I have encountered Satanism, of the same sort as did Passio, and in a similar way. I didn't go online or public about it, and didn't officially join. Like him, I was exploring the logic of refuting religious control paradigms and taking some definitive stand outside of their rhetoric and narrative. In the final analysis, my moral essence was not compatible with the consistent application of Satanic dogma, and vice versa. Mr. Passio had a similar parting of ways.
It turns out that the structure of Satanism's view of the world, and many of its contents (per La Vey), are consistent with the degraded morality of "humanity at large", and so Satanic texts act as a key for choosing to take advantage of these facts about the human world rather than be taken advantage of within that construct. This is presented as pragmatic within the scope of normal human existence, because it is defined as a consistent method of being on the "winning" side of the zero-sum game of human Satanic sociocultural existence. It is presented also as being embedded within a proper and factual understanding of human nature as a form of animal nature, as a form of nature per se. Mark seems to agree with this idea in essence, although he would probably not judge humanity's participation in the fulfillment of its Satanic applications over the millenia as harshly as would I. He is more generous to these spiritually dead robots, for some reason, than I am. I am no Satanist, however, neither officially nor secretly. So I am sure it is down to his being sweeter on people than me, being perhaps because he is more endomorphic and more gregarious (partly facetious here).
But, this is actually where I part ways with Passio, and others who think there is a "real chance" of "human awakening" in such a way as to merit serious anticipation being achievable. No, I think the real reason for his generosity is that he wants to play it safe and give the benefit of the doubt as long as possible. I feel I've been doing that long enough. Most people I encounter are carbon copies of the same unthinking, psychopathically immoral robots I've seen my whole life. He has encountered the same beings, and to me there is no need to give the benefit of the doubt, as I see no need for doubt. They manifest what they are by their willful ignorance, their complicity in affairs around them which are patently wrong, and their cowardice such that they don't even ask themselves "why so many kids on milk cartons"? In fact, there aren't any on them any more. Now they should be asking why not? Kids suddenly stop disappearing? Why? Why were they disappearing in such large numbers before? I'll have more to say on this in the addendum.
La Vey goes into detail not only about the social Darwinism implicit in Satanism as he portrayed it, but he also goes in to detail about dominance and submission on a moral, gross psychological level, as key. This fits into his paradigms about energy manipulation, especially via sexual means (although he takes it into an abusive modality through the magical methodologies of dominance over other minds without moral restraints). Mark acknowledges these points.
So far so good. He also relates very accurately the arrogance and contempt which are characteristic of these elite scum. I call them that because the are elite with respect to the scum upon which they depend for some of their perverse luxuries, which is what elites classically do in this world, what a coincidence. They, the elite scum (or elite of the immoral and amoral scum) and those under them, are dripping with it. They really do have this idea as I'll quote it directly from the mind of one with whom I had telepathic contact (which was thankfully brief and uninvolved) : "Yes, now you get it". I asked him does he do this simply because others let him, and simply because he can and wants to. This is another way that they state the "natural law", which is that the Strongest and Fittest rise to the top.
As an anectdotal note, I had this encounter in Hong Kong, during the full moon of October 31st, when all the public was milling around like ants as usual, and I noticed that the "elites" were in their usual places and on their typical perches, and I had the freedom to amble around and explore as I awaited a VISA issuance. I explored quite a lot... I was not unnoticed by these beings... and many took inquisitive and sometimes hostile stances toward my consciousness of them, and just my consciousness generally. I heard people openly inquiring whether I was such and so reincarnated (or perhaps they thought that I thought that about myself, I don't know. I didn't and still don't, so it must have been them being either serious and/or deluded). I noticed that I could pick up on thoughts especially easy during this time, and was able to detect an overt intention to set me up in some sort of "false flag sting" so I had to make myself scarce in some places for tactical reasons. It was just like a segment from the movie They Live. The moon was full, and was full of energy, and in one instance it tried to suggest I stare into it (!), and I refused to submit. Later, as I was relating some information pertaining to the "Law of Freedom" to borrow a term from Passio, I was detectably hated for that by a lower level elite turnkey in a suit. They really are "all one" in their own way, and to be not one of them, or one of their peasants, is to be "something else". And since they are being the "we are all one" falseness of the New Age, and also simply because their nonsense IS false, it is clear that I am not one with any of them. And since the New Age espouses an idea which would, if accepted, put me in the control matrix with the Illuminists, then they are complicit in that evil venture, even if only by default for being such spiritually ignorant fools. This was one of my many adventures, in Hong Kong, and elsewhere, which all taken together have given me plenty of room to say some of the things I like to say about "they" and "them", and little patience for people who ask me, rhetorically and not sincerely, the question "who are they?" Back to the Passio interview!
He's spot on about the fact that Satanism (in its evil, feudal essence) is a secret cabal that has long ruled the earth, but has had to cloak itself under garbs of "Goodness".
I don't know if he ever goes into why they have had to "go underground", even as little as they have, but I'll suggest the reason from my vantage. The REASON they has had to do this is because REAL RELIGIONS which were arrayed against this evil were once brought upon the earth by Light Emissaries, such as Zartosht, Mani, and others, to include possibly a Jesus which has been hidden from us, but who really existed, the books available about him are not available through Christianity, a religion propped up to HIDE the REAL Jesus. They learned their lessons from the previous Emissaries. These Leaders and their influence, and the groups which inevitably formed in league with their Spririt, had to be removed permanently from the public scene. Since this was hard to do when the public scene was so blatantly OPPOSITE these beings and what they brought forth, then the evil elites decided to window dresss the public to itself by falsifying it to appear "as if" a world of Light and Decency, and to do this they had to take all the narratives of the Emissaries of Light and falsify them into that public context of deception. This they would like to maintain, or else dispense with, but they will do either one as is seen as most efficient for them. They seem to like how it is going so far, so I don't think they are as interested in "coming out" and reforming the public into a blatantly evil-assed society like before as maybe Passio thinks. I'm not sure if he thinks this. But yes, if they had no problems with infiltration by Light Beings, then they WOULD probably just revert to overt depravity and hellish evil everywhere and on tap, right on the street. They really do in some places, if you look at it "with an enlightened eye".
These Emissaries were scouts, energy suppliers, and warriors who were sent to prepare this place for the Battle which is coming, and it won't be anything but a Battle. There is NO PEACEFUL CONTINUATION of this world, and one side cannot coexist in peace with the other. But certainly the majority of human beings are like fully programmable organic robots who will not ever truly rebel against their masters...
Satanism is CORRECT to call them "the dead", for they are. Just as we don't throw away Truth when it IS TRUE in any other areas, we don't do that here, and Passio does not throw the Truth out with the lies and reprehensible. That's good and consistent! Passio "passes" a test here. A deluded person would go the other extreme and make people not complicit and claim they were "merely deceived" which is absolute rubbish.
This is about 40 minutes in, and we then phase into a discussion of the progress, and ability to make progress, of the evil elites. I would call them the elites of the evil masses for these masses are evil, or morally debased, both to those with whose morality they are sufficiently aligned to be considered the lowest strata of raw materiel, and also from the point of view of Moral Beings who rightly despise them along with their masters.
For the next 30 minutes he explains the position he takes on whether or not the world can overcome its abusive elites and become a place of goodness and feasible order, or whether the elites of the evil masses will "turn the corner" on their final plans. (Again, I call the masses evil, just of a submissive polarity vis-a-vis THEIR elites). That's a 50/50 proposition to Mr. Passio. I see it as if the only thing the elites are really trying to do is make public what is simply already a fact, but occult for the last couple thousand years or so (Since Confucius, Jesus, etc), then really they already have what they want, they just wan to polish it up to its most dazzling form. That is a bonus, a cherry on the top. They already have their ice cream sundae...
But then he goes in the question of "outer shocks". He addresses the idea that natural shocks, either from the galactic center, or in his view most likely from the sun, will happen first before any alien intervention. And he broaches a logic that suggests that alien entities would have no moral ground on which to stand for this situation of exposure, since humanity has for the most part accepted their condition. I think he has made the case that this dynamic is partly a function of just how transparent the evil controllers have been, but it is also a function, I would say (and I think he'd agree) of just how morally opaque "the people" are.
He suggests rightly that a complete chaos will be the best chance people have to reassert into new and ordered societies the contents of their own innate moral propensities, and that this has just as much meaning as any alien intervention scenario.
I see that if an alien intervention were to take place, it would be orderly, and likely in a form that negotiated the exposure of the evil rulers in such a way that those who continue to submit to it are morally culpable for their own decision, and those who would not are allowed to have advocates who will come to their aid in becoming free from that malignity. It wouldn't be some big arrival of any "fleets" until this separation had already been established...
As to the Dark and Light Occultists who are behind the current world orders, it is really not a fertile ground for constructive conclusions. But he seems to be interested in saying that most of our views on the original authorities who set up American national institutions are figures who, like their contexts, need to be properly deconstructed from the myths which currently ensconce them as either in a good or, reactively, in a bad light.
He makes a good point about Thomas Paine around minute 77, especially vis-a-vis his contemporaries and their modern treatment. Following this, the empirical discussion of the underpinnings of modern events as proceeding from Illuminist agendas through concrete actions for the last 3-400 years is cogent. He goes into a discussion of radical freedom as a central idea which must figure into any concept of forming an improvement on human sociopolitical conditions as they stand since the Founding Fathers made their attempt with our constitution. I would say that naturally, however, as things stand right now, there is no likely outcome along the lines of peaceful settlement of these issues through a constitutional convention. Passio goes further and suggests that govermentally managed aspects of society are better managed by natural human social interactions.
I'd say that this is not an encouraging prospect, given the manifested "human nature" under current conditions, and in fact most of his history. There must not be just "one" human nature. I reassert my own "motto", if you will: WE ARE NOT ALL ONE.
There is not "one human nature". There are various natures, manifested in human, and other, bodies. That's the problem with this situation. So "moral law" must be established for a society, and it must be followed BY THE NATURE of the people in that society. It would seem that this "free will" clause is quite crucial to the coherence of Passio's thinking on how humans would constructively proceed in the light of social interactions with rules and laws.
He says that there must be a law which is already in place in nature (in "creation"), and which humans either submit to or do not. He then fills in this blank notion with a specific notion of a "Law of Freedom". I don't think that this is a law of THIS universe, as this world is too fully a case where it is not, and given the level of sapience humans currently manifest, there is no reason why the UNIVERSAL LAW OF FREEDOM did not step in through some mechanism to support MORAL HUMANS and other MORAL BEINGS on this planet. If it did, it must have been in a way that I do not perceive.
Perhaps, in some way, it is happening, but it is not happening clearly enough, nor expediently enough, for most beings who DO acknowledge this "Law of Freedom" for Moral Beings to BE Moral, and Be so FREELY. But he seems more optimistic about THIS universe than am I. I'll take the progress on this planet as a sign of the universe in which it is embedded. It is therefore not likely that the universe here enforces a Moral Law, but is rather an OUTLAW of a higher moral universe. I think this is not a trivial distinction.
But I think that to a degree, I'd rather cohabit a planetary space with people who think like Mark Passio, than with people who think like David Rockefeller.
ADDENDUM (Concerning the Burden of Proof, Benefit of the Doubt, Weight of Evidence, and Prerogatives of Conscience, all vis-a-vis the fact of the pervasive immorality and amorality of human beings, and with a view to some interesting conclusions)
If the cognitive and moral dissonance is just too much for them, then why, frankly, must I be forced to abide with such creatures everywhere I go on this planet and be forced to call them "brother"? I draw the line here, when evidence is sufficient and someone looks the other way. I DON'T ACCEPT THEM AS FELLOW MEN. If my contempt for them is to be doubted for being unfair, that isn't because there is no reason to give me the benefit of the doubt instead of them. I've done the research, I've dug through the chaos of lies and disinformation. I've set aside other pursuits and paths for this, and I've let go of the social bribes and threats that tried to derail me. I'm not going to now look at people who haven't and just assume there is a good person in there just clawing to get out. I've been insulted, mocked, attacked, backstabbed, threatened, robbed, and otherwise insidiously derailed from even what is commonly thought to be a fair path through the world by its own supposed standards, even the doubled standards. I mean, are these people really that cowardly? They are, or they'd come out and tell the people that they own them by divine right, and do as they please (as was the practice in various places, such as ancient Assyria and Babylon). You can be rest assured that these cowards would gladly till the fields for such sadistic filth as ruled Ninevah.
Well, I'm not throwing in my lot with them at all. I'm going to err the other direction, if that is what it takes to defend my own rights. I won't be dragged down by cowards who are just as likely to stab me in the back and turn against me on "that fateful day" as not. No. I say yes to people with the courage to put their live's energies, their focus, their time, their treasure and sacred honor into this struggle for freedom from lies and the evil oppression these cowardly lies thinly veil over a willfully ignorant populace of sheeple. I have standard to uphold also, and they don't come cheap, and they don't tolerate nonsense and bullshit. That's how I got to awaken in spite of all the rest of them. Now, in spite of their swamp nearly drowing me in all kinds of evil traps and tricks and wicked dangers I'm supposed to think they are my loving spiritual family? PROVE IT.
So concerning Satanism, if this method of aggrandizement and its codification into a religious ethic is "dark and false", then so is the paradigm of humanity in general, upon whose moral malaise it depends. This leaves us with people who, by and large, are either psychopathic, or else submissive TO psychopaths. Most if not all cultural elements act as "filters" in just the same polarity as does Satanism (and even conventional religions, to be fully consistent). All of these control paradigms seek to polarize people into abusers and abused. It also fits society as a whole into the paradigm of the abusive elite, who seek a middle section of psychopaths submissive to them, and able to be steered by them, just as they, in turn, will predictably and reliably steer the lesser psychopaths and submissives on every level. Mark seems to clearly get this also, though he says he "at least tries" to see people in a better light, whereas Satanists go another way and err on the side of self-aggrandizement. I don't myself wish to err in any direction, and have a less flattering perspective on people "at large" than does Passio, though my unwillingness to see them in a better light is simply my being fair on the balance of evidence and calling something as I see it, without prejudice against people, yet also not against my own judgment based on long experience, thorough study and investigation, much thought and contemplation, hard proof enough in my book, and my conscience is clean. Sometimes, I would aver, Truth is not kind or flattering to our views, or to people, or to our views of people. I wish we lived in a world where this didn't have to be a sticking point, of how we address people "in general", but the very fact that all this evil madness is going on, and in a way that is directly sustained by the moral apathy and willful ignorance of people, is what makes it a point which sticks so compellingly, at least for me.
I want to continue on this point, as I think this is part of what makes movement toward Truth so weak in people and in society. Who are we, who are sincere, kidding if not ourselves? I spent decades talking with people in all sorts of venues and situations. I've noticed that, no matter what the evidence, in 99.5% of cases if a person finds a point of logic or a certain fact inconsistent with their own beliefs, the facts and logic must go! The only way this tends to be not the case is if they can see something happening directly to them or their loved ones or personal property or their personal freedom, right now and directly. Even then, many of them seem like they'd let it happen if their beliefs said they should. They have a default setting in them that lets them be programmed in this way. They will not resist this unless they have absolutely no other choice, and that means they'll walk right into an execution of themselves and their families as long as they can carry on with the delusions they accept by default, as long as in the mean time this is not directly told to them, and they are fed, and have entertainment, etc.
In other words, they only "wake up" to the impending stampede of their destruction when it is directly upon them, and if you wake them up any sooner than that, they can't hear the coming thunder, they only see you, and hate you for waking them from their sleep. Their minds can't hear what they won't pay attention to hear, and they want to sleep damn it, they want, as Mark says it, "they're comfort". They want the illusion of safety, because they are too cowardly to face the real danger that is there, they are just not willing to face it. And instead, they are happy to watch movies, listen to music, go to events, send their children off to war, fight wars with superior weapons and forces against weak countries (on false pretenses), treat their favorite meat market as holy (church), and so forth. They believe what is made easier for them, so they don't have to face the impending abattoir. So whoever pities them, bothers them, associates with them, dwells with them, identifies with them, loves them and keeps them, is doomed to share their fate. That is so stupid, frankly.
I don't say that Mark goes that far, but I'm not going to give humanity a 50/50 chance of waking up... That implies several things about humanity, even if true, and none of them are good or make sense. 1) It implies that they are about half-willing to make the effort. That's really not going to cut it. 2) It implies that about half the people are willing to wake up. Really? Not my experience. 3) It may imply that it's a coin toss that the number who will wake up will be sufficient to turn around the whole affair. I don't see that. If the number right now is not enough, it won't ever be enough. If it were only about 1 in 10 who awakened, then it is clear, at this rate, that the other 9 will gladly sell him out to keep their illusion under the narrative that Big Brother will provide them, in whatever form, and their consciences will be assuaged. But if we were to go further and say half were awakened? That'd mean the other half were so incredibly dense and evil that there would be nothing short of a war between these two halves. That is going to be mighty destructive, because even the two halves of the world which are both demonstrably evil are already about to blow each other up. And you can't be less commited to Truth than a liar is commited to his lie, can you? You shouldn't be. Especially not if half the world is already yours. So that wouldn't end well either. This is not a pretty picture no matter what, but it is way uglier than that. I'd say less than .1% can or will ever awaken to Truth. That is to say , that few are not default deniers of Truth.
So I think that this is really the case, and that most in the movements toward Truth do not want to accept it, and are falling into the trap of a false narrative about waking up or saving the world from itself, when in fact it doesn't look like we are able to even save ourselves from it! I can only imagine that this is a process involving Divine Protection already, but only for those who willingly awaken, or there is no such thing, and this is one hell of an evil laboratory with one hell of a bunch of really absurd lab specimens in it. And in that case, the reason this goes on like this is that they want to collect as much information in their studies as possible. I'm almost sorry to say that, but think about it carefully, and way the alternative you prefer to believe. Otherwise, you have to believe something even more strange, which is that these "rulers of earth" have moral credibility in what they are carrying on with, that they know best, and you best get with the program and "hope" you are "fit for survival". But if you wanted to believe that, and you looked at the odds, you shouldn't get your hopes up for more than a lab rat existence. I think it is almost interesting as an experiment in itself to see who will believe what, and if they come to believe any of these three (or other) possibilities, then "what will they do about it?" The Truth is not kind if it is this thorny is it? Well, you better "stick to your guns" regardless, and mine tell me most people are lab rats and that they'll never change, and I've got better things to do than believe lab rats will "evolve" into Moral Beings.
To look at it the way it is playing out, it is not only consistent with social Darwinism, but that is what we are looking at in real time: Darwinian selection processes. Maybe they are artificial, but neither natural nor Divine laws have stopped it from being this way so far, and human "laws" are a farcical thing to mention in that context. At the very least we can draw two significant conclusions which are not mutually incompatible.
1) The universe is a battleground between beings who take advantage of each other, and sometimes one gets subjugated to the point of being at the bottom layer of a dung heap of dog-eat-dog hierarchies.
2) The universe pits these beings against those who feel they are Morally Superior to those dog-eat-dog beings and think that they can have a society among themselves which is better by far to live in, and therefore they protest and resist willfully joining and participating in the societies formed in 1).
It is clear that beings who are members of 1) by nature will either submit directly or with a provision to ascend in the hierarchy by some set of rules. It is probably mostly a "gladitorial" affair, whether by mean so violence or talent shows, etc. I think one generally either submits directly or dies fighting against it, or conquers it, but the latter requires a considerable amount of force, does it not?
Beings in 2) are a somewhat strange group, because they seem to be in denial of reality, if we are to take 1) to be the norm in the universe. How are we to see that it is not? Well, interesting point, isn't it? From whence came these Morally Righteous abstainers from the Machiavellian feast?
Well, it could be (falsely) argued that they are merely delusional groups, subgroups of people within competing dung heap hierarchies, who just have a peculiar delusion that a "Better Existence" is possible and desirable, one less violent, more fair, and decent for all. It seems that many who ascend the dung heap hierarchy want this sort of thing for themselves as far as possible, especially once they've gotten spoiled by being "at the top". Many settle for a tier that they reach, and want it stable. They don't want to seek more, and they don't want others below them to either. Perhaps that is where they get their inspiration for rules of etiquette, ethics, protocols, etc? Is it because outside forces in an even larger layer of dog-eat-dog dung heaps, on a larger scale, pressure them into this "internal submission to fair and stable arrangements for living"?
I think it is fair to suspect this, if we think that nothing short of that could inspire beings in 1) to do such a thing.
But beings in 2) seem to desire such a thing anyway. They are not like the lower rung of beings in 1), who are basically weaklings and petty classes of that category, who cannot rise for simply that reason. The people in that class are like their upper classes, who also only cooperate because the risks of doing otherwise outweigh the rewards. They would prefer that sort of life anyway. Cooperation and fairness are simultaneously the ideal for them, not a pragmatic reaction to a lack of worthwhile opportunities to rip each other off.
I say this is not the basic quality in human beings, and not by a long shot. I supply as evidence the world as it is, and as it has been, since recorded history began. Research it and weep, I say.
But 2) does seem to truly exist. Even against these ugly odds, pockets of humanity seemed to exist which by and large did sustain, at least as a cultural ideal, the idea of Goodness being a value in itself and not merely a pragmatic response to lose-lose conflicts. There were seen to be no gains but fair gains, and no gain was fair if it was zero sum. They avoided zero sum conflicts as a matter of standard ethical propriety, good morality and also as etiquette. Their religions and cultures reflected this. Let's just say this is true, since if it weren't, we just have bleakness to discuss.
So these people existed, and still exist, but only in small groups by comparison to the groups around them. Over time their nations, sub-national societies, and even the traces of their practices were abolished, their ways destroyed and misrepresented in history, their people and their heritage wiped out. Time and again there is evidence in history which at least suggests this.
How did they come to exist? Is there an anomalous gene or meme or something else that made it come into existence? Or is it as Mark Passio says, the "Law of Freedom" which this universe actually expresses? It doesn't express almost at all here on earth except as hypocrisy. In fact, so far, it looks like dog-eat-dog is the Law, Rex Talionis, as the Satanists aver.
It seems that said, I'm willing to agree that Rex Talionis is what is taking place on this earth, and also throughout the universe. But what if somewhere, somehow, type 2) beings were the norm, and became quite strong, and all knew what they were up against? What if that happened? Rex Talionis of course would apply to them, too. They must be stronger than the type 1) realms around them, or most certainly go under, for they are not even satisfied being at the bottom, least warlike level of type 1) societies. They have ideals to care about... Things like "truth" as such (Truth), and many others. There is no way they'd be given any breaks by the conquering type 1) beings, who will tear out each others' throats at the first safe opportunity. They'd jump all over peaceful and gentle type 2) beings, unless they thought it would be too much of a risk.
Wherever type 1) beings interact, it is Rex Talionis, with whomever they interact. It is no different if they run across type 2) beings, whom they'll hate even more than type 1) because type 2) wouldn't even fit into their societies even on a hypothetical merger. They don't form truces with each other. One conquers the other, and that's it. This much, I think, should be clear to anyone who understands the terms that I'm using, and the events in this world. If not, I don't think axiomatic foundations which are extended by construction through logical formulae will be of any further assistance either. In topics like this, that is only useful as an added measure of clarification for those who understand what ordinary language can express.
So that means, in the end, Rex Talionis is the Law of the Universe. The only question is this: Is the universe also a domain in which Freedom and its moral correlates are favored? So far, we have no evidence of that. But if we are moral beings of the type 2) nature, we won't let that deter us from being true to ourselves, and acting accordingly. Christ, I believe firmly, would say this.
So I conclude that the Righteous, who are always Christed, type 2) beings (who are really the Original, and Only True Beings), if we are at a physical disadvantage, at least we must never lose our fighting spirit, and must keep our morale, for by that we are who we are, and will live out our lives with integrity. Worse than the perhaps inevitable physical death, is the Spiritual Death, from which we perish before the body even stops living, and as a result of which it is not even worth preserving anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment