Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Apotheosis

  1. Please: FREE and informed consent. Don't drop the first term of the conjunction.
  2. We are not trapped in flesh. How could mere flesh trap spirit in the first place? Flesh is trapped in law. And law is imposed by spirit. It is the mind that traps. This is what the earliest "gnostics" behind the Gospels of Thomas, Philip and Truth, really just pre-"orthodox" Christians who had nothing to do with 4th century "gnostic" cults and their mumbo jumbo writings, knew before being bastardised by anti-material Platonic philosophy. That is why the risen Christ has a body; it is just a body not subject to the powers of this cosmos, to death, pain, suffering, injury, decay and the limitations physical law.
  3. What makes you think they believe the version of events in which they lose? The essence of the archons is ignorance. The demiurge believes he is the supreme being. The Devil never knew the Father.
  4. Talk about presumptuousness. I'm not "indoctrinated" for recognising the reality of good and evil. No. It could just as well imply that your concept of "God" and his "omnipotence" is incoherent. Indeed, "God" cannot create a square circle because the concept is nonsensical. That fact doesn't rob "God" of any properly defined "omnipotence". Your conclusion is founded in a series of presumptions about the nature of God, intelligent beings, the cosmos and their relationships to one another. You also assume that this cosmos we inhabit is "God's" creation and not that of another force. It may well be that "God" does not have the power to alter free will, annihilate an individual consciousness or intervene in the manner you imagine because these expressions, despite appearances, are nonsensical. So your "God" is the child rapist, the pain of burning alive, envy, greed, malice, the hatred of what is good ... this "God" is a proper object of contempt. No, the distinction of good and evil is a reference to the reality of their actual distinctness, and recognition of it has never been confined to "Abrahamic religions". The evil of the cabal is the cabal's creation; it is the very absence of "God".
  5. No, it's not. If that's all it were, it wouldn't be wrong about anything, just limited. "Science" continually postulates things which are beyond sense perception and don't logically follow from any of its data. Particle physics is a prime example.
  6. The existence of "the soul", as that word has been understood in the Western philosophical tradition beginning with the Greek psyche, is a phenomenological fact. That is so without even considering the other fact here, namely that the atomic objects of particle physics are unobservable theoretical objects postulated by the mind from the phenomenological content of "the soul". Brian Cox is an idiot.
  7. Possibly. But some people are always getting very sick. It is only when accompanied by the grand narrative of a novel pandemic disease, real or not, that they become expressed in public in this fashion and interpreted this way. You can always find a lot of people to truthfully say "I've never been this sick before in my life". They usually don't fill news reports and forum posts, and they aren't usually taken note of.
  8. The aforegoing is a good example of the massive gap between what people actually know and what they think they know, between reality and fictions, indeed a form of storytelling, by which we are taught to make sense of it.
  9. What are you talking about? Penicillin is an antibiotic. It kills bacteria. It is not meant for hypothetical viruses and shouldn't be prescribed for them. So you know this was the work of a virus because?
  10. I understand what he is trying to get at, and I even agree with much of it, but David Icke's take on certain Vedantic or Buddhist ideas on maia and samsara, when he mixes them with modern Western scientific language and materialism's theories of sensation, is rather philosophically naive and ends up being self-defeating. It doesn't stand up to sophisticated philosophical scrutiny. More still, although I believe he does not realise it, he is advocating something that is a form of mechanistic and reductive physicalism which is incompatible with his ideas of "you are consciousness" taken from the Indian concept of the atman. He claims that the phenomenological world we experience is really an epiphenomenon of "waveforms", physical objects, interpreted by the physical object (and itself a "waveform" if we want to get down to it) known as the "brain". This is mechanistic, and it is reductionist par excellence. Sorry David, but if this "reality" is a deceptive "illusion", then, without special pleading, so are all the empirical data by which you have come to postulate the existence of the "brain", "waveforms", and the mechanisms whereby "reality" is supposedly constructed out of them. And with that goes any trust you can have in their "reality". These are all themselves concepts of the mind and their phenomenological content itself a object of consciousness. If you were consistent in your reasoning, you would abandon this form of reductionism you are peddling.
  11. The home of Hitler was the Anglo-Kabbalist cabal that gave birth to his proto-transhumanist ideology and funded him from Wall Street.
  12. This depends on what is meant by "isolation". "Isolation" is just a word. This shows that you don't know what you're talking about. For someone who is called "DoTheScience", you apparently have a naive understanding of the nature of science and its language and no grasp on its problems of epistemology. But this is true for most scientists. Viruses are theoretical entities, hypothesised to explain the existence of a set of observable phenomena. The existence of a virus is not logically implied by what is accepted by virologists, according to some convention, as "evidence" of its existence. This is true of all viruses. Koch's postulates are just a strong form of such criteria, but they have long been abandoned in practice because it was found that no virus could ever be shown to fulfill them. So it was necessary to invent weaker ones that would conform to the ever-changing picture of what a virus is and all its attendant ad hoc hypotheses. Necessary that is in order to hang on to, in Kuhnian terms, the research paradigm. In short, no virus has ever been "shown to exist". This is a mere claim. The phenomena in question are not logically dependent for their existence upon the actual existence of a virus. The viral theory is accepted as given and propagated by the scientific community at large as their explanation because that is the dominant, even exclusive, research paradigm. All data deemed relevant are interpreted through it and explained by it, where, if not pre-selected through the lense of the theory and massaged to fit, they are simply not even taken into account. This is how science operates. Where the science has immediately testable implications and is used to make technology whose utility depends upon its correctness, like classical mechanics and engineering, you get good science. Virology, on the other hand, doesn't work that way. The effectiveness of its products, like a vaccine, has to be taken at the word of its makers and government. It's only made worse once we factor in how political and corporate interests have driven education, research and theorising in these subjects since their inception and the trilions of dollars at stake. As to the "scale", what are you talking about? "Case" numbers are a product of meaningless RT-PCR tests - meaningless because one has to adjust them by the positive prediction rate for the tests (if I test positive, what is the probability I am infected? - this is the meaning of a test and the test is meaningless without that number), which is totally an unknown (estimating it depends upon having a)the confusion matrix for the test and b) the infection rate, both of which depend upon having a gold standard to compare with, which doesn't exist. But if you already knew the infection rate, you wouldn't need to tally cases by RT-PCR tests now, would you? You could work out the estimated number of infections analytically from the total population size) No. The issue is that the modern usage of "isolation" and "isolate" in virology doesn't mean what it literally implies and doesn't prove the existence of a virus as the causal agent of "COVID-19". The real technicality here is calling some process "isolation" and then claiming that something has been "isolated" by undergoing it. That's true because it's a tautology.
  13. "I am pro-vaccine and did my part". Gotta add that bit. Gotta fit in with the socially expected behaviour and moral mumbo jumbo. Gotta be a true believer, even though reality just slapped you in the face. Baaaaah. Baaaaaaah. What does it actually feel like to sleepwalk through life?
  14. Appealing to virologists as evidence of virology's theories is like appealing to phrenologists as evidence of phrenology's. Such thinking is religious, in the worst sense. It's primitive, dumb, and brings one no closer to knowledge. Regardless, viruses have not been and cannot be proven to exist. Virologists themselves will implicitly admit this when they confirm that their hypothesised entities in principle cannot be shown to meet certain epistemic criteria (e.g., "viruses can NOT be isolated and purified in the dictionary sense of the words and this has always been known by virologists"). So they invent some ad hoc criteria that can be met, like they do after throwing out Koch's postulates, whose fulfillment they regard as sufficient proof of the validity of their claims. However, any close analysis of these criteria will reveal they are logically insufficient to demonstrate existence and causation. In other words, they invent a "standard of evidence" for the very purpose of "evidencing" their claims. "I can't prove this, so I'm going to come up with an idea of "proof" whereby I can "prove" it!" It's insane.
  15. If you want to understand what viruses "are", an unobservable theoretical construct from tendentiously selected and pre-interpreted instrumental, clinical and epidemiological data, read any good books on philosophy of science.
  16. You're a bald-faced liar. The papers brought forward by the student did not meet the evidentiary criteria set forth by Stefan Lanka. This is what the high court stated in its decision, which I have actually read. Lanka did not "get off on a technicality." That's a lie from unscrupulous media sources you're repeating. Can you even read German? Proving a negative existential claim in the absence of proof of the positive ... God, you're dumb. But the pattern is typical of all claims of the existence of invisible causal agents: thoroughly religious.
  17. There is no "HIV" retrovirus. That was the biggest medical fraud in history before COVID-19.
  18. It's obvious his entire mindset with regards to truth revolves around the fiction of "authority".
  19. Effective self-defence? Join an MMA gym that hasn't been gentrified and supplement it with combatives classes that do self-protection theory, stress innoculation, weapon defense, dirty fighting and scenario training, like Lee Morrison's Urban Combatives. If you live somewhere where it's legal, obviously do tactical training and purchase a firearm.
  20. I should say upfront that I think it's fairly obvious, at least obvious to someone with the requisite mathematical, scientific and philosophical training, that this quantity is more of a political tool and reductionistic farce than a meaningful or useful scientific concept (for instance, can this quantity be plugged into any local model of actual and specific physical phenomena with any predictive power and power beyond that of real local temperature data that it assimilates and obfuscates?). To make sense of this varied and complex system and any systematic changes occurring in, I'd think it makes more sense to look at localities and classify and aggregate to create a multi-dimensional picture, but this doesn't reduce reality down to a single and simplistic concept that can be waved in front of people's faces and sold to the public while leveraging loaded words like "warming" through a hidden fallacy of equivocation. The last question is really rhetorical, because this quantity logically implies nothing about "warming" unless changes in it are the definition of "warming", in other words, if we say we know the Earth is getting "warmer" because the global average temperature anomaly is increasing, the statement is only true if "warming" means precisely that. Increases in the "global average temperature anomaly" have become the operational definition of "global warming". And then the question arises of what the physical meaning of this multi-layered construct from the data is. Human beings have a pretty good idea of what it means for, say, the Congo to be "warmer" than Antarctica, or less obviously but still tangibly Spain being "warmer" than Sweden, even though it's not always true that any specific temperature reading in the former region is always higher than a simultaneous one in the latter; but reality is more complex than a simple number, and it's not necessarily true that this sense will always correspond with a higher "average temperature" (think data series with different variance but the same mean, or a constantly warm climate versus one that has more extreme summers and winters but both have the same average temperature), much less that a fractional increase in a temperature anomaly will be read as warming in this sense (and less still such anomalies averaged over regions across the world in an attempt to say something meaningful about the world!). The problem with a systems like Earth's is that there is not only nothing resembling a global equilibirum, or that even regions continually vary in themselves, but that even the temperatures at a specific spot can vary greatly by time of year and time of day. Again, I am simply not sold that a tiny change in this construct has any tangible meaning beyond itself. That it's linked to "climate change" and from there as the measure of the cause of sea level changes, weather events and natural disasters is simply dumbfounding.
  21. If I take a school and for each pupil compute the "mark anomaly" as the difference between the last month's average of his test marks and the average of such marks over, say, his entire schooling career, then average the anomalies for each classroom, then over each class, then over the entire school, what does the resulting figure, a "school-wide average mark anomaly" if you will, actually tell me? What does it mean, exactly? If it goes up, or if I calculate a moving average of arbitrary period of the time series of this quantity and find a positive "trend" in the data, does it mean the school is doing "better"? Does it mean individual students are "improving"? In what sense? What if a handful of students massively improved and others performed worse, so the average went up but so did the dispersion along with it? Have the school's students really "improved"? What's happened to moments about the mean? Have I actually produced something physically meaningful with this simplistic statistical construct or have I in fact obscured actual information? So then, returning to the issue of global warming and bearing in mind that an "average temperature" isn't itself a temperature or even really a physical quantity of the state of a physical system at some particular time, I have a question for you: What exactly is the physical meaning of the points in a time series of a global spatial average of regional spatial averages and so on of the difference between a shorter term and longer term time average of local temperature readings, in other words of the "global average temperature anomaly", in what sense of "warming" does a positive change in this quantity indicate "warming", and by what justification does it serve as a proxy for "climate" so that a "trend" produced by placing a moving average of arbitrary period on the data can be interpreted as a singular 200-year-long phenomenon of "climate change"? You see, I find this all a bit befuddling. I realise if you have an ongoing net positive transfer of heat to a body you would see an increase in such a "global average temperature anomaly" because of the way its constructed, but I just don't see how the converse is necessarily true for a body that's not in thermal equilibrium or what this construct is supposed to represent beyond the method of its construction. Is "warming" here simply defined as an increase in the "global average temperature anomaly" or does it have a more tangible sense which is implied by such an increase? Just curious.
  22. If a person living in 2021 can convince himself Ed White's stop motion space walk footage is genuine, he can convince himself of anything. http:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQII-O6Nn2U For instance, he can convince himself that two ISS astronauts passing and manipulating a non-existent object has an innocent explanation. https://odysee.com/@Godsflatearth:a/nasa-fake-iss-shots-revealed-faked-space:2
  23. Both these drugs can disrupt the ability of blood to transport oxygen, especially in people with hereditary glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, in whom chloroquine causes haemolysis (rupturing of red blood cells and release of their contents). Filter your drinking water, stop using household and personal products that contain toxic chemicals, eat only organic and non-processed foods, and cover all your nutrient deficiencies with truly nutrient-dense foods like oily fish, raw dairy, eggs and liver. And if you want to super-humanly boost your immune system and cardiovascular function, take a course of thymus extract injections in the form of the Russian Thymalin. That's how you defeat "COVID", colds, flu and the like, in other words, by cutting out and strengthening your body against the real causes of these periodic bodily purges.
  24. If you think lying to an authoritarian regime trying to deprive you of your freedom is "immoral".
  25. And slowly waste away from nutrient deficiency. Cut out non-organic foods. Cut out food rich in lectins, oxalates and phytates (goobye many beans, leafy greens and nuts). Only eat fermented and/or gluten-free grains. Cut out refined sugar and cut down on fructose (unless you enjoy glycation, uric acid, etc.) Be wary of most vegetable oils and oxidation of oils in general and don't cook with them (unless you want coronary heart disease. How long has the fish oil been sitting on the shelf?). Lower inflammatory foods like nightshades, i.e., tomatoes, bell peppers etc., or at least prepare them properly (e.g., don't eat tomato skin or seeds). Be careful of "wisdom" like "eat garlic, it's a natural antibiotic" unless you think consuming antibiotics is a good thing. Do eat lots of oily fish, salmon, mackerel, cod etc. Do eat liver regularly. Do eat eggs, especially raw if you can. Do eat raw butter. Do drink raw milk if you can. Do eat food high in vitamin K2, i.e., fermented foods like unpasteurised cheeses and sauerkraut (because you don't want calcification and heart disease). Do consume probiotics. Do incorporate coconut flesh, oil, water, cream in your diet. Cold extracted/raw honey is nice, but beware the fructose.
  • Create New...