Dedicated to Beth
Monthly Archives: March 2018
The Forbidden Practices Of The Occult
This is a very well written article from someone quite knowledgeable in Christianity. It is also a poignant example of the misunderstanding of the occult from a fundamentalist Christian perspective. I point it out not to mock or demean, but to perhaps bridge the gap between those knowledgeable of both esoteric and exoteric practices. I would ask if they are willing to speak of the devout Christian beliefs and dogma opposed to the occult seeing as how in general they are evidently ok with some of the practices in the bible that are clearly occult in nature. Practices such as the use of the Urim and Thummim and the seeming acceptance by YHWH of the consultation of the Witch of Endor in conjuring the spirit of the prophet Samuel. These are obvious uses of divination and necromancy, which, as the article states, are impure and sinful practices, yet they seem to be overlooked as being occult practices. Perhaps a look into the proto-christian beliefs of the Jews at Qumran and their codices we’ve found in the Dead Sea scrolls would be a bit eye opening for Christians insistent on the fundamentalist nature of Christianity as a religion. The Essenes were quite mystic in nature and practiced many rituals that modern Christians would take as occult and sinful. As far as I have seen in my research, all Judeo-Christian religions have had an occult or mystic aspect to the religion and there is much to be learned from this. Perhaps both occultist and Christian can use this knowledge to see a bit closer eye to eye and prevent the demonization of each other.
The Prophet Samuel
The Forbidden Practices Of The Occult – rymcovenant
Uncanny Valley
Uncanny Valley refers to images or objects that are just close enough to the real thing but a bit off to the point that they cause distress or uncomfortableness in their aesthetic appearance. Seems to be more frequent nowadays with certain art forms and topics such as transhumanism and some edgy art. How do these images make you feel?
Blockhead – The Music Scene
You can get a copy of the album here: The Music Scene
Sources:
Ninja Tune Records
Animated/Directed by Anthony F. Schepperd
Ain, Ain Soph, Ain Soph Aur
Although not strictly a Kabbalist (קַבָּלָה), quite a few of the concepts of Kabbalism entermesh with my perception of the world and the psychology I see at large around me. One of those concepts is that of Ain and it’s emanations (Ain Soph, Ain Soph Aur) proceeding from it resulting in the creation of the material realm. I personally would consider myself at least on a philosophical level as a bit of an emanationist, a philosophical idealist stance of a pure creative intelligence emanating further from itself into more and more condensed and concrete material forms. A more down to earth example being of a thought, say of creating something physical, for example a house or table, to the planning or thought stage, til the physical creation of that object is brought to fruition by the combination of intellect and willpower thereby bringing that thought into concrete reality. Another more metaphysical analogy would be the branching of a tree from its singular trunk into it’s divergent branches, leaves, and fruits, all materializations of the ever growing diversity of thought. I’m sure some more experienced Kabbalists wouldn’t mind interjecting here and speaking of the roots of the tree and other more subltle and esoteric concepts, which may bring up subjects like Qliphotic Kabbalism which directly relates to that, but that is a topic for another day.
The concept of Ain is at the crown of the tree of life of Kabbalah. It is above the tree and beyond it according to Kabbalah. There above the crown of the tree of life resides what is know as Ain and it’s emanations Ain Soph, and Ain Soph Aur.
Ain (0) could be likened to complete non-existence. It has no thought, no movement, no sound, nothing defining characteristically. It is pure unadulterated peace. It could be thought of as the seed of all other things. Numerically and numerologically you could say the three emanations represent the numbers 0, 1, and 2. Ain being 0 is devoid of all attributes and thereby a Tabula Rasa. If you are familiar with the Tarot this could be thought of as the card The Fool.
Ain Soph (1) is the direct manifestation of Ain becoming aware of it’s existence and knowing that it was alone, a singularity if you will. Sharply intelligent but with nothing to share itself with and longing to create. The lonely emanation of Ain (0). This also shares parallels in the Tarot in the card The Magician, with his well thought out spread of tools but not yet in the act of creation.
Ain Soph Aur (2) is a natural progression from the intellect of Ain Soph who had the concept but no way to enact it. Ain Soph Aur is the “limitless eternal light”. The light of God you often see radiating from prophets in religious art from religions around the world. Ain Soph Aur is a marriage of sorts; the intellect of Ain Soph and the intense will of Ain Soph Aur relating to the card the High Priestess, the final step between concept and materialization. The High Priestess having her feet spread between the realm of the conceptual and the material, there to facilitate the thought into reality.
At this point we could digress into the symbolism of 3, the next natural progression and a symbol of synthesis of 2 into another form and arguably the first somewhat material form although a bit ephemeral and whispy but that also will be another post. I know my grasp on Kabbalism is still in it’s infancy so if anyone better versed has any corrections or anything to add I’m more than happy to listen although these posts are meant to be bite-sized bits for people unfamiliar with esoteric topics. I’ve been thumbing through Mystical Qabalah
Sources:
[1-4] Wikipedia – Definitions
Illustrations for Major Arcana – IAO131 – The Key
Zdzisław Beksiński’s Tortured Visions
Zdzisław Beksiński was a Polish artist who’s distinct style has given him a fond place in my heart. Although he had no formal training as an artist, he studied Architecture in Kraków, he has gained some notoriety within the art scene. Much of his work reminds me of a less rigid and bio-mechanical H. R. Giger. Although very dark, I feel his art has quite an emotional and psychological feel as opposed to Giger; he was quoted as saying “I wish to paint in such a manner as if I were photographing dreams”. Beksiński tragically was murdered in 2005, stabbed 17 times by Robert Kupiec, his caretaker’s son and an accomplice, Łukasz Kupiec who were later sentenced to 25 and 5 years respectively.
The Curious Assassination Attempt On Sergei Skripal
I try not to blanket copy/paste material, but this was a very well researched and thought out post I came across and the author has given explicit permission to share this freely. I take no credit for the authorship of this, all credit goes to reddit user oaklandbrokeland
Warning: Strong Language Below
This post is an attempt to criticize the media’s case against Russia in the most formal way possible. Everything is to be cited and explained carefully based on specific propositions. If I do this correctly, we should see this thread sitting at no greater than 60%, and at least four comments should be calling me a Russian bot. Let’s begin with establishing a simplified version of media’s argument/narrative:
- Skripal was certainly poisoned with a “novichok” agent. That is, there is substantial evidence that it was “novichok”. Even its creator said it was definitely Russia!
- Russia has a monopoly on “novichok”. Its usage is a smoking gun for Russia’s culpability.
- The UK is following international protocol for dealing with a state actor’s usage of chemical weapons.
- Russia is at fault for not bothering to respond to the UK’s 24-hour request for explanation.
- Russia has a clear motive for poisoning Skripal. More precisely, they have *more of a motive* than any other state actor. This is an important qualification that we will explore later.
(1) There is no substantial evidence that Skripal was poisoned with novichok.
It is, of course, more difficult to prove a negative than a positive. We cannot prove with complete certainty that the UK government does not have evidence of novichok poisoning, because we do not know what their supposed evidence is. The UK has not presented any evidence, either to Russia or to international channels, that novichok was used. Because of this uncertainty, we must rely on probability and heuristic. Let’s begin our inquiry with simplicity: *are* there theoretically possible signs of novichok when it is used as a poison? Would we be able to tell, in hypothetically perfect conditions, that it is used *when* it is used?
The answer, according to top UK scientists, is a flat “no”. According to the textbook literature on Chemical Weapons Toxicology from 2016, aptly named “Chemical Weapons Toxicology”,
No independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such compounds (novichok) has been published
The author if this chapter (different authors wrote different chapters) is of utmost importance. You could not find somebody with more relevant credentials than him. No, I mean, you really couldn’t. You are going to laugh when you read them. The author who wrote this chapter is Robin M. Black. Robin Black served on the Scientific Advisory Board of OPCW. The OPCW is the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It is a crucial organization for proper international conflicts regarding chemical weapons, which we will get to later. In one of the latest OPCW publications about “novichoks”, they state:
The name “Novichok” is used in a publication of a former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve agents suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of “Novichoks”.
Back to Robin M. Black. Guess where else he worked? At the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in the UK, also called Porton Down. Here’s another mention of Robin Black. He has been employed at Porton Down since the 1980’s and is tenured enough to direct other scientists on chemical weapons toxicology.
To spell it out: the UK’s own chemical weapon’s toxiology expert wrote that there is no way currently to detect the use of novichok. Although it is impossible to prove a negative in this situation, this is incredibly strong disconfirming evidence.
As for the last point, that the creator of novichok said it was certainly Russia that was responsible, [he added an important clause](https://www.yahoo.com/news/russians-says-chemist-uncovered-existence-novichok-075342077.html):
The only other possibility, he said, would be that someone used the formulas in his book to make such a weapon.
This brings us to point 2:
(2) Russia does not have a monopoly on novichok
Although it is apparently impossible to detect novichok, it is not so difficult to make. According to the creator, if somebody “used the formulas in his book”, he would be able to “make such a weapon.” Well, how difficult is it to find this book? Was it published only a handful of times and kept in the arcane laboratories of secretive institutions? Of course not. It’s on fucking Amazon. And to manufacture “novichok” is simpler than other chemical weapons:
“The Novichok agents are thought to be far more difficult to detect during manufacturing and far easier to manufacture covertly, because they can be made with common chemicals in relatively simple pesticide factories,” the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons says in its Weapons of Mass Casualties and Terrorism Response Handbook.
Russia does not have a monopoly on novichok. Not even close.
(3) The UK is not following international protocol for this conflict over novichok.
Remember what we said about the OPCW? The OPCW is like the UN for chemical weapons (although the UN is also the UN for chemical weapons, of course). There are only four UN states that are not signatories of the OPCW: Egypt, Israel, North Korea and South Sudan. Hence, Russia and the UK are signatories. If the UK believes that Russia used chemical weapons in their borders, what does the OPCW convention tell members to do? And if Russia believes the UK’s accusation is false, what does the OPCW convention tell Russia to do? According to Article IX on Consultations, Cooperation, and Fact-Finding:
Without prejudice to the right of any State Party to request a challenge inspection, States Parties should, whenever possible, first make every effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter which may cause doubt about compliance with this Convention, or which gives rise to concerns about a related matter which may be considered ambiguous. A State Party which receives a request from another State Party for clarification of any matter which the requesting State Party believes causes such a doubt or concern shall provide the requesting State Party as soon as possible, but in any case not later than 10 days after the request, with information sufficient to answer the doubt or concern raised along with an explanation of how the information provided resolves the matter.
This is somewhat self-explanatory, but for simplicity’s sake: According to international law the UK is to give Russia 10 days to respond. It is also suggested that they make available the “evidence” they have against Russia. This last one shouldn’t even need to be spelled out in a convention; the right for the accused to see the evidence against them is so fundamental to justice itself that it’s almost damning that the UK thinks they can just flaunt this moral obligation. It has literally been in our justice system for 500 years. It’s not trivial. It’s fucking important. Russia actually spoke to the OPCW, and notably said the following:
In addition, in this particular case, it would be legitimate for the British side to seek assistance from the OPCW Technical Secretariat in conducting an independent laboratory analysis of the available samples that allegedly show traces of nerve agents in Salisbury.
(4) Russia is thus not at fault for failing to reply to the 24-hour ultimatum.
I mean, they actually did reply to the ultimatum by essentially saying “give us the fucking samples asshole“, and can you really fault them with this?
(5) Russia’s motive for poisoning Skripal is not as strong as thought. Other nations have greater motive.
This is the most complicated proposition. Let’s go over the history of Skripal. To begin, Russia held him in prison on a sentence of 13 years. If it were absolutely crucial that he be assassinated, they would have done this when they had custody of him. But a sentence of 13 years is hardly a sentence you’d give for someone you want dead. US gives its spies 10 consecutive life sentences in a super-max prison.
So if Russia hated this guy so much, why give him such a light sentence, and why give him away in a prisoner swap? The other prisoners who were swapped were not assassinated. And Vil Mirzayanov, the chemist who revealed the existence of novichok and who lives a public life teaching at public universities was not assassinated.
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the motive to assassinate this 60-year-old just isn’t there. Moreover, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that this is the worst possible time to publicly assassinate somebody. Russia’s image is in tarnishes. Russia really, really wants its latest oil pipeline to be completed unimpeded. They are hosting the World Cup in 3 months. They are still in a conflict in Syria. So why would they go about assassinating a nobody? What is the motivation here?
This is the kind of political move you’d make in the game Civilization 5 when it’s 2am and you’re a little drunk. This isn’t the political move that career politicians make when there is so much on the line.
What other nations would have a motive for assassinating this man? Could it be one of the non-signatory nations of the OPCW? Could it be a nation that has a long history of assassinations on foreign soil? Could it be a nation that desperately wants Russia to stop defending Iran and Syria, so that it could continue its decade-long plan to destabilize neighboring countries?
What are your opinions on vaccines?
Just as a personal disclaimer on my own opinion and a modicum of transparency on a volitile subject. Because of an adverse reaction, and permanent health issues due to a vaccine myself, I would put myself in between the “They are necessary, but doctors should offer more information on side effects” and “They are advised, but the risks are sometimes greater than the benefits” categories. How do you feel about the topic?
If you haven’t heard a balanced viewpoint from a professional who is critical but not Jenny McCarthy level retarded on the subject, I suggest watching the video in my previous post. It’s a little over half an hour long, very informative, and has a bit of commentary afterwards by myself with respected sources showing what I think to be a balanced view on vaccine safety.
Daniel Neides, MD – A Doctor’s Perspective
Dr. Daniel Neides speaks on some of the shortcomings of Allopathic medicine (as opposed to Osteopathic) and the
dishonest and greed motivated influence of pharmaceutical companies in modern medicine. This is an eye-opening talk by a Doctor who has been libelously labeled an anti-vaxer because of his honest criticism based on his experience as a medical professional. He does not propose denying or refusing vaccinations, but simply a more critical look at the safety and and one size fits all attitude on the topic; including the ability of individual patients to safely recuperate from additives in vaccinations such as the adjuvant, Aluminum Salts and conservative agents like Thimerisol.
Sources:
[1] Youtube – Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom
[2] Health Professions & Prelaw Center – Indiana University Bloomington –
hpplc.indiana.edu
[3] Wikipedia – Definition
[4-5] National Center for Biotechnology Information – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
333kephirhet666 