Thursday, September 2, 2021

Talibanerna och IS



Intressant artikel om IS i Afghanistan av Expressens Magda Gad. Den korta versionen är att talibanerna, al-Qaida och IS är sammanflätade med varandra, och samtliga vuxit fram ur Pakistans "deep state". Konflikten mellan IS och talibanerna handlar om snöda materiella självintressen, och det är inte ens glasklart om det finns en skarp gräns mellan de båda rörelserna. 

Gad gör också en koppling till Syrien. Jag uppfattar det som att Gad är mot muslimsk fundamentalism var den än framträder, och är beredd att stödja vem som helst som är mot den: den syriska regimen, Indien, USA. 

Jag har vissa sympatier för en sådan hållning *men* 20 års amerikanska misslyckanden i Afghanistan går likväl inte att tänka bort...

"Så skapades fruktade afghanska IS-grenen"

Idol of the week

 

Credit: Patrick20242023



Delta Variant Mindset


Ett relativt kort inlägg av Hübinette. Oavsett vad man anser om vacciner, lockdowns eller utsatta områden, så är nedanstående nog (tyvärr) helt riktigt. 

Har tidigare lyft frågan, då om New York, där vaccinpassen riskerar att slå oproportionellt hårt mot svarta och kanske andra minoritetsgrupper. Observera att New York City alltså styrs av demokratiska partiet! Närmare bestämt en borgmästare som stödde Bernie Sanders i primärvalen. 

Jag läser inte DN, men i Aftonbladet har jag sett flera artiklar på temat "de som inte vaccinerar sig är en samhällsfara, egoistiska eller dumma i huvudet". 

Här krockar tydligen solidariteten med invandrarna/"underklassen" med en annan PK-käpphäst, nämligen att alla måste vaccinera sig (utanför Sverige även kombinerat med krav på vaccinpass och hårda lockdowns), annars är man...fascist...nej,vänta...syntax error, syntax error...

Tobias Hübinette om invandrare, rasism och pandemi

Tillägg 2021-09-02 kl. 17:29 

Vaccinationsgradklyftan ökar i Stockholms län

A message from the Archons

 


Cyrus Kirkpatrick continues his far out speculations in this recent YouTube clip. While our man repudiated the wild claims he was promoting this summer, his new claims are...well, equally wild.

After communicating with "the Ashtar" and the "Angelic Order", Cyrus has reached the conclusion that the spiritual cosmos is currently split into two competing timelines. One of them is the "true" timeline, where our post-mortem existence looks pretty much as our present one, only much better, and we all get to keep our personalities and individualities. (I assume this is the "astral world" Cyrus usually talks about on his channel.) The fake timeline is created by a group of beings who think they are speeding up human evolution to higher levels of consciousness, while actually manipulating and perhaps even destroying it. These beings have created "the causal plane" in which the physical and the mental are conflated, every thought immidiately becomes an object, and human souls float around among strange geometric shapes, et cetera. This sounds like the *real* astral plane of many occult traditions, or perhaps a more chaotic version of the same? 

The point of the exercise is to teach human souls that any kind of material or individual existence is negative, and that they must therefore fuse with "God" (which seems to be a kind of pantheistic world-spirit in this scenario). However, if you unite with "God" in this way, your soul will be dissolved into the divine essence, and you will simply cease to exist. This is the second death. The Angelic Order calls this "dissolutionism" and has woved to fight it. The pantheistic timeline is inherently unstable, and self-destructs at regular intervals, at which the aliens controlling it has to recreate it anew. Thus, it cannot give its denizens ultimate peace or immortality. 

There are similarities between these curious teachings and other religious traditions. Richard Thompson´s book "Alien Identities" comes to mind, where some aliens are preaching a pantheist message, while the true message is that of Krishna seen as a personal god (the author was a member of ISKCON). The reason is simply that some UFO occupants are deluded by Maya (cosmic illusion). It also struck me that the communications from the Angelic Order sound like inverted Gnosticism. It´s as if the evil archons were communicating with humanity, trying to stop us from entering the real light (the "false" timeline) by enchanting promises of personal immortality. In the Gnostic scenario, the fantastic and perfect worlds promised us by the Angelic Order are the unstable ones, chaining us to further suffering. Another similarity would be with the devas of Buddhist mythology. The Angelic Order are the devas, claiming that the dissolutionists are the asuras, while real enlightenment (and nirvana) is different from both!

OK, you can have some fun with this material, if you studied comparative religion at college level (which I did). 

Why not simply admit that there are many paths through eternity? If I want to dissolve my essence into the Divine, why should some self-proclaimed angel from "the 7th density plane" try to stop me... 


Sagan om Jösse Blåskägg


Anta att det för 1000 år sedan levde en viking som vi kan kalla Jösse Blåskägg. Denne Jösse sägs ha blivit dödad i ett slag strax utanför Gamla Uppsala. En märklig religiös kult växte upp kring honom efter hans frånfälle. Om man äter fläsk och dricker mjöd, som symboliskt representerar Jösses kött och blod, kan man bli frälst och komma till Valhall. Ja, Jösses död på slagfältet var ett offer som öppnade vägen för *alla* att inträda i Valhall, inte bara de som är vikingar, utan även enkla bönder och t.o.m. trälar. 

Det finns dock ett litet problem. Jösses liv är endast känt från fyra sinsimellan motstridiga sagor. Och om man analyserar dessa sagor noggrant, upptäcker man att varenda påstående om Jösse är baserat på äldre myter, särskilt Völsungasagan och äldre Eddan. Dessutom verkar sagorna i förtäckta ordalag polemisera mot varandra. Sagorna är inte ens överens om när fältslaget vid Gamla Uppsala stod, eller hur många valkyrior som visade sig vid Jösses begravningsbål. Och vem var det egentligen som höll i facklan? Ännu märkligare är att sagorna författades först omkring 100 år efter Jösses död. Nu finns det visserligen äldre källor till Jösses existens, men de är ovanligt sparsmakade när det gäller historiska detaljer. Hans främste lärjunge Peder Svart och hans köttslige broder Jakob Röde lämnar underligt nog inga historiska informationer alls i sina brev, som bevarats i Jösse hednatempel. Sedan finns det ett dussin brev av en viss Pålle den Vittbereste, som tydligen blev anhängare av Jösse efter att först ha stött hans mördare. Men inte heller Pålle lämnar särskilt ingående uppgifter om Jösses liv. Däremot polemiserar han ständigt mot Peder och Jakob! 

Några samtida källor till Jösse liv eller det stora slaget finns inte. Inga runstenar. Inga hällristningar. Inga rapporter från arabiska köpmän. Nej, det finns ingenting. 

Varför ska vi i så fall anta att Jösse ens existerat? Vi verkar ju veta lika lite om honom, som om han inte hade gjort det. Så tänk om det faktiskt är en myt alltihop? 1000 år senare framträder en professor vid namn Alvar Eriksson som föreslår just detta. Men då händer något märkligt.

Alvar blir attackerad i massmedierna, framställs som dilettant på akademiska konferenser, anklagas för att vara konspirationsteoretiker. Varför?

Jo, under de 1000 år som gått sedan Slaget vid Upsal har jösseismen spridit sig över hela världen. Detta tack vare de stora krigarkungarna Gustaf Adolf och Karl XII, som erövrade stora delar av Europa (inklusive Ryssland) på 1600- och 1700-talen. Därefter lade Karl XIV Johan grunden för det sveländska världsimperiet. Jösseismen är idag en världsreligion, med omkring en miljard anhängare. 

Ingen hade betvivlat att Alvar Eriksson kan ha haft rätt, om jösseismen bara varit statsreligion på Färöarna. Men nu är det inte så. Alltså *måste* Jösse ha existerat. Även sekulära akademiker finkammar de fyra sagorna (och Pålles brev) för att hitta någonting som liknar historisk information. Kanske något påstående som var "pinsamt för vikingarna", allmänt känt i hela Svealand, och som därför inte kunde förtigas? Jösses blå skägg kanske, hans dåliga relation till sin gudmoder, det faktum att han växte upp i Trälby, eller varför inte det faktum att han stupade för en bärsärks blodiga yxa? Att vissa Jösse-förnekare tror att han var en rymdvarelse från Arcturus lyfts fram som ett påtagligt bevis på att Jösse-myticismen helt enkelt måste vara felaktig...

Professor Alvar suckar uppgivet och konstaterar att det år 2021 antagligen finns fler personer som tror på Jösse på historiska institutionen vid Uppsala universitet än i själva hednatemplet! 


Wednesday, September 1, 2021

A prayer for nonbelievers

Attribution: Didier Descouens. 

Another hard-hitting John Michael Greer extravaganza.  

A prayer for nonbelievers

Priorities


Not sure why Breibart News (hardly an animal rights outfit) carries this story, but they seem to publish *anything* now just to smear Joe Biden as much as possible. 

United States abandons dogs in Afghanistan

An embarrassing criterion


The Criterion of Embarrassment is often used to prove that Jesus must have been a real person. Indeed, he simply must have made potentially embarrassing things, too. Like being crucified. Or being condemned by his own mother. Or being baptized in the Jordan by John the Baptist. I mean, if it wasn´t true, widely known and easy to check, the Gospel writers would never be forced to admit such things, right? 

Well, wrong. In reality, the Criteron of Embarrassment is embarrassing. First, even the people making the argument admit that the Gospels were written between 40 and 70 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, after a devastating war in Palestine, and that both their provenance and authors are unknown. Indeed, they were written in Greek, not Aramaic (presumably the first language of the earliest Christians). Also, most Christians at that time lived outside Palestine, many probably far outside it. So how could anyone check the claims of the Gospels? And no, you can´t claim that the traditions the Gospels are based on must be early. They are mostly absent from Paul, Peter and James...

But a more important question is this: Why would anyone check the claims in the first place? Historical-critical scholars (not to mention modern Christian apologists) tacitly assume that uneducated Christians in Asia Minor 1,900 years ago had the same mentality as a sleuth, perhaps with a dash of Sherlock Holmes and a German philologist? "Let´s try to find out if this Jesus bloke really was rejected by his mother, I mean that´s so shocking, so if they don´t lie about that, maybe we all get resurrected at the Second Coming?" Yeah, that´s how it works, surely.

It doesn´t, of course. Here are some examples. The Church of Scientology is a relatively strong new religious movement, founded by L Ron Hubbard. Now, the Scientologists are spreading all kinds of lies about Hubbard´s early life. They can be double-checked. Indeed, they *have* been double-checked. There are official documents from the US military showing that Hubbard was talking hokum about his glorious past as a US submarine hunter during World War II. There is just one problem: *people interested in Scientology* don´t give a damn. *They* don´t double-check the claims, preferring instead the message of the cult. The Criterion of Embarrassement would work only if the Scientologists had admitted that Hubbard had a mediocre record in the Navy, since that was indeed well-known and could be checked. But the Scientologists brazenly claim the opposite, and their supporters don´t care. This also proves another point: a religious group usually doesn´t have to admit to embarrassing facts about their founders or leaders, since they can usually get away with it *even if the facts are well known*. Which they weren´t in Asia Minor around 100 AD.

Another example: Carlos Castaneda. His books about Don Juan have been debunked god knows how many times, and yet continue to sell in the millions. Few of the readers care to double-check the claims of the books. Note, by the way, that Castaneda (the real founder) invented another founder for his religion: Don Juan, who is a fictitious person. He did so *right under the very noses of the skeptics*. Yet, he got away with it. 

Yes, the Gospels did contain things which were embarrassing...for later generations of Christians. Which is why the later Gospels sound like veiled polemics against the earlier ones. They weren´t embarrassing for those who wrote them down. Why should we believe that Christianity is any different from the new religious movements that proliferate today? We know from other evidence that religious groups can use a variety of methods when a scripture finally becomes embarrassing. They can burn the old scriptures. They can revise them, hoping nobody will notice. They can re-interpret them. They can claim to reveal an esoteric tradition which says the opposite of the literal text. Or they can write entirely new texts, perhaps based on supposed new revelations. We know that Christians used all of these strategies when dealing with outdated notions in their scriptures. We also know that modern religions do exactly the same things. The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith got new revelations, found new scriptures, or revised old ones, to take just one example. 

So what is the problem, really? The Criterion of Embarrassement is just a speculation. Is there any *real* evidence that the author of Mark found certain things truly embarrassing, but included them anyway, since so many people knew the truth, that he just had to admit it (or that he was so honest that he would have admitted to it anyway)? None I´m aware of. It´s just an assumption. And that assumption is belied by comparative religion.  


Mysteries of the faith


At first glance, Christianity looks extremely illogical. There´s the incarnation of a transcendental god as man, the idea that such a god can be personal, the notion of the Trinity, the idea that the atonement of Christ is valid for everyone, including people who aren´t even born yet, and so on. These are all "mysteries of faith", at least to those brave enough to admit that you can´t prove any of them by sound derivations from philosophical first principles. But perhaps Christianity isn´t so illogical after all? Primitive Christianity, that is. The original meanings of the Christian ideas might not have been so strange.

Perhaps the earliest Christians accepted the old Israelite cosmology, where the Earth is a flat disk, the universe is very small, and "heaven" is a real place beyond the firmament (likewise, the kingdom of Satan is in the stratosphere). Then, it suddenly makes sense.

God isn´t an invisible transcendental spirit. (He certainly doesn´t seem so in the Old Testament.) God is actually a humanoid creature living in a concrete place called Heaven beyond the stars. (That is, relatively close.) He rides a chariot, and is surrounded by angelic creatures, who look like theriantropes. *This is how God is actually depicted in the Bible*, more specifically Ezekiel´s visions. Since God looks like a man, he created man in his image. And, I suppose, woman. This also explains how God could incarnate as a man. He really didn´t - that was his literal son, the Christ, who was born on Earth. But God himself could have incarnated on Earth, too. He seems to do so at several points in the Old Testament. Indeed, at one point, he shows himself as three men! Side up, side down, God is depicted as a human-like personal being in the Bible. He walks in the garden, talks to Adam and Eve, shows his back to Moses, appears full clad in shining armor to Joshua, and so on. Note also that God and his heavenly court fear that humans can "become like gods"! And what about the Tower of Babel? 

Which brings me to the fallen angels, who mated with human females. How was *that* possible? Presumably because God, the angels and humans are somehow related, they seem to belong to the same "genus", so to speak. How can the atonement of Christ on the cross work for everyone, including the dead and the unborn? First, all Christians affirm that the death of Christ on the cross was a "sin sacrifice" similar to those in the Jewish Temple. But this atonement was for Israel only. And Christ was originally seen as the Jewish Messiah. (Later, Gentiles could be "adopted", as it were, into the Jesus Movement.) The atonement works for the dead due to Christ´s "harrowing of Hell", not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament but implied at several points. This harrowing of hell was for Old Testament patriarchs only. 

How can it work for future generations? Answer: it doesn´t. The first generation of Christians believed it was also the last generation, and that Jesus would return during their lifetimes. So that problem didn´t even exist. In sum, there is no mystery to explain here. It´s all completely simple and logical *provided you accept ancient Israelite cosmology*. But if you don´t, then of course the whole thing gets more murky. And when Christianity spread, it presumably accepted a pagan cosmology, a more philosophical view of God, and so on. Today, there is also the theory of evolution. And a lot of faith mysteries...

There is one form of Christianity that has resurrected a modified version of the ancient Israelite cosmology. Yes, I´m referring to Mormonism. While the Mormons don´t deny the infinity of space and time (indeed, they explicitly affirm it), the only gods that matter are God the Father and Jesus Christ, who are gods of *this* Earth (or perhaps heliocentric solar system). Thus, Earth (while a globe) is nevertheless part and parcel of a kind of mini-version of the Israelite cosmology, inside the infinite space-time. God looks like a man, is the literal father of Jesus, and men can become gods, suggesting that God and man are the same genus. So, presumably, are the angels. The Earth is only 6,000 years old. God and his heavenly court reside at a concrete planet, the mysterious Kolob near the center of the universe. Originally, Mormon speculations even included claims that Jesus (the Son of God, remember?) was married (a polygamist, actually) and sired children!

Make of this what you wish.  


This is how winning looks like

 



Tired of winning yet? Some excerpts from Joe Biden´s speech announcing the end of the war in Afghanistan. 

When the Soviet Union withdrew in 1989, the event heralded the end of the Soviet empire. It was gone by 1991. Now, the US withdraws from the same Allah-forsaken country. Does this mean that the American empire will be gone by 2023? Biden sounds pathetic when he promises continued confrontation with China and Russia. Yeah, whatever, Joe. Come to think of it, Biden is just as half-dead as Chernenko, and just as weak as Gorbachev. 

Afghanistan is CURSED. Now, both superpowers have died trying to conquer that particular territory. Had I been a Maoist, I would have been almost impressed! 

There are many lessons to learn here. One seems to be the limitations of modern warfare. After all, ancient empires had no problem taking Aghanistan. Remember Alexander the Great and Bactria? Or the Persians? Or the Muslims? So how come the USSR and the USA failed? Another, even more important lesson: don´t let the Deep State take over your foreign policy, don´t arm Muslim fundamentalists, don´t do - you know - 9/11 and shit. Like that wasn´t an inside job. Lesson three might be Samuel Huntington- multipolar world - something something. I don´t think Amerik(w)a is in any shape or form ready to confront the Russian Federation or the PRC. They probably can´t even conquer Grenada at this point. 

Final thing: ironic that Biden talks about "girls" in the second video clip, since he no longer knows what a "girl" is. You know, locker rooms and stuff. But sure, if the United States accepts Japan, India and ´Nam as equal partners, I suppose they *might* be able to confront China (Aussie don´t count no more). Who knows, maybe Silicon Valley can escape unionization by off shoring itself to New Delhi...

But I´m digressing. Tired of winning yet?