy. Wannabe creator-Stewards, but will always are a poor rendition of the original evil deceiver because it is stuck in an uninvolved human state. We also have the character ‘Rorschach’, an offshoot of ‘Question’ who is now a symbol for the far-right conservative group in the sequel to Watchmen.

So we have ‘Q’ and ‘Mr. A’ a culmination of ‘Q’ and ‘A’ – Mr Peterson goes on Australia’s ABC show QandA. Similarly, by its very name ‘Q’ and ‘N’ (QAnon) ‘, N‘ for Non as in Nun meaning all things ‘Fish’ (also means None or Space) signifies you can ask questions, but there are no (real) answers. He also lectures in a Trump Hotel. He also fights the Senate on aspects of the C-16 bill, all while a C-19 Virus is about to loom. While the Conservative chief and master’s prodigal son dresses like Thanos on Halloween, Thanos’s ship in the Avengers film is shaped like ‘Q’ – and the fictional character Thanos’s main goal is to depopulate the world. The Trump Hotel in Las Vegas is shaped like the ‘Y’ symbol, which also signifies ‘destination’ and ‘Trinity’ symbol that has a strange association with the Mandalay Bay shooting. During that time, there were purposeful coded typos in news articles that describe the hoax event: “more than50 people were killed,” the typo ‘than50’ as in Thanos – the Thanos/Than50 are hinting who they are – the Thanos’s people. The gunman, Stephen Paddock, is a 64-year-old man. 64+32 [thirty-second floors] equals 96, the 6-9 false death codes.

The ‘Q’ group, which seems to act like Christian-Conspiracy-Theorists-Conservative-Political-Campaigners once, known as the Millenarianism group, now known as ‘Q’ [the meme think virus] is the anti-group version of the fictional millennium group in the T.V show Millennium.

As the 3rd millennium approached, the Group’s internal differences began to manifest into two factions—the “Roosters”, who believed in a religiously eschatological view of the end of the world, and the “Owls”, who believed the world would end with a secular natural disaster. Attempting to instigate the end of the world artificially, the Rooster faction began to develop a lethal virus; in 1998 they released this virus in the Pacific Northwest, killing upwards of seventy people before the outbreak was contained. A year later, a vastly depleted Millennium Group staged one last attempt to trigger the apocalypse, resurrecting deceased members in order to create the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse; when this plot was foiled by the FBI, it was believed to have caused the dissolution of the Group. – Wikipedia

The warring faction was said to be inspired by the creative’s study on the faction between the Knights Templar and Freemasonry. The overall group’s symbol was depicted as the Ouroboros. Millenarianism refers to a more cataclysmic and destructive arrival of a utopian period than millennialism. And is often used to denote a more peaceful arrival and is more closely associated with a one-thousand-year utopia. There are morphing opposites here to the extent the core belief is swapped.     

Rooster Faction as in Bird faction who releases a deadly virus – birds in Egyptian mythologies are identified as carries for the soul. Then we have the Etheric alignment symbol or map was drawn in blood – and we also have cloned twins.

The Twin aspect is significant here as it ties in with the number 17, and the 17th number of the alphabet is ‘Q.’ The number 17 is important because of its association with 153 (the fish). We discussed the concepts of resurrection and incarnation in the last post. So, we have ‘Question’ questioning the Man in the Sky about an ending world conspiracy centring on the Man in the Sky, a.k.a. the ‘Son of Nun’ (in this retrospective, it’s Superman, a solar Christ figure). I53 is the numerical value of the sacred geometric symbol of the Vesica Piscis.

This symbolically coincides with Eldarin beings, Star Trek, and the bloodlines of the gods, also mentioned in my last post. The Twin symbol signified in Star-Trek- Picard is the Vesica Piscis symbol. We have the bird-of-prey space-ship (birds are symbolic carriers of souls) flying away from it [the bird, in my symbolic assumption, pierces through the pearl contained between the two concentric circles]. Symbolically, the show is loosely based on the creation of the Man and the Soul twin or the concepts of the two divine sisters. We have Man (Dr Soong) Creating A.I. (Data), the God created Man; Man creating A.I. creation motif, repeated many times in films like Blade Runner, Battlestar Galactica, Ghost in the Shell, etc. Data’s positronic brain houses metaphorical DNAs in which Dr Maddox solves the soul transference problem, now in a complete form through the Data’s techno-progeny symbolized in the twin. One of the Twins dies, and Picard becomes her shattered vessel; he must now find the other twin in which he and the vessel become complete.                              

The link between unique bloodlines that are out of sync with the rest of the human populace is depicted in Star Trek’s utopian token figure – the Elve-like and humanistic being ‘Spock.’ Spock represents the left-right brain in balance; the Vulcans are a logic-based society with intuitive psychic abilities, which is incongruent with their archetype. The Vulcans have cultivated the logic aspect of their brain to the point that it had nowhere to go other than intuition, which is its polar opposite in the brain functions. Rationality rules only to the fact that it cannot go any farther without help from those highly intuitive aspects – those who have reached cosmic consciousness. Steven Hawkins was so left-brain that it came full circle that his right brain took over, a speculative notion. Still, his calculations couldn’t go any further without applying a postmodern deterministic model. And if it’s deterministic, it means there is a creator, which means there is a God [but only as much as logic permits it; ‘rationalists, go figure.’]

Spock, but more precisely, the pure Vulcan people, a.k.a. Elder Beings, represent this imbalance in mind and blood. However, X-files in the revival season eight, “My Struggle 2”, and season one “, The Erlenmeyer Flask”, outline the spooky link between a fictional alien blood virus and the meta-narrative/artefact of testing bird-flu virus. The story goes:  

An alien DNA has been injected into every American citizen in order to facilitate the widespread outbreak of the Spartan Virus. Designed to strip humans of their immune systems, this contagion quickly manifests itself nationwide, with Scully and Einstein noting a sharp increase in the number of patients admitted to hospitals and triage centers.   Scully and Einstein attempt to develop a vaccine using Scully’s DNA. Scully realizes that she is being protected from the contagion by a combination of the alien genomes that remained after she was abducted and experimented on, and the DNA anomalies instilled within her at the request of Reyes. It is the absence of alien DNA that makes everybody else susceptible. – Wikipedia

DNAs counter type RNA (or DNAs opposite) plays a significant role in the whole meta-narrative of uncertainty. DNA within the nucleus is passive, but when the cell decides to do something, it will arrange the DNA to produce RNA. The RNA will produce proteins (messages), which every living creature has. Even viruses, bacteria, and fungi have RNA. RNA is malleable, meaning it produces and is consumed again, which means the body doesn’t have the same RNA at any given time. The evolving drama about a pandemic is strictly based on some scientists in China who found some different RNAs. Finding RNA doesn’t prove it comes from a Virus – there has to be a set of purification tests done to eliminate similarities; tests never went through this process. And this makes it a speculative notion and, therefore, an epidemic of testing. The significant amount of false positives regarding testing is being ignored. Medical journals are enhancing an epidemic panic by interpreting the data only in ways that benefit the theory, even when the data are contradictory – which makes it a propaganda endeavour.

Bacteria are looking a bit Alien; at least X-files fictional [sort of] telling knows the process of purity testing.

X-files big bad the Syndicate is always attempting to create a human-alien master race and plot a spread of the extra-terrestrial virus via gene therapy by secret clandestine genetic determinists. While these conspirators use alien implants to track their human guinea pigs, along with homicidal tendencies that can be triggered by cell phones and other technologies, the episode “Blood” gave a shock to the cyber-hype of the nineties. But, of course, that was two decades ago; concurrently, the paranoia is still there; just add in a 5G component, and you’re up-to-date.

You only have to follow archetypal imagery associated with this particular endeavour. Like all other hoax-like endeavours that came before it, you can find the synch trail. This particular event is a magnet for other conspiracies that have no bearing on the hoax but latch onto it. Due to a significant populace sophisticated enough to know, those conspiracy notions may exist. Nonetheless, ‘those higher up know that we know, and they don’t care’ – a baseline conspiracy needs to be recognized, which is the testing component’s artefact. The conspiracy aspect of causes like weak immune systems still needs to be acknowledged.                

There were many prototype flu viruses, but the most famous was the Zika virus. And this came from blood experiments on monkeys produced by a biotech company financed by the Gates Foundation. They used engineered GMO mosquitos (OX513A) with a kill switch gene to implement the spread. The disinformation that was funnelled to the public was combating malaria. The problem-reaction-solution implementation of a vaccine has repeated concurrently with the Coronavirus that seemingly coincides with the economic downturn – with the help of media, pushed a grander narrative.

In the epic Sci-fi saga-like series “Star Trek Deep Space Nine,” a godlike race of shapeshifters called “The Founders” created a genetically modified warrior race called the Jem Hadar. Who required a drug called “Ketracel-white” to survive – Jem Hader’s only way of getting it was through the Founders; hence, they relied on their makers. In effect, this is what Oxitec Company has done with OX513A. They designed the pest in such a way with its kill switch gene that it requires the widespread popular antibiotic to survive. While the coronavirus has no signs or qualities of a bio-weapon, the debate surrounding its origination can’t be agreed upon. There is no doubt a similar implementation regarding a narcissistic dependency, whatever that maybe [vaccines] has all the hallmarks of dreariness on its way.                                            

The Corona virus’s name has a strange association with the goddess imagery. Heraclitus says: “Man is a portion of cosmic fire, imprisoned in a body of earth and water.” Hints at the fiery spark within every man, but is contained in a body on Earth. Man’s body is Man’s Earth, and the destruction of man’s Earth is the destruction of man’s body. In that regard, there were uncontrollable fires on Australia’s east coast that lasted for months; a year before that, there were fires also burning in California – all seemingly repeated events guise as natural disasters. Fire embodies destruction and new growth, but man’s cosmic fire is the spark. What are on fire are the bodies on Earth; the destruction of man’s body on Earth is analogous to the destruction of the stage. Moses once asserted that “God is a burning and consuming fire.” This aligns with the two divine sisters and the coming end of the world’s revelation engulfed in fire.

Wet nurse the Flu imagery – morphing of Saint Corona and Isis – it can also lead back to the Crown and the Lion.

So we have the potent Wet Nurse imagery associated with Isis on the backdrop of fire. Penny Dreadful is set in Los Angeles, and California was on fire a year or two ago. Some places hit were wine country, the wine, and the stone burning (the wine-stone, the blood from the stone is burning). Wet Nurse also means Dai – and Dai is Filipino slang for ‘dude.’ The dude is a character in The Big Lebowski – essentially the awakened Christ-consciousness figure; he is also the fool. The dude gets a call from the Masons. They need the dude’s help because, unlike the dude, they are without Christ-consciousness. It is a subtle nod to the physics explanation of the observer effect. Still, esoterically, it suggests that we are the narrators of (our) reality; reality is the stage upon which we play the fool. Distinctly, the fool with Christ consciousness within himself is like having the spark, which is all about reassembling the shattered psychic. The spark needs to get out, and it’s through death (the shattered vessel), but the psyche needs to be constituted first; that’s the Kintsugi-Alchemy aspect, which has a spiritual element.     

Act Four: The Sun shines a light on every Individual, while it moves on a Mobius strip: The sun’s nature is local and travels on the creator’s circuit – the sun also acts as a beacon for the individual personal rendering. The Sun and Moon are personally rendered to the individual – the observer of the holographic simulation, which we all share collectively. There is a morphing of postmodern and individualistic ideals here, which Flat Earth (philosophy) has made apparent.   

There is a logical base to Flat Earth’s notions. However, strong contentions still have unanswered questions that flat-earth logic needs help to answer. So it’s up in the air to theorize possible conclusions, not through logic but intuition. For example, the common consensus for the rotation of the Sun and Moon on a flat earth map is impossible due to the declination of sunrise and sunset, especially in the southern hemisphere. In a certain place in Alaska, it can be observed that the Sun never sets, and due to perspective, there is a sunset and sunrise.

Along with the anomaly that the rotations of the star around the Polaris star, which are transfixed, move counter-clockwise as opposed to the southern hemisphere, where it rotates around a supposed South Pole star called Sigma Octantis moves clockwise. While we can’t determine a definitive answer for the anomalies of star rotations, there is strong contention to suggest it’s due to magnetic declinations. So, when you look from south to north, stars spin clockwise, and when you look from north to south, the stars move counter-clockwise. The celestial axis makes a cross or an “X”, and the “X” marks the spot. You can also be assured that water always finds its level.

Within this anomaly, it doesn’t mean going back to a false belief system. It means figuring out the answer; perhaps a rational explanation is insufficient. Maybe focusing on metaphysics and perception, with the understanding that we are co-creators, can help derive a plausible answer. Concerning the sunset and sunrise declination, there is a theoretical plausibility that the creator’s circuit is shaped like a Mobius strip [also known as an inverted infinity symbol], and the Sun and Moon follow that circuit. 

The natural rotation of the Sun and Moon imparts a philosophy for individualism and, simultaneously, is shared collectively with everyone else. The Sun and the Moon travel on the creator circuit – at the same time, the Sun and Moon are personally rendered for every individual as the observer. So, this notion is both a Morrison and Peterson point of view regarding individualism – although my view on individualism is not far-right, as opposed to Peterson, who promotes this position in his writings.

Peterson has never overtly described himself as an Evangelical Christian, but it’s implicit in his writings or mirrors the same views. Peterson proclaims that Christian doctrines elevated the individual soul, placing enslaved persons and enslavers on the same metaphysical footing, rendering them equal before God and the law. This particular importance was then valued in ‘works’ [minus the indulgence aspect], and within these works, it prevented kings from lording it over the commoner morally. In addition, the Christian insists that one cannot attain salvation through works alone. Evangelicalism imposes an eschatological solid faith and belief system.

And regarding salvation, you must impart a strong spiritual deed not to burn forever. The distinction regarding ‘works’ and Peterson’s inclusion of that word is distinctly what someone does and what they are. And this is made clear in the striking difference between Catholicism and other Christian religions. The opposite of works under Evangelicalism is your divine nature (grace-level). You level this up by accepting Jesus as your saviour and getting others to do the same: evangelizing.

To summarize, the fundamental view that Peterson claims directly reflects Evangelical ideals – Evangelicals believe that all souls are equal, but some souls have more value than others. Unfortunately, Peterson explains this in an overly definitive way. The Christian version (or his) of equality is at the heart of the West, and it wasn’t in play before Christianity, but it’s also not in play now, even though it’s not central to the West.

If you don’t believe his tendency to lean to a far-right position, maybe a quote from his twelve rules for life can sway you: “Consider the murderousness of your own spirit before you dare accuse others and before you attempt to repair the fabric of the world. Maybe it’s not the world that’s at fault. Maybe it’s you… you’ve fallen short of the glory of God. You’ve sinned.”  Peterson’s negative internal focus comes to light: be good because you’re awful, but he misses the Oligarchy and Hydra aspect within the hierarchies that he discusses – as well the conspiracy side that follows it, which is a quality that is not the fault of oneself.       

While Morrison’s lecture imposed large philosophical contentions in such a short lecture, denying individualism, proclaiming people with NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) are mutants and is, therefore, an evolutionary step-up because they have no context [which I disagree with], and magic. Morrison’s take on a reverse version of the Big Bang Theory [everything is flowing back to its source] so it can match the ‘oneness’ philosophy is only mitigated due to a false theory, to begin with. It’s a new take on Nihilism with a sprinkle of New Age notions. It’s okay if the world destroys itself because we are Lava; the higher beings watch over us. After all, they have no concept of time – they watch over their experiment, humans in time, and they’re waiting for humans to grow spiritually. As they change from Lava to a butterfly – the new age’s New Earth concept is akin to Christian end-time eschatology, where the next life has more importance than the one you have now; it’s the same thing.         

Peterson imposes his analysis on the eschatological aspect of Religion while proclaiming it comes from Nietzsche; he proposes that great philosophers mounted an assault on Christian thinking – which had to accept the proposition that Christ’s sacrifice redeemed humanity. And for that, redemption had already been borne by the Savior. And nothing of importance remained for the all-too-fallen human individuals. Nietzsche only claimed that the Christian faith as practised was not a proper representation of Jesus’ teachings – the distinction between acting Christian and Christ-like, not his statement mentioned above. He imparts that Paul and the Lutherans removed responsibility from Christ’s followers. This aspect of removal is an Evangelical argument. He further elaborates this notion through Jung while quoting Nietzsche [on pg.189, 12 Rules for Life]

The three critical dogmas according to Peterson that have dire consequences are:

Christs crucifixion redeemed the world	The idea that this life does not matter, it is in the next life that mattered – this had the added consequence of reducing the responsibility for problems that humans face and the drive to fix it
Salvation is reserved for the hereafter	Accept how things are because nothing you do can change your salvation level status
Salvation cannot be achieved through works	Jesus already did the heavy lifting so you can morally slack off.

These Dogmas somehow match Morrison’s New Age nihilism aspect, putting them on the same boat; it’s just a flip of the coin. Peterson takes comfort in believing that these Dogmas died [or God is dead], and what emerged was nihilism. Along with it, science brought with it a new totalizing utopian idea: communism and Fascism [I’ve already analyzed the wrong notions of these ideas so that I will skip that]. There is nothing to suggest that science can’t be dogmatic; science’s tangent mode, scientism, draws many ideas from the same source as religion.         

Peterson’s notion of Marxism and Postmodernism needs updated contemporary views and hints of historical facts. Instead of imposing a revisionist aspect of history with his followers, he states, “Christianity separated church from the state so that all-too-human emperors could no longer claim the veneration due to gods.” Historically, there are many accounts that Kings and Queens, notably in the West, claimed the divine right to rule. But, then, this divine right was used as an excuse to impose a feudal system; slavery was filtered down to the religious notion of good works that impart a reward system in the kingdom of heaven.                           

Once you get past his analysis of Nietzsche, Jung, and Dostoevsky in association with Christianity, you will realize emphases on hierarchies and evolutionary determinism that can fit into a Logos philosophy. He is an absolutist in discrete; if it’s not ‘A’, it’s ‘B’ – if it’s not Heaven, it’s Hell with no room for ambiguity though he claims to stand in the border of chaos and order; maybe he is just full of contradictions. Or that he uses morphing opposites of ideas that confuse people. For instance, he cites: “It’s not as if Nietzsche was unwilling to give the faith – and, more particularly, Catholicism – its due.” Peterson points out Catholicism, but not Christianity as a whole, even though Nietzsche’s father was a Lutheran, not a Catholic, and who else likes to point fingers at Catholicism: fundamentalist Evangelical Christians. [I’m not saying Catholicism is without fault; I’m merely pointing out a parallel].                    

Peterson hates postmodernism because of his absolutist way of thinking, yet he proclaims he stands on the borders of chaos and order. This contradiction is perhaps a meta-morphing of opposites to perpetuate itself in its censored form. He uses intuition as a reason, not intuition itself, reason guise as intuition. Though it is still part of the right hemisphere of thinking deductive logic and the ability to reason, it depends on the right hemisphere; however, it’s still not intuition; it’s reason propagating as logic. However, it’s still a step ahead of rationalist thinkers.     

Flat earth philosophy [a relatively new term I’m propagating] deconstructs the basis of current belief systems – it’s new and ambitious and could have implications if not understood correctly. Ultimately, it’s a bland philosophical abstraction because it hasn’t reached its peak point concerning a collective understanding [to them, it’s an intriguing thought experiment – for flat earthers, it’s a foundation for truth]. Flat earth philosophy only questions its foundation. Flat earth philosophy does not sit morally or ethically in the centre of relativism. It can sometimes be used as a gateway for relativism, not in mainstream arguments, but in conspiratorial ones. Some flat earth notions (New Age Flat Earthers) once advocated the Jews are the big bad, Hitler was a hero, and Nukes are hoaxes – there is no sense of responsibility regarding the implications of these notions. The most common thread in any psychological operations or controlled oppositions is what they’re for and what they’re not revealing. What was not revealed by New Age flat earthers is the Catholic Churches’ involvement in that totalitarian drama, and because of this, what they’re for is revealed. One must view it from a white-centred historical perspective to grasp it. Colin Wilson’s Outsider concept comes close to this understanding.       

To perpetuate itself in its censored form is a Trojan Horse aspect, a wolf in sheep’s clothing scenario – when deep down, it boils down to fear. In this case, it is the fear of inclusion from cultures that differ from their standard forms of normalcy. Whenever people in a dominant position get nervous about the security of their dominance, they like to anchor it in nature. Advocating notions like [Peterson’s]: dominance and naturally driven hierarchies, Logos, & Crabs are part of evolutionary processes – these notions now being natural superiorities. In equal measure, Morison says: there is nothing in reality that is not nature; nature made men, who invented things that we think are separate, but ultimately, this separation is an illusion, and it’s all part of nature. The obvious meta-morphing of opposites has found its constant ‘nature,’ though it seems to be an argumentative out for both because the contention lies in the imbalance. Morrison lacks logic; Peterson lacks intuition. Moreover, both can tell you certain truths because they’re at the forefront of managing perception. Flat Earth’s philosophy deconstructs the stage and the wrong aspect of evolution and holds as a reminder that they’re just social conventions, and you can change them.   

Postmodernism questions meanings and grand narratives, which can be exemplified through scientism and comparative-Christian-religion through the archetype of the Logos. Scientism issues a “meaningless” universe devoid of certain structures and, by extension, God. Christian-Religious-Dogmatism, being its opposite, lacks archetypal ancestry and holds Biblical literalism as an absolute. And this is why Postmodernism is such a threat to any form of absolutist structure and philosophy. The supposed danger comes in denying grand narratives that supposedly hold society together for the proposition of a new one. It’s less about denial, an upgrade, a re-loaded simulation or a New Testament. Fictional storytellers outside absolutist conventions have been repackaging these old myths for decades. [I once described it as timeless archetypal key-frames in the human play]. There is no danger in that; civilization will not collapse because of archetypal indifference.

The proposed denial of the grand narrative’s proposition somehow makes Christion’s past endeavours non-existent in that their endeavour didn’t come with upheavals from those they conquered. Christian endeavours are free from historical atrocities – the same endeavour that imposes its grand narrative through evolution and cultural beliefs. Then you’re left with conventions trapped in a Hegelian web with no signs of progress as our imaginations are kindly controlled. The dogmatic side of science still evaluates the spirit through materialism; psychology denotes the term psyche as a phenomenon of the brain and the nervous system. Still, this opinion is a better evaluation of the psyche than science’s denial of everything outside the physical. The denial of everything outside the physical is where the denial of the grand narrative’s proposition is applicable, not through types of philosophy that generate ideas (postmodernism).        

Spiritual science is an old term used to express its modern meaning, which is found in the new term liberal arts (literature, music, etc.). The other is known as physical sciences.’ Jung revives the term spirit for a better understanding of culture. He states: “Spirit is the principle that stands in opposition to matter; by this, we understand immaterial substance or form of existence, which on the highest and most universal level is called God. We also imagine this immaterial substance as the vehicle of a psychic phenomenon or even of life itself. In contradiction to this view, there stands the antithesis; here, the concept of Spirit is restricted to the supernatural and anti-natural – and has lost its substantial connection with psyche and life.” So, what he’s implying is that both in Religion and Science teachings. The meaning of spirituality has been lost. Religion has lost the principle of the embodiment of incarnation, not of Jesus, but of the Spirit.

Jung was aware that archaic people were aware of the autonomous and sovereign quality of the spirit entity. However, the archaic man experiences it as an immaterial breath-like present, which exists in his environment as if it were outside him. He states: “With growing development, however, it enters the sphere of human consciousness and becomes a function on the consciousness whereby its autonomous character is apparently lost.” So this is similar to Crowley’s notion of magic through music: “The sequence of that impression, which constitutes our intellectual apprehension of the universe, is replaced by that form of consciousness.”  And this all contributes to how we deal with reality, especially regarding the spirit – that we first project it. Then, this intelligent force or entity outside of us has a measure of objectivity, and the individual has to be re-absorbed. Then, gradually, we begin to recognize the reality we previously assumed is out there is not out there, but somehow mysteriously in here.  

This general principle is vital to understand because it differentiates New Age’s co-creating new world concept, a distinction of postmodernism. However, it had its roots in spiritual materialism and religion. Spiritual-materialism was taken from the Archaic or shamanistic belief that the spirit has an all-pervading substance. That underlines various phenomena, which then turned into a materialistic doctrine. At the same time, Jung regarded it as the identity of spirit and psyche functions instead of mere brain functions (spiritual-materialism). Religion identifies God through the term “Supreme Good”, with the original identity of a substance expressed through fallen angels and the near relationship with Yahuwah and Satan. These come from old Jewish mythologies where the predisposition was to make the law of God have the premise of good and bad tendencies – as a way to explain theodicy. Then it split off to Satan being the evil one, but the focus here is that daemonic and the divine are both parts of that realm and what we refer to as spirit.                      

Religion then lost its meaning of spirit; religion should then be reminded about the source and original character of the spirit – so that the individual never forgets what they draw into their field and with what they feel is their consciousness. After all, it’s not the individual who created it for himself; on the contrary, it’s what makes them create it. Our creativity is the result of this quality around us and inside of us; this is what we call the spirit; it penetrates the human essence – then man is tempted to believe to a certain point that man is the creator of spirit and possesses it. And this is the enantiodromia process. 

The enantiodromia process must be achieved before any notions of New World ideals; this is challenging given how the ego structure works. And this is based on Jung’s conception of the ethical dilemma of false creation. When it expresses, it cannot give creation inspiration (or ecstasy) without taking it away from somewhere else because our reality is intertwined with other realities. To move past false creation, one must step outside of the world creatively and enter another one – because nothing is being taken if it’s drawn out from the right source. What we call emptiness, or the higher world (the spirit), exists in abundance instead of reality, where we work with available resources.   

Suppose the mind is not tuned in to the good transcendental consciousness. In that case, creativity is not readily available. Instead, they approach it with emptiness, resulting in a shower of ideas. This Zen approach has value in determining the correct ethical value concerning the penetration or creation of new realities – must meet the alteration of the mind. Philo’s four kinds of altered states often described these alterations, which aligned with Greek pantheon gods. I then broke this down through four points of psychological analysis (or four points of Ecstasy: 1-Pathological, 2-Extreme Amazement, 3-Passivity of mind, 4-Divine Possession) through the study Mark P. The ‘Pathological’ entails a fallacy on the philosophy of individualism, which generally involves an unstable psyche that’s been taken over by a state of ecstasy, a mad delusion. It can always be seen in the political realm where dictators become apparent. Tolkien described it as “the greed for self-centred power, which is the mark of a mere lower magician.”     

Jung’s Psychology of Spirit’s notion of enantiodromia is similar to the meta-morphing of opposites – although the enantiodromia can be more profound. The concept of psycho-spiritual transformation stands apart from the enlightenment process involving contact with light. The New Age has distorted the idea of light, leaving out the mind. The enantiodromia process manifests as a spirit in dreams through archetypes – it’s not certain that the spirit figures are morally good. Often, it appears morally ambivalent or downright malicious. These uncertainties by Jung’s Statement: “Who knows about the great plan and how much evil is necessary to bring about the good by enantiodromia, and which the good will turn into evil – wait and see.” So, the enantiodromia process is about the whole instead of certain details concerning arguments between dualities. He remarks that there are no readymade solutions but a confrontation between uncertainty and moral evaluation with the confusing interplay between good and bad. Emotions like guilt, suffering, and redemption must be acknowledged and resolved. Jungian scholars know for alchemy to take place, there needs to be an interaction with the opposite.    

Jung implies the reward that comes after jumping out of rational consciousness. Man’s propensity to spin its wheel in one level of consciousness where logic, rationality, causality, and morality hold all the rules are incompatible. So, there’s a need to rise out of that. Then, you will come into certain insights and recognitions that don’t belong in those modes but are as much part of that world when you recognize an infusing between ordinary views with a perspective that has a greater value.

This is where Flat-earth philosophy can open those greater perspectives. Flat Earth deconstructs while synchro-mysticism decodes together. It can be an intriguing method of thought. It asks the individual to step away from Pavlov’s conditioning and question their overall identity. And this challenges how you perceive the universe to ignite your power of will. To go beyond an active or passive mind or integrate both. In a time where Events and Hoaxes are so common, it’s almost normalized. All while warnings by conspiracy theorists no longer sway the public on possible upcoming events propagated by (Archonic) agents of descent. Perhaps this is a time for the synchro-mystics to rise and educate through asymmetrical foundations, making it more memorable – because we’re heading into a time where it’s up to the individual and the collective to manifest their own reality. All awhile being impervious to tricks in the guise of some Pavlovian pattern response – this is bigger than mere political correctness (woke culture), a system of cultural descent predominantly driven by offspring of upper-middle-class families. The marginalized are all too silent in such debates; they are merely subjects for strawman tactics.            

Concurrently, two cultural developments are currently running: the Coronavirus and identity politics in entertainment culture. The common thread is a fear of uncertainty driven by the power of dialectical thinking. It should never be integrated into politics and entertainment. Otherwise, the magic is lost. However, what can be integrated and what dissolves fear of uncertainty is love and acceptance. You do this by creating a new narrative [as co-creators], not by changing one environment from one to another but by changing your mental perception.

Love and acceptance detached from the New Age’s notion of love promote something artificial. People often don’t like to infer New Age ideas, yet they still refer to it in their arguments with a slight disconnection. This is exemplified in the quote, “not to sound like a New Age … […]” – because, in many ways, New Age notions are a filtered-down mechanism of esotericism. Its backlash is usually through its distorted teachings, the complacency of mind, and the over-simplification of monism; all you need is a loving approach. The challenge lies in the interrogation, which corresponds to dissolving the ego and transcending duality, which is part of the gradual recovery of the elements of the perfect light. Love is held as the ultimate reality, which is universal, with cosmic consciousness being the highest love that you can attain.  

This notion of love is also a fundamental aspect of the Christian ethic. The rationalist atheist, being its polar opposite, is there to remind them not to fall into religious dogmatism. Because of this, the Christian’s ethic of love is regulated to its material form; its limitation transforms into something diluted into some abstract rationality. Rationalism can fall into utilitarian mysticism as it denies intuition. This was the same focus during the Enlightenment era as moral idealism was its kryptonite; they proposed that Enlightenment teachers, with their higher ideals, were fundamentally irrational. Spiritual-materialism is blinded by spiritual blindness when science (materialism) is conceived as pure knowledge of physical forces.    

One must break through that to have gnosis. And some overvalue things of the mind – worshipping ideas, opinions, and concepts, denying gnosis. The grandiosity of intellect cannot admit that their ideas might be wrong. Still, it has room for flexibility, meaning a drastic change (or egoic alchemical change) in their perspective means they’ve moved beyond the mind. The Buddhists say that every human being is deluded until they have attained enlightenment. So, any objection raised in the process of enlightenment comes out of your deluded mind, which makes it invalid. The new age concept of creating our reality is thwarted by the assumption that you may not like it once it’s created. Moreover, the act of creating it for others will lead you back to a place that’s similar to where you started.          

In Baudrillard’s book, he comments on a fable where cryptographers create a map so perfect and co-extensive with geography that it touches the real geography at every point. For Baudrillard, the map is what’s important; the map has meaning for us; the map is a simulacrum and, as a model, loses all reference to reality. In Baudrillard’s fable, our reality exists only as rotting shreds attached to the map; this is the state of our age, according to Baudrillard. So that the model itself is likened to the human game, the real has become irrelevant and undefinable and clings only as vestiges. He coins the term the desert of the real to describe our age.                     

If the map is likened to our reality but rotting away, those who can’t see its progressive destruction have any reference to it. The question is why it is rotting away and who is causing its demise. And it’s easy to postulate an answer and link it to the Demiurge. Together with his Archons and human worshippers, they are working hard to deny knowledge to man. The map is a simulacrum because our reality is envisioned through slices of time images. With the consideration of Flat Earth, our map is indeed simulated, and reality is indeed holographic. We are in a consciousness-building machine where we create our realities independent of the control systems that have been put over us.