The University of Calgary brought me before a hate investigation tribunal for this book. The “investigator”, a spitting-image of the overweight soyjak, had marked it down with numerous highlights and page tabs of “things you’re not allowed to say”.
The one thing I said, that’s most against the rules of things that you’re allowed to say in a book, which got him out of his seat to walk over to me to present to me with his short stubby fat finger swiping underneath the text to point it out and have me read aloud, was where I wrote:
“I hate these people, so perfectly hate them…a perfection of hatred, a sublime, transcendent, supernatural, beautiful and wonderful spectacle of hatred.”
The context, which of course is irrelevant to retards, was flat Earther’s and climate alarmists, who you might be surprised to find out, are close bed fellows.
You’re simply not allowed to hate that which you find completely objectionable. You can disagree with it, but you’re not allowed to hate it and especially you cannot write down that you hate it.
Thus, I repeat: I hate these people, so perfectly hate them…a perfection of hatred, a sublime, transcendent, supernatural, beautiful and wonderful spectacle of hatred.
In the book, this sentence is actually followed by:
Climate of Sophistry 
I will be marching with you!
Lots of satire wins the culture war.
I find this based Jewish dude very funny. Trolling the hell out of woke influencers, and himself with his blue avatar.
Here a hitpiece on the current state of Canada
It’s not that you can’t use a word, you weren’t given “permission” to use a word. Same thing with the N word. “It’s a racial slur!!!” used in rap songs for decades.
Hmm. Should have led the left dude say “The earth is round with real-time high solar flux intensity on a hemisphere “
Thesis: The capacity for stupidity is directly proportional to the capacity for intelligence (in humans).
Antithesis: The capacity for intelligence is indirectly proportional to the lack of capacity for stupidity (in humans).
Synthesis: Intelligence is a prerequisite for stupidity and vice versa (only in humans).
How can stupidity be anything but something to be regretted? If someone happens to appear to be lacking in intelligence you can’t blame them for exhibiting what might appear to be stupidity but actually might be your own lack of understanding. Then you might be stupid for making assumptions based on subjective assessment.
The earth is not spherical but a slightly lentoid (oblate) spheroid. The flat-earth hypothesis has just taken that a bit too far. That is not stupidity but mis-applied intelligence. Or is it directed intelligence in service of stupidity?
The flat earth idea, I was told, came from the desire to make those who questioned the moon landings look stupid. That might be true or not. Nevertheless it seems to have worked to some extent. Those who question whether the moon landings happened are often put into the same category as those who claim the earth is flat. I have personally asked legitimate questions about the moon landings and been accused of being a flerfer or a flatard. Sometimes I detect an underlying assumption of my stupidity for even raising any question about the moon landings (and take-offs (and the excursions on the surface of the moon)). I, for instance, would draw attention to identical bits of scrunched up masking tape on different LMs and be confronted with an unwillingness to look, followed by a lecture on how many thousands of people would have to be in on it never mind the international corroboration of evidence to the contrary. Then there are the reciptrocal reflectors installed by several astronauts which now provide accurate laser readings of the distance. (Except that the best lasers can only focus on an area on the moon of about 4 miles diameter, and then that is dissipated on the way back making it impossible to isolate a signal from a tiny reflector.) There are other reasons I would not only doubt, but absolutely confirm, that none of the moon landings we are asked to believe happened, actually ever happened. I mentioned the detail of the masking tape. There is also the detail of all the buckled panels which are on the side opposite the egress hatch (the buckling of which was caused by the hand-applied fixings) which are identically buckled on successive missions. Then there is the landing gear which had a shock absorber built in to operate on impact. The legs were wrapped in a foil/polymer material held in place with some kind of tape. If a shock absorber had operated on impact, then the legs would have shortened resulting in crumpling of the protective foil.
Then there is the lack of delay in communication between the moon and Houston. It should be about 2.5 secs. On apollo 15 Irwin asks a question to Houston just prior to landing and Houston replies within half a second.
The thing is, and I have spoken to people who were NASA employees about this, this was an experiment in deception. In order to achieve this, it would involve the co-operation of many people and administrations who were being reported as hostile to each other. That means, in order to look at the evidence impartially, would require doubt about some of the most trusted tenets. What it does is to create an internal rift in those intelligent, or should I say perceptive, enough to see the reality but can’t yet have the courage to confront it.
It creates cognitive dissonance.
This, in my opinion is the reason why we should not express hatred to each other, Joe, but direct our hatred to those forces which would try to subvert us all. Therefore I would strongly be against your expression of hate towards those who have been drawn into the service of those forces. I have always felt to forgive them (the poor people).
I remember this from quite a young age as a lesson. And I have experienced it again and again. One time was against a gang who beat me up a bit (bloody nose, bruises and swollen lip, I protected my head) when I was aged about 11 . My headmaster at school asked me what punishment I would like to see them endure ie put into custody of some kind. I replied that they have enough to endure already. Tell them I am sorry for them that they felt they had to do this to me. (I didn’t say this but thought “send them my love” ) I literally did not sleep much that night thinking of their desolate souls. I was told later it was because I befriended a guy everyone knew as “Happy” Alastair McDonald. He was called happy because he was probably not quite connected to the world.
Nowadays it would probably defined as some kind of disability. He ran off when that gang approached and I turned on them in his defence.
He escaped and I got a bit beat up.
I met some of that gang afterwards, they looked sheepish and told me they were sorry. I just said Ok don’t do it again for your own sakes if nothing else. Don’t know if they heard me but I did see something in their eyes worth the effort.
How it turned out I have no idea. It probably is still turning out.
What I do know is I did the right thing. Hated what they did. Didn’t hate them.
Ok Joe here’s a thought; if you get tied up fighting against obviously stupid assertations that what you have said needs further explanation, when you have already set it out as plainly as possible, then at what point do you stop fighting those essentially inert, and turn your attention towards what these authors of those stupidly posed questions want to divert you away from?
What I’m driving at is the expansion of consciousness. The search for knowledge which is of benefit to all of us. Sure we can find where the trouble is coming from. Personally I’m more interested in where the answers are coming from.
For instance I note you are anti-vaccination. So am I. The reason I am anti-vax is because in 1984 I did a course in homeopathy for a year, part-time under Prof. Margaret Roy who was the head prof at Glasgow college of homeopathy. I have reason to believe she treated someone who suffered from epillepsy and went back through the symptoms till measles was encountered. The patient had never had measles before but did have the measles injection. Therefore the epilleptic condition was caused by the vaccination against measles. I have been using homeopathy via professional practitioners ever since, for all sorts of health issues (mostly not mine personally but to do with others in my circle) with, I would say, pretty good results.
And that is the trouble with trying to prove it works. You can’t rely on “normal” “scientific” method. Precisely because it is a discipline which is focussed on each individual human being, then it cannot apply to humans as a whole. The truth is that each individual human is like a species of animal each unto his own. This is a bit of knowledge which I would aver must be experienced directly before it can become absorbed into the body of science. Indeed all of science must embody only that which can be experienced directly and objectively.
Hence the requirement is for a revolution in consciousness in order to resolve the paradoxes inherent in materialistic perception as against the obvious non-material influences on events. Otherwise we are a bit stuffed.
Essentially that was the content of my essay which I first somewhat clumsily put into words in 1974 (which by the way I never thought of as originating from me but more that it wrote itself) entitled “The Next Revolution” . I threw it in the bin at the time having been ridiculed so much that it made me into a clown, or a performing seal character.
That was a protection strategy.
They all thought I was a bit nuts.
I just got on with the task in hand.
I’m still at it as a novice.
That essay wasn’t a theory, but was a perception. I have never had any impulse to prove it was right but I know it was right. Trouble is that those who have been in agreement thus far have also experienced life as an outcast. Even when people use the fruits of that perception they still insist, on the most part, on denying its existence.
I feel like we (humans) are in a cocoon awaiting metamorphosis. This cocoon becomes ever more constrictive, and as time goes on will become evermore of a struggle to shrug off. The hardening of materialistic denial of a world beyond the physical senses might result in a dry hard shell. Like a horn. Unable to respond to change. That we know as dogma.
The opposite of wisdom is called upon to melt this ever-hardening condition.
I feel, when I say opposite I don’t mean opposed to it. Just like a complimentary colour like green is to red for instance. but the opposite of wisdom is like the opposite of all the visible colours, so it is one that is invisible. Where is the invisible? Between infra red and ultraviolet somewhere? Instead of thinking of colours in a line what if they became a circle? Yes you can do that with reflected colours but what about light? What can complete the circle of light? Something infinite in quality. Hmm could that be love?
Although humanity is capable of the most despicable acts of evil, in my experience we are also capable of love.
There is a saying that goes ” no greater love has a man than this; than that he lays down his life for a friend” now although that saying contains some words which no doubt will cause trouble for a part of some of our psyches, the overall concept, I would say, is pretty clear. Very clear to me having seen it in action. Wisdom would have absolutely no part to play. Wisdom would have said “forget your friend he is gone” That is the kingdom of the animals into which we enter of course being some kind of animal. The world of wisdom. We as humans are unique among animals in that we can individually decide our course of action. All other animals are driven by need. We might be driven by forces below the animalistic, such as greed, use of knowledge in the pursuit of nefarious ends, pursuit of pleasure at the expense of the suffering of others, ignorance of what we know in the pursuit of what we falsely believe to be worthy of attention, etc. We might also be driven by knowledge of what is right and let it be our guide, and that is also an area where we might become seduced into the less-than human state.
Love is quite an elusive thing. I remember asking my grandmother what all those scrapes were on her face (refering to her wrinklyness) and she said “its just that I’m old” to which I responded “I love your old face”. Which didn’t mean I loved the wrinkles of course.
@ donaldgisbey
Needed AI to deduct what the amounts of words were you were saying.
But here is a compact summary. Respect anyway
————————-
This long and winding message from donaldgisbey touches on a number of interconnected themes, blending philosophical reflections, conspiracy skepticism, personal anecdotes, and spiritual musings. Here’s a short summary of what he’s saying:
Summary:The author argues that intelligence and stupidity are deeply interconnected and uniquely human capacities, both capable of leading to either insight or error. He criticizes how dissent or questioning—like skepticism of the moon landings or vaccines—is often dismissed as stupidity, advocating instead for open-minded inquiry. Through personal stories and reflections, he promotes empathy, forgiveness, and love as responses to ignorance or aggression. Ultimately, he calls for a transformation in human consciousness—beyond materialism and dogma—toward deeper perception, individual truth, and spiritual evolution.
Not quite, although thank you for the concise precis. I would like to clarify a little.
Stupidity is the thing that seems to me to be uniquely human. Intelligence is to be found everywhere.
My style of writing, although conversational in character, contains some measure of certainty balanced with a healthy (I hope) modicum of self-doubt. I do not promote anything: Just strive to present my personal experiences as honestly as possible in the hope that it might strike a chord somewhere.
The issue on this thread is to do with the use of language. What purpose is behind the words? Joe has been criticized for stating that he hates the fact that certain people are enabled to express some stupid ideas. I agree with that. However, I do not hate the people who after all are under some kind of spell. A delusion of empowerment.
We have in the UK a so-called national treasure in the persona of David Attenburgh. Every word that emanates from his larynx is hung upon as if it is gospel. However he is continuously guilty of attributing human qualities into the observation of animal behaviour. This is a classic denial of the existence of intelligence as a spiritual reality.
How exactly would, for instance, an albatross navigate with its bird-brain over thousands of miles to find a nest precisely where he left it?
How would the little bugs that feed on oak buds know exactly which buds not to eat so that the oak tree would continue to grow reasonably symmetrically?
These types of question are glossed over with the aid of a mesmerising sound track and dulcet voice-over.
Chris Packham (I reckon) is being lined up as DA’s successor. Ideally situated on the autistic spectrum, he has us in the palm of his hand.
His conversational style allows no question about his scientific integrity.
Stupidity abounds.
(yes I watch a bit of tv (but only for medicinal purposes)).
Hey Don, I am away at the moment and not doing any writing ( haven’t got my laptop only my phone which I dislike using) but doing a lot of reading and chilling. I will correspond when I get back. However as is synchronicity this pops up. I was reading your post on Joe’s site just now….
There is a new book I’ve just found or it found me, called “Spiritual Intelligence: Activating the 4 Circuits of the Awakened Brain” It is beyond IQ and EQ and takes us to understanding the physics and nature of SQ (Spiritual Intelligence), which can be seen as very important not just generally, but seems to me to be even more essential in the difficult and transformative times we are going through.
Spiritual Intelligence in this book apparently draws on over 400 scientific studies to show how specific neural circuits in the brain, what Dawson calls the “Enlightenment Network” enable us to find peace in the face of chaos.
Key pointers are:
As legendary author Jack Canfield (Chicken Soup of the Soul series) said about Dawson Church’s new book:
“In today’s world of constant change and uncertainty, Spiritual Intelligence is the next essential evolution in human potential. Dawson Church’s groundbreaking work reveals that Spiritual Intelligence, the ability to enter higher states of consciousness, isn’t just for mystics; it’s hardwired into your brain and mine.”
In other words we have the inate ability in our dna and consciousness to become better versions of ourselves and indeed it is our soul purpose and destiny to enact such changes.
If anyone is interested, here is the link. I just ordered my hardback copy:
https://spiritualintelligencebook.com/
The materialists will no doubt say its all woo woo and want to maintain the status quo of Luciferian worship of matter. Unfortunately for them the Golden Age of Aquarius is an ascension from the physical plane to a more ethereal plane . e.g we are going home. That is the battle of consciousness right there in a nutshell that we are witnessing.
The Luciferians want to become Gods of this material plane. They see this as their Kingdom and their throne. They want an animal farm of slaves with them as masters and us the slaves as manipulators of matter to build worlds or kingdoms for them to reign over.
See archons can’t create, so they manipulate humans ( natural creators) as slaves to do their building and mould the material world. We are their builders and architects. Humans have a creative energy that is a commodity. They call it loosh. It is sought after.
Thing is we are spiritual beings having a human experience ( trapped in matter) but its not our natural form. WE are in bondage here, mainly via our mind – remember Morpheus of the Matrix. We are sparks of Source. We should be free to roam and create. Yet we are trapped by mind traps that make us believe we have no power. That’s why Morpheus said ” Neo free your mind”
The term “archon” would need some definition. The characteristic nature of the archons is also a bit fluid. The word comes from ancient Greece, when it denoted a ruler. Someone who was given power over the behaviour of others. In present day terms that could be seen as a guiding principle. It could be a negative or positive force of course. If you adopt a guiding principle that means you have to have a constant supply of cocaine for instance then obviously that is a negative force.
We are not trapped in matter, I would aver, we are surrounded by matter into which we have the freedom to exert an influence. Of course some of us experience pretty horrendous injustice. Some of us experience life as a treasured gift.
Ok Donald, I have put together some more informaion about the Archons from Literature and Media I have studied:-
There are many theories, books, manuscripts, documents and media referring to the Archons, which are sometimes referred to in different ways. Here are a few:
i) There is the document “Hypostasis of the Archons” (from the Nag Hammadi library) Gnostic writings contain descriptions of alien predators called Archons, Arkontai in Greek. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_of_the_Archonsii) There is the book were Elaine Pagels examines Hypostasis. Elaine Pagels, a renowned religious scholar, extensively studied Gnosticism and the term “hypostasis,” which refers to the essence or substance of a being or entity, particularly in Gnostic thought. In the context of Gnostic texts like the “Hypostasis of the Archons,” Pagels explored how these texts challenge traditional Christian interpretations of creation and the nature of God. She examined how Gnosticism differed from orthodox Christianity, particularly in their understanding of evil and the diviniii) There is Mike Hockney’s works . Mike Hockney, in his works associated with Pythagorean Illuminism, describes Archons as “secret princes of the world” who enslave humanity. He portrays them as malevolent forces or entities that the Illuminati, as a secret society, have fought against for millennia to liberate humanity. In his book Eastern Religion For Western Gnostics, credited to Michael Faust but published under Hockney’s imprint, the Archons are linked to the Gnostic concept of oppressive rulers who maintain control over the material world, obstructing spiritual enlightenment. Hockney’s narrative suggests that these Archons represent a hidden elite or cosmic tyrants that perpetuate ignorance and hinder humanity’s path to gnosis, or divine knowledge, aligning with his broader philosophy of rational, mathematical, and spiritual liberation through Illumination.iv) There is works of Carlos Castaneda see here: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8705957-we-have-a-predator-that-came-from-the-depths-ofAlso in Castaneda’s book “The Active Side of Infinity” he calls them the Mud Shadows”.v) There is Joe’s Noetic Parasite, that he writes about in some of his books. Planet Wars etc.vi) There is Joseph Campbell’s “Twilight of the Archons” documentary : https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14030592/ ” In the context of the documentary “Twilight of the Archons,” see IMDB link above, the term refers to a web of control and manipulation, particularly within the materialist worldview.vii) There is John Lash’s – “Not In His image” book. See Grok 3 at the end of the page for an in depth summary.viii) David Icke has also talked extensively about them in his works and equates them to the Djinn.viii) https://gnosticismexplained.org/ The Archons” is a term with different meanings depending on the context. In Gnosticism, according to the Gnostic is Explained website the Archons are considered to be rulers or authorities in the material world, often seen as flawed and ignorant creators.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
Gnostic Archons:
In Gnostic beliefs, the Archons are viewed as the creators of the material world, but they are depicted as imperfect and flawed beings.They are often associated with the Demiurge, who is seen as a lesser god who created the material world.The Archons are believed to be responsible for trapping humans in the material realm and preventing them from attaining enlightenment.The concept of the Archons is related to the idea of a hidden or superior reality beyond the material world, as explained on Wikipedia.
Twilight of the Archons:
The documentary “Twilight of the Archons” see above, uses the term “Archons” to refer to a system of control and manipulation, particularly within the context of materialism and money.The film critiques the idea that we are controlled by forces that are invisible but powerful, as described on IMDb.It explores the concept of consciousness and how we can liberate ourselves from these systems of control, according to IMDb.
SCP Foundation Archons:
In the SCP Foundation lore, the Archons are a group of beings representing chaos and darkness, serving the Old God Yaldabaoth. In the SCP Foundation universe,the Archons are a group of beings that represent primordial chaos and darkness.They are associated with the Old God Yaldabaoth and play a significant role in the “Hecatoncheires Cycle” series, according to Villains Wiki.https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Archons_(SCP_Foundation)
In summary, the term “Archons” can refer to:
i) Flawed creators in Gnostic theology.ii) A system of control and manipulation in the context of materialism.iii) Beings of chaos and darkness.
Finally, I asked Grok3 to summarise what he says about the Archons in John Lamb Lash’s book “Not in His Image” as he seems to be an authority on the subject; here it is:
Grok 3:
In Not in His Image: Gnostic Vision, Sacred Ecology, and the Future of Belief, John Lamb Lash presents a provocative interpretation of Gnostic teachings, particularly focusing on the concept of the Archons, which he draws from ancient Gnostic texts like those found in the Nag Hammadi library. Lash’s discussion of the Archons is rooted in his broader critique of salvationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) and his advocacy for a return to earth-based, animistic spirituality centered on the Gnostic myth of the Wisdom Goddess Sophia and her embodiment as Gaia, the Earth.
Here’s a detailed overview of what Lash says about the Archons in the book, based on available information and analysis:
Nature and Origin of the Archons
Lash describes the Archons as non-human, inorganic entities in Gnostic cosmology, created inadvertently by the Aeon Sophia before she became the Earth. According to the Gnostic myth he emphasizes, Sophia, a divine being from the Pleroma (the cosmic center of divine fullness), plunged into the material realm, resulting in the accidental creation of the Archons, led by the Demiurge, a false god who believes himself to be the supreme creator. The Archons are depicted as parasitic, soulless beings that lack the creative and intentional capacity of humanity or the divine Aeons.
Two Types of Archons:
Lash claims that Gnostic texts describe two distinct forms of Archons:Neonate/Embryonic Type: Resembling the “Grey” extraterrestrials of modern UFO lore, characterized as fetal or embryonic in appearance.
Draconic/Reptilian Type:
Described as having a lion-faced serpent form, akin to reptilian entities in contemporary conspiracy theories. He suggests these descriptions align with modern reports of extraterrestrial beings, proposing a connection between ancient Gnostic insights and modern phenomena.
Extraterrestrial Hypothesis:
Lash controversially posits that the Archons may be actual extraterrestrial entities, part of an “ET/Archon” hypothesis. He argues that their “sci-fi theology” in Gnostic texts reflects an ancient understanding of alien intrusion into human affairs, describing them as “offwindow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g7O_mfgu6Q&t=136s. This idea, while speculative, is central to his narrative, as he suggests the Archons exert influence over humanity through mind control and deception.
Archontic Influence on Humanity
Lash asserts that the Archons are malevolent forces that manipulate human consciousness, inserting “bad ideas” into our minds to lead humanity astray from its evolutionary potential. He describes this as a “cosmic mind-control game” that threatens human survival by fostering delusion and disconnection from the natural world. The Archons are said to exploit humanity’s propensity for error, promoting a “remote-controlled morality” that divorces people from their innate goodness.
False Heaven and Salvationism:
Lash connects the Archons to the salvationist ideologies of monotheistic religions, particularly Christianity. He argues that the Archons promise a “false heaven” through doctrines like the Book of Revelation, which he sees as a tool of control that distracts humanity from its true inheritance: the Earth, as embodied by Sophia. This salvationist narrative, he claims, alienates humans from their psychological and cosmic evolution, which should be aligned with the planet and the cosmos.
Transhumanism and Modern Relevance:
In the 15th Anniversary Edition of the book (2021), Lash updates his argument to suggest that the Gnostics foresaw modern technological agendas, such as transhumanism and what he calls “salvation by syringe” (likely a reference to medical or technological interventions). He positions the Archons as the driving force behind these movements, which he views as attempts to sever humanity’s connection to the organic, Sophianic vision of life.
Opposition to Archontic Influence
Lash advocates for resisting Archontic influence by reconnecting with Sophia/Gaia through ancient shamanic and Pagan practices. He encourages readers to become “nature mystics” who commune directly with the Earth’s intelligence, thereby bypassing the Archons’ delusions. This involves rejecting the patriarchal, salvationist frameworks of monotheistic religions and embracing a Gnostic worldview that emphasizes humanity’s inherent divinity and connection to the natural world.
The Sophia Myth as Liberation:
Central to Lash’s thesis is the idea that the myth of Sophia offers a counter-narrative to Archontic control. By recognizing the Earth as the living embodiment of Sophia, humanity can reclaim its evolutionary path, which involves conscious, psychological evolution in harmony with the planet. This contrasts sharply with the Archons’ alleged agenda of leading humanity toward artificiality and disembodiment (e.g., transhumanism, virtual reality).
Critiques and Controversies
Lash’s interpretation of the Archons has been met with both praise and criticism:Supporters praise the book for its bold synthesis of Gnosticism, history, and mysticism, arguing that it offers a compelling case for re-embracing earth-based spirituality. Some readers find his ideas resonate with their intuitive understanding of humanity’s spiritual disconnection.
Critics, including scholars like Dr. Michael Heiser, challenge Lash’s claims about the Archons, particularly his assertion that Gnostic texts explicitly describe them as neonatal or reptilian. Heiser’s analysis of the Nag Hammadi texts finds limited evidence for such descriptions, suggesting Lash may be embellishing or misinterpreting the sources to fit his narrative.
Others question Lash’s scholarly rigor, noting that he treats Gnostic myths (e.g., Sophia, the Pleroma, the Archons) as literal, substantial entities rather than symbolic or allegorical constructs. His attempt to reconcile these myths with modern physics and his extraterrestrial hypothesis have led some to question his credibility.
Key Themes and Implications
Lash’s discussion of the Archons is not just a historical or mythological analysis but a call to action. He frames the Archons as a metaphor (and possibly a literal reality) for forces that undermine human potential through ideological and technological means. His work challenges readers to:Question the moral and spiritual authority of monotheistic religions.
Reconnect with the Earth as a living, divine entity (Sophia/Gaia).
Resist modern trends like transhumanism that he sees as Archontic in nature.
Embrace a Gnostic-inspired path of direct, experiential knowing (gnosis) over dogmatic belief.
Conclusion:
In Not in His Image, John Lamb Lash portrays the Archons as parasitic, inorganic entities that manipulate human consciousness to enforce a false, salvationist worldview, alienating humanity from its true potential and connection to the Earth (Sophia). He draws on Gnostic texts to argue that these beings, possibly extraterrestrial, exert influence through religious ideologies and modern technological agendas like transhumanism. While his ideas are compelling to some, they are controversial, with critics questioning his interpretations and scholarly methods. Ultimately, Lash’s Archon narrative serves as a radical critique of Western spirituality and a call to reclaim a direct, earth-based connection to the divine.If you’d like me to delve deeper into specific passages, provide a critical analysis, or explore related Gnostic concepts, let me know! I can also search for additional sources or posts on X if you want real-time perspectives on Lash’s ideas.
Hi Joe, has my post gone into moderation? I spent ages putting a post together to find it won’t post. I know it is long and maybe in hindsight I should have broken it down as your rules.
I even mentioned your book Planet Wars as an information source. It’s about the Archons who as Hockney readers know are the bad guys (or playing a bad guy role) I gave many references as an argument for their establishment in our society and how they mould it into a loosh Farm. Now I know some believe the dark and light exist together for a reason, and I get that, just that the dark has been in control for thousands of years and now the tables are turning. Websites like yours and others contribute to this new dynamic and we march forward. Idealism over materialism. Mind over matter. Dark to light. Cimmeria to Hyperborea,
Extra terrestial beings no doubt do exist. One mistake is to attribute them with familiar charecteristics based on our own limited experience of existence. As I have previously noted, it is easy to look down on those beings whose behaviour seems controlled by base instinct rather than having some free choice in the matter. Who would look down on us with such disdain, in the spiritual world?
The answer lies within our own grasp; if only some power the gift would give us that we can see ourselves us others see us (to paraphrase Robert Burns). To look upon yourself as if from another’s standpoint is to begin to be objective about the nature of perception.
The nature of the beings termed “Archons” can be seen as a reflection of certain inner experiences. If we only view them as being out there, as in separate from our own being, we will naturally view them as invaders or evil influencers who ought to be exiled.
The reason we, in our human physical state have choice is because we have individuality. This naturally cuts us off from the spiritual world so that we can be free as individuals, capable of evil and capable of love.
To attribute our own fallibilities to other beings is to deny that we have free choice. Therefore, in my humble opinion, Archons cannot be essentially evil.
The definition of terms, as I’m sure you know, is essential to any discussion about perception. However in the spiritual realm it is even more important to not only define terms but also to characterise the nature of what lies behind the terminology.
I personally find difficulty in the setting off of one idea against another. Black and white, dark and light, good and bad, for or against, for instance. There might be more than two sides to an equation. There could be a balancing force in the middle. Hence my assertion that not everything boils down to mathematics. Could it be that mathematics as we perceive it is a result of the influence of higher beings on our perception and not merely the manifestation of their essence? Perhaps they want to leave us our freedom to decide on our own course of action.
I know for a fact that is the stance of those beings adjacent to our physical perception; the so-called angelic realm. It is not easy to talk about their position in relation to us, precisely because we have no plane of reference. However I do feel it neccessary to make an effort! They are beings composed of love, or light or purity of thought. There is no other way to put it. unless you have seen them, by which I mean experienced their radiant presence, I fear you won’t know what I’m trying to say.
Archons, as a term seems to me to mean just about anything you want it to mean. You can define it anyway you like. The old greek word means simply some being or other who stakes a claim over some other being or other who is susceptible to being dominated. I would like to suggest a viable way of differentiating one archon from another.
1 The archons who wish to dominate us by means of our desire to excarnate. (ie through bhuddism or such, and denial of the human ego as a vehicle for love or evil) These are the Luciferian ones.
2 The archons who wish to blind us with science. This is particularly effective since we live on a planet with finite resources and can be thus easily convinced that we are the problem. Of course the Earth is dying. Talk about state the obvious? Our presence here as transient visitors must be perceived as a gift. That is why every time I take in food I bless the meal. It is good to not just take things for granted. These are the Ahrimanic ones.
3 The archons who notice that we are easily trapped into over indulgence in earthly delights, which quickly may become enslavement. These are the Asuras.
These three terms I have just used are based on the work of spiritual research by Rudolf Steiner. I find them useful in that vagueness by lumping them all together under one title (the devil), makes it harder to know what you might be up against, especially in your own psyche. The differentiation makes it not so much easier, but more accessible to consciousness. It is still difficult to judge ones own morality. My advice would be; don’t let the apparent enormity of the task deflect you from the path you know to be the right one. There are no quick fixes.
Interestingly Grok is using a closed old data base as the youtube video is no longer available which shows it is not progressive in its data output but on a closed computer database set, which obviously hasn’t been updated. I questioned it why the youtube video wasn’t available and all it said was it didn’t exist, contradicting itself, as it quoted it in its original message to me.
“the Archons promise a “false heaven” through doctrines like the Book of Revelation”
I would say the Book of Revelation is not a doctrine. Some might take the content and fashion it into a doctrine. Some might take the content, understand it rightly and then subvert its intention by subtle sophistry. Some might cling to certain phrases within its text which instill a certain awe. And then give explanations which sound plausible but which on reflection don’t really stand up to much scrutiny. In my experience, anyone who lays forth the statement “the archons promise a false heaven” then must back it up with the definition of a true heaven, not to merely set it against a document whose content is widely misunderstood, mis-translated and mis-represented as doctrine.
In fact the book of revelation, or the apocalypse of St john, is nothing more than a coded recollection of the experience of spiritual awakening in the modern age. Ie after the incarnation of the christ into flesh. Moses saw the christ approaching in the burning bush that was not consumed. The two Jesus children who merged into one, were the carrier of body and soul prepared in such a way that christ incarnation would be possible. This christ incarnation is not the subject of a christian religion. It actually happened. This is what is set out in the book of revelation. To begin to understand it requires an experience of it directly. Not an interpretation of it by theological study but by direct perception through the new sense organ currently being formed in the human breast. Even the merest glimpse of this new organ of perception will reveal that, in spiritual navigation, you must rely on your own compass. And you must continually examine this compass for its veracity. Of course there are those who have shone a light on our path. But they can only do so much.
There are those who shine a false light. Which actually is in danger of blinding us. It appears as something which looks truthful. It might in fact contain nothing but the truth, but crucially not the whole truth. I would aver that the Archons promise nothing. What they do is inveigle themselves into our psyche in such a way that we no longer trust our own judgement.
What David Icke has to say on the subject is so obviously as much bullshit as the claim the earth is flat. There are no weird lizard types who inhabit the moon. There are beings who inhabit the moon. They don’t have physical bodies. Existence does not depend on physical presence. That is obvious even with physical sense bound perception. One can extrapolate very reliably that intelligence does not depend on the presence of a physical brain. All it requires is unprejudiced observation.
Therefore there is going to be intelligence at work that is independent of any direct physical phenomena. Against this is the experience of humanity as like the raft of the medusa. Jericho made this painting of such desperation, based on the accounts of a couple of survivors. One cannot but feel the total horror portrayed in such an image. Also one cannot help but feel the reality now is very similar. I can understand a bit how Joe feels. It’s as if he is offering a drink of water to the world which is parched and it is being rejected in favour of a bit of poison.
JUST NOW: Smug Leftist 100% Ruined His Career.
I think you have been singled out and unfairly treated Joe for your spoken viewpoint …i.e here and in your books. What has it got to do with your university? Surely it understands free speech and so long as you don’t break any Canadian laws then you should be able to talk freely. Why do you have to lose your job? It’s bloody outrageous. Seems Canada is as bad as UK for free speech lock down. Very Orwellian.
Unless your university has a mouthpiece? A very well funded one? Just conjecture of course. I have no evidence. Just a shame it ended for you like it did for you. You must have really pissed them off lol.