Agreed on your assessment. Part of the western "liberal agenda", which isn't "liberal" in any way according to the original definition, is to infuse several ideas that are a perfect 180 degree inversion of reality. The end result is "materialism" and "victim consciousness", pervasive in popular western culture.
Perhaps the most difficult obstacle to helping someone immersed in this programming is that they see life paths such as doctors, politicians, lawyers, actors big tech execs, media personalities, social media influencers, etc. as images of "success" worthy of emulation in this world.
I've skimmed through your book and noticed all your influences and I'm familiar with most - especially the spiritual teachers, Gurdjieff, Osho & Alan Watts. An interesting trio indeed you've chosen there. I love all three.
I've probably read close to 2000 books on spirituality these past 15 years, having had an insatiable desire to reconcile and harmonize all the different philosophies. About halfway through this list, I realized they were all perfectly harmonious at the core. I also realized about halfway through I didn't need to read anything, but couldn't help myself at that stage as it was all so fascinating how this information was literally "everywhere", yet it had not previously been brought to my attention. Almost simultaneously, the result was the birth of both a "spiritual seeker" and a "conspiracy factualist" in short order...haha. Which is probably how I ended up here, having followed Q from almost the beginning over on Reddit's conspiracy boards.
I couldn't pin myself down to any one philosophical position, other than to say there are dozens I find foundational truth in, not unlike yourself, as evidenced by your varied interests across different "systems".
Regarding health and disease, I'm going to turn you onto something I found thanks to Dr. Stefan Lanka, about 15 months ago. I believe this man, Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer, figured out the entire basis of virtually all dis-ease. It's utterly fascinating and I've tested out nearly 100 times now, with accurate results each time. The system is named "German New Medicine" (a crappy name, but c'est la vie) and it basically asserts that the dis-ease process begins with an "Unexpected life event" that we weren't prepared to deal with. This is followed by the primal survival mechanisms of our brain/psyche (soul) making biological adjustments to deal with the "unexpected conflict".
To provide you with an uber-simplified explanation of what GNM generally says about chronic musculoskeletal pain, which sounds like your wheelhouse, is that people suffering this are unable to fully resolve their conflict trauma and are caught between the conflict active and healing phase as a result. GNM asserts there is a biological purpose to their pain, which is to strengthen the muscle/bones afflicted so as to be better prepared for a similar future event. Unlike most of the other bodily dis-eases which provide the biological benefit in the conflict active stage, when it comes to the musculoskeletal system, the "benefit" occurs following the end of the healing phase.
Back pain, in particular, would be tied to conflicts that lead to psychological concepts like "I feel unsupported", "I felt crushed by...", "I can't stand this", etc., all relating to the spinal support system. The primal brain takes these thoughts as real-time, existential problems that it then works to break down and then reconstruct and rebuild to avoid future threats. Fascinating stuff.
And as I'm sure you know, bone, and specifically periosteum repair is especially a long and painful process. And sadly, the conventional allopathic treatments, e.g. surgery, actually circumvent and destroy the natural healing process of the body, leading to further issues that often remain for a lifetime.
I'll leave it at that. Feel free to check it out. I'm sure you'll find it interesting and can incorporate GNM into your current work. Here's the best site to start your research: https://learninggnm.com
Hi, sorry I took a while to reply. I read quite extensively on German New Medicine, on your recommendation, and it’s very aligned with my thinking. Thanks for letting me know about it :)
Hahahaha, you got back to me a lot faster than most people! It took me months to really get through it and begin to realize how powerful it's implications were!
I have observed that people do NOT like when someone suggests that cancer could be a healing process. Like, they’re enraged and think you’re the stupidest person alive. What are your thoughts? I have read most of GNM and am generally in complete agreement. Sometimes I think they’re inaccurate with the specific cause of some conflicts, but they’re covering a lot of topics, so it’s acceptable. It’s a fairly easy for me to accept the cancer idea, because recently my Nanna at 91 was diagnosed with throat cancer, given a year to live, they did chemo and she died within a week. Genius doctors huh?
I have observed that people do NOT like when someone suggests that cancer could be a healing process. Like, they’re enraged and think you’re the stupidest person alive. What are your thoughts?
Tell me about it! It is only with the utmost delicacy that this can even be mentioned. I don't even like the words "healing process". That's not quite right as I see it. It's more of an "augmentation" followed by a "restoration". Never was the person in an "unhealed" state (but I do realize this is how it's referenced in GNM). If anything, the "cancer" (for most) puts the person into a superior state to accomplish improved oxygen intake, food digestion, milk production, sperm production etc.
I've found that if you yourself haven't had the particular dis-ease, it's not helpful to speculate too much. From my POV, all the conflict causes make perfect sense, which is why I find it hard to fault them. Every other so called "cause" pushed on us by mainstream medicine is so random, so imprecise, so imperfect as to render them utterly pointless IMHO. None of them fit the bill, least of all "a malfunctioning body). But when you think of a primitive brain psyche taking our FIGURATIVE thoughts LITERALLY, it all comes together quite nicely IMHO.
Which conflict cause(s) explanation do you find most doubtful?
Sorry to hear about your Nanna. It sounds like she lived a good life though! Sad to say, it was the chemo that likely took the final toll, as it so often does. There's a study out there somewhere that sampled over 10,000 people diagnosed with cancer across 20 years I believe. Anyway, those that had sought mainstream treatments (burn, cut, poison) lived on average for 5 years. Those who sought alternative treatments, or no treatment at all lived on average for 7 years. There was also a survey given to oncologists 10-15 years ago who were asked if they would take chemo if they were ever diagnosed with cancer. 75% said they would NOT do chemo. So there's that...
But I get it, convincing someone who has lived their entire life "trusting the experts" is darn near impossible. I've found that the only real chance you have is warming them up in advance by telling them you know EXACTLY WHY they have cancer, unlike their doctor/oncologist. In this way, you're somewhat leveling the playing field.
It's worth noting that many people do not verbalize their internal struggles so it would be impossible to know sometimes what someone was dealing with. In regards to your Nanna, assuming the diagnosis was correct (which it isn't always) perhaps she did receive some news that was "hard for her to swallow" in the months leading up to her chemo? It's also worth noting that she may have resolving or had recently resolved a "hard to swallow" conflict so it could have been something she had gotten over many years prior to as well. I don't put anything past these doctors today. Even though the good and trustworthy well outnumber the bad and untrustworthy, there are so many links in the chain of a "cancer diagnosis" and so many errors in their education and training.
Dr. Hamer plainly and boldly said that "cancer" doesn't kill people. And when you stop and think about it, an "abnormal growth of cells" quite obviously does not kill anybody. There are rare instances where a blockage of a vital process can occur which obviously requires surgical intervention. But this is rare, very rare. It's the "metastases" deception that scares people into the mainstream treatments.
Dr. Hamer says that cancer patients almost exclusively die of cachexia (wasting away) and enervation (loss of vital force, spirit, the will to live), both of which are brought on by poisoning and irradiating one's own body. That's a tough pill to swallow I realize. But from my POV, it makes a lot of sense. Just referencing that 5yr vs 7yr lifespan survey alone supports his assertion.
And it's also worth noting, that perpetuating one's psychological conflict without choosing to eventually release/allow/accept it, will also lead to death. This is not healthy. There is far greater power in the act of forgiveness/acceptance than virtually anyone realizes. Halting and reversing a cancer program (aka "remission") is just the tip of the iceberg methinks.
Food for thought...
Looking forward to hearing which dis-ease/conflict you find unlikely. I've been on the lookout for a clear and undeniable case where the GNM diagnosis doesn't work and I've yet to find one. And I'm not saying this isn't the case. I'm always open to adjusting my beliefs when presented with new evidence. It's almost unimaginable that Dr. Hamer could have gotten EVERYTHING right. After all, we're all only human.
Agreed on your assessment. Part of the western "liberal agenda", which isn't "liberal" in any way according to the original definition, is to infuse several ideas that are a perfect 180 degree inversion of reality. The end result is "materialism" and "victim consciousness", pervasive in popular western culture.
Perhaps the most difficult obstacle to helping someone immersed in this programming is that they see life paths such as doctors, politicians, lawyers, actors big tech execs, media personalities, social media influencers, etc. as images of "success" worthy of emulation in this world.
I've skimmed through your book and noticed all your influences and I'm familiar with most - especially the spiritual teachers, Gurdjieff, Osho & Alan Watts. An interesting trio indeed you've chosen there. I love all three.
I've probably read close to 2000 books on spirituality these past 15 years, having had an insatiable desire to reconcile and harmonize all the different philosophies. About halfway through this list, I realized they were all perfectly harmonious at the core. I also realized about halfway through I didn't need to read anything, but couldn't help myself at that stage as it was all so fascinating how this information was literally "everywhere", yet it had not previously been brought to my attention. Almost simultaneously, the result was the birth of both a "spiritual seeker" and a "conspiracy factualist" in short order...haha. Which is probably how I ended up here, having followed Q from almost the beginning over on Reddit's conspiracy boards.
I couldn't pin myself down to any one philosophical position, other than to say there are dozens I find foundational truth in, not unlike yourself, as evidenced by your varied interests across different "systems".
Regarding health and disease, I'm going to turn you onto something I found thanks to Dr. Stefan Lanka, about 15 months ago. I believe this man, Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer, figured out the entire basis of virtually all dis-ease. It's utterly fascinating and I've tested out nearly 100 times now, with accurate results each time. The system is named "German New Medicine" (a crappy name, but c'est la vie) and it basically asserts that the dis-ease process begins with an "Unexpected life event" that we weren't prepared to deal with. This is followed by the primal survival mechanisms of our brain/psyche (soul) making biological adjustments to deal with the "unexpected conflict".
To provide you with an uber-simplified explanation of what GNM generally says about chronic musculoskeletal pain, which sounds like your wheelhouse, is that people suffering this are unable to fully resolve their conflict trauma and are caught between the conflict active and healing phase as a result. GNM asserts there is a biological purpose to their pain, which is to strengthen the muscle/bones afflicted so as to be better prepared for a similar future event. Unlike most of the other bodily dis-eases which provide the biological benefit in the conflict active stage, when it comes to the musculoskeletal system, the "benefit" occurs following the end of the healing phase.
Back pain, in particular, would be tied to conflicts that lead to psychological concepts like "I feel unsupported", "I felt crushed by...", "I can't stand this", etc., all relating to the spinal support system. The primal brain takes these thoughts as real-time, existential problems that it then works to break down and then reconstruct and rebuild to avoid future threats. Fascinating stuff.
And as I'm sure you know, bone, and specifically periosteum repair is especially a long and painful process. And sadly, the conventional allopathic treatments, e.g. surgery, actually circumvent and destroy the natural healing process of the body, leading to further issues that often remain for a lifetime.
I'll leave it at that. Feel free to check it out. I'm sure you'll find it interesting and can incorporate GNM into your current work. Here's the best site to start your research: https://learninggnm.com
Hi, sorry I took a while to reply. I read quite extensively on German New Medicine, on your recommendation, and it’s very aligned with my thinking. Thanks for letting me know about it :)
Hahahaha, you got back to me a lot faster than most people! It took me months to really get through it and begin to realize how powerful it's implications were!
Cheers
I have observed that people do NOT like when someone suggests that cancer could be a healing process. Like, they’re enraged and think you’re the stupidest person alive. What are your thoughts? I have read most of GNM and am generally in complete agreement. Sometimes I think they’re inaccurate with the specific cause of some conflicts, but they’re covering a lot of topics, so it’s acceptable. It’s a fairly easy for me to accept the cancer idea, because recently my Nanna at 91 was diagnosed with throat cancer, given a year to live, they did chemo and she died within a week. Genius doctors huh?
Tell me about it! It is only with the utmost delicacy that this can even be mentioned. I don't even like the words "healing process". That's not quite right as I see it. It's more of an "augmentation" followed by a "restoration". Never was the person in an "unhealed" state (but I do realize this is how it's referenced in GNM). If anything, the "cancer" (for most) puts the person into a superior state to accomplish improved oxygen intake, food digestion, milk production, sperm production etc.
I've found that if you yourself haven't had the particular dis-ease, it's not helpful to speculate too much. From my POV, all the conflict causes make perfect sense, which is why I find it hard to fault them. Every other so called "cause" pushed on us by mainstream medicine is so random, so imprecise, so imperfect as to render them utterly pointless IMHO. None of them fit the bill, least of all "a malfunctioning body). But when you think of a primitive brain psyche taking our FIGURATIVE thoughts LITERALLY, it all comes together quite nicely IMHO.
Which conflict cause(s) explanation do you find most doubtful?
Sorry to hear about your Nanna. It sounds like she lived a good life though! Sad to say, it was the chemo that likely took the final toll, as it so often does. There's a study out there somewhere that sampled over 10,000 people diagnosed with cancer across 20 years I believe. Anyway, those that had sought mainstream treatments (burn, cut, poison) lived on average for 5 years. Those who sought alternative treatments, or no treatment at all lived on average for 7 years. There was also a survey given to oncologists 10-15 years ago who were asked if they would take chemo if they were ever diagnosed with cancer. 75% said they would NOT do chemo. So there's that...
But I get it, convincing someone who has lived their entire life "trusting the experts" is darn near impossible. I've found that the only real chance you have is warming them up in advance by telling them you know EXACTLY WHY they have cancer, unlike their doctor/oncologist. In this way, you're somewhat leveling the playing field.
It's worth noting that many people do not verbalize their internal struggles so it would be impossible to know sometimes what someone was dealing with. In regards to your Nanna, assuming the diagnosis was correct (which it isn't always) perhaps she did receive some news that was "hard for her to swallow" in the months leading up to her chemo? It's also worth noting that she may have resolving or had recently resolved a "hard to swallow" conflict so it could have been something she had gotten over many years prior to as well. I don't put anything past these doctors today. Even though the good and trustworthy well outnumber the bad and untrustworthy, there are so many links in the chain of a "cancer diagnosis" and so many errors in their education and training.
Dr. Hamer plainly and boldly said that "cancer" doesn't kill people. And when you stop and think about it, an "abnormal growth of cells" quite obviously does not kill anybody. There are rare instances where a blockage of a vital process can occur which obviously requires surgical intervention. But this is rare, very rare. It's the "metastases" deception that scares people into the mainstream treatments.
Dr. Hamer says that cancer patients almost exclusively die of cachexia (wasting away) and enervation (loss of vital force, spirit, the will to live), both of which are brought on by poisoning and irradiating one's own body. That's a tough pill to swallow I realize. But from my POV, it makes a lot of sense. Just referencing that 5yr vs 7yr lifespan survey alone supports his assertion.
And it's also worth noting, that perpetuating one's psychological conflict without choosing to eventually release/allow/accept it, will also lead to death. This is not healthy. There is far greater power in the act of forgiveness/acceptance than virtually anyone realizes. Halting and reversing a cancer program (aka "remission") is just the tip of the iceberg methinks.
Food for thought...
Looking forward to hearing which dis-ease/conflict you find unlikely. I've been on the lookout for a clear and undeniable case where the GNM diagnosis doesn't work and I've yet to find one. And I'm not saying this isn't the case. I'm always open to adjusting my beliefs when presented with new evidence. It's almost unimaginable that Dr. Hamer could have gotten EVERYTHING right. After all, we're all only human.