My investigation suggests that everything other than Religion is Controlled Opposition. People are placed into boxes; their thoughts and beliefs are guided through Propaganda, Rhetoric, Experts, and False Flags. Every event that I have looked in to has shown direct control on all sides by the same Agency.
This Evil that J.P. Sears says he has seen that led him to The Good has been controlled by Someone. Nothing is organic. The questions are, Who was the evil controlled by, and why. The "how" is important too, but my report (linked above) is all about the how.
"Who" is a group I call The Trust. The Trust is sometimes called The Cabal, or Satanists, or the Illuminati, etc. I call them The Trust because they currently rule by Trust Law; laws specific to a type of corporation (legal entity) called a "trust." I suggest their name is irrelevant and tends to place investigation itself into a box.
My investigation suggests The Trust is everywhere, and they control everything. My investigation suggests that all entities in "opposition" are either created by or, if they arise organically and reach sufficient popularity, are subjugated by The Trust. In other words, there are, on this planet, as far as I have been able to find, zero organizations with reasonable popularity that were not created by or subjugated by this single entity. That may have changed recently, but I am not convinced of that. For now, I will assume nothing. Through the control of these organizations, the beliefs of everyone across the planet are controlled by The Trust. I call this conglomeration of beliefs The Matrix. The organizations (echo chambers) that promote all the various beliefs, have at the top, and scattered throughout, agents of The Trust. It is these people who’s work gains prominence because they get the financial backing and the promotion in publication and the news required to “make it big.”
Most people here are aware this happens in the corporate world, the government, and any “Leftish Political Group” (BLM, Antifa, etc.). What some appreciate, but not all, is that all the “right” groups are also controlled by the same entity. The Right's beliefs have been guided just as much as those on the left. Both sides receive parts of the Truth, but not the whole truth. They are set against each other through talking points handed out by the talking heads. This allows “The Left” and “The Right” to focus on their disagreements, not looking at their commonalities; not attempting to discuss, but rather, fight over “irreconcilable differences.” They are only irreconcilable because they are designed to be. Each side takes a stance for which there can be no compromise, thus there will only be a strict line of division. I call this method of control "The Prison of Two Ideas."
WRT the OP, J.P. gives reasons for his “change of heart” on what is “truth”. He cites evidence that supports some of the tenets of his new/old Religion. Because things he thought were bullshit before turned out to have evidence for, he assumes that all of the tenets that he formerly believed were false are actually true. This is a self-induced fallacy of composition argument. “Part of it is true, when I thought it wasn’t, therefore the rest must be true as well.” The evidence suggests that this fallacy is used intentionally through rhetoric (and thus taught to us and commonly employed in our reasoning) in all other areas of controlling the beliefs of people, a form of Controlled Opposition.
He also says that the “other side” (in this case Communism) are trying to keep us away from these tenets, and Communism is bad, therefore “what they are trying to hide” must be the truth. That also is a self-induced fallacy, in this case an ad hominem (against the person argument), and a fundamental control system for controlled opposition in all other areas. I suggest ad hominems are the most prevelant form of rhetoric that guides belief. They are so common in fact, they literally rule the world. Or rather, the world is ruled by the creation of “other,” and by stating “other’s beliefs” are false because they are other. Through this method of dismissal, we allow ourselves to not actually listen to what “other” is really saying. Instead we pull out the talking points we were handed and use them as rebuttal. Those “rebuttals” are designed to cause a reaction strictly in opposition, thus keeping everyone divided. Controlled Opposition.
When a person transitions their beliefs, in all other areas (a Left to Right shift, e.g.), they transition from one box to another by these self-induced logical fallacies.
If these methods are employed in all other areas, is it possible that all of our beliefs are subject to the same controlling entity?
My investigation has put it beyond a reasonable doubt (for me) that this same method of control includes the Formal Religious Organizations themselves. They are a part of The Trust. Worse, it’s not just the ones that exist today; rather, this goes back forever. I’m not talking about the inspirations of the various Religions (Jesus, Buddha, etc.), I’m talking about the formal Religions, the canned box of beliefs, the tenets, and the control structure that surrounds those tenets. When you really dig into their origins, and the origins of the tenets themselves, and more importantly, what's been left out, an entirely new picture emerges of the nature of our reality.
In the case of Religion, which J.P. is espousing, whether the beliefs of that Religion are true or not, the Religion itself puts the mind into a box. Thus any investigation from within that box fails if any important evidence is outside of it. So IF it isn’t true, or is missing really important pieces of information, a person will not see it, nor will they be able to see it, because they believe their box contains all the truth there is on the subject.
I suggest the only way to get to the truth is to keep your mind open to seeing all of the evidence. If you are in a box, if you are “Religious” over “Spiritual” you have placed yourself in a box of someone’s design. Every other cult than yours believes their box is special; divinely inspired. "There is no need to look at anything else; it’s all self-contained." What makes yours right, when all the others are wrong? Might they all be boxes, designed to control?
I’m not trying to tell anyone “the Truth.” I don’t know what the Truth is. But I suggest if you aren’t willing to look at certain pieces of evidence in earnest, you should ask yourself "why?" Is it because your beliefs make you feel safe? It is by exploitation of our concept of “safety” that all fuckery occurs in all other areas ("Those who would give up Liberty for Security will get neither" (paraphrased)). Is it POSSIBLE, that that has happened in the beliefs systems that ruled most of the world for the previous two millennia as well?
I suggest that if you can’t ask that question in earnest, you are still stuck in The Matrix.
We are living in a type of separation, and until we are in heaven, nothing will be completely right. Religions are like cultures; it's hard to relate to a different one. God is greater than religion, but religions provide a pathway to the divine for many, and enforce good behavior as a blessing to us all. Also, the benefits and strength of the divine connection increases with numbers, so a good worship community is also a blessing. If you connect with the divine, I will not say you are wrong to be Korean since I am American, or that it is wrong to be Buddhist since I am Christian.
You've hit the nail on the head, at least with regards to my research, though I'm not certain you meant to.
Again, I don't know the Truth, but my research suggests that the key point that is left out of all the standard Religions is a separation from God. I mean that precisely. All of our present day religions (except Buddhism) teach that God is fundamentally a separate entity from everyone else. God is "over there", ruling from "on high." We are "over here," subject to "God's Rule." By this hierarchical method we are controlled. By this hierarchical method we can never realize our self-determination and self-assertion, our Sovereignty.
The fundamental argument for what we call "science" is that the universe can be fully explained by what we call "physical" phenomena. This belief stems from what amounts to a philosophical war that occurred in the 19th century between "Dualism" and "Physicalism" (the formal philosophies). The outcome of that war was determined not by argument, but by fiat, more importantly, by funding. The entity we call "school" was forced to not allow any teachings on the concept of "spirit" through conditional funding a la John D. Rockefeller. Thus, the debate of that which can't be explained by purely physical processes was forced out of the conversation.
The biggest problem I have with that is that we can't even define what we mean by "physical." It's a word that we think we understand, but the deeper our observations go into the very small and very large, the less our concepts of "physical" apply. Thus, what "won," may not have any meaning at all, at least not as we understand it. Science, ultimately, stopped looking into anything outside of that dogma. Science, through Rockefeller funding, separated us, through belief, from God, yet answered the question definitively, "there is no God," despite not looking into it at all.
Yet it did look. It looked a lot. What we call "physics" are experiments into the nature of reality, and physics says "there's nothing physical there." According to all of the evidence of physics, it is more appropriate to say "It is all 'spirit'" (at least our concept of "spirit" as the other from "physical").
Science found other things, such as "there is no separation from Source." In other words, that fundamental "spirit" that is the essence of all things intimately ties everything together. You are Source. The "Boundaries" that define "You" are a lie. They are only true from a certain perspective. When you dig deeper, those boundaries disappear. You are Source, Source is You. All is Spirit, and perhaps All is Mind, AKA Source is Intelligent. The evidence doesn't necessarily support the last one, but science doesn't look into it at all. It refuses, and there is no funding.
The older religions say the same thing. "God is Source," and "There is no separation from Source." Jesus said, "I am the Son of God." He also said, "You are all the Children of God." Maybe he was trying to tell us something. The formal religions put the inspirations on a pedestal (Christianity is the worst in this regard). The inspirations say "we are ALL Source." The religions say, "Source is over there, and it rules you."
The formal religions that are ostensibly built upon the teachings of Jesus (Christianity and Muslim) have, like Science, separated us from Source. This is the fraud, according to my research.
Until people get that, they will be stuck in The Matrix.
For as long as people stick to their "worship groups," which is just another word for "echo chamber," they won't get that God is not a separate thing from Themselves. This goes beyond just the individual not experiencing the "Awakening." It is through this separation from Source that is the commonality of the Religions that came before (Christianity, Muslim, Hindi, Judaism, etc.), and the Religion that exists now (Science), that we are ruled.
Everyone follows that same tenet. "You are separate from Source," and it controls the actions of everyone.
It is always where all sides agree that the greatest fuckery happens. It is what people aren't arguing about that ultimately controls us.
Good philosophizing comments, u/Slyver. Yes, but how do you finally come to a place where you know what to believe with certainty? Where does your foundation begin to form?
Why do I need to believe anything "with certainty?" Why is that important at all?
I work strictly (or at least try to) on whether or not the evidence suggests something is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Well, perhaps not strictly. Sometimes I make decisions even when I have "reasonable doubts" AKA doubts based on the process of reason, but we do the best we can with the information we have available at the time. By this method of "the measure of reasonable doubt" in the decision making process, I can make sound decisions while leaving myself open to seeing evidence to the contrary at all times.
I experience Reality only when I don't try to tell It what It is. The rest of the time I'm just trying to fit it into a box.
My foundation is "experience That Which Is by listening" (AKA not speaking, not telling it what it is). From there I investigate and appreciate.
Only by letting go of the need to "know" the Truth can you appreciate it for What It Is.
"Knowledge" is, if believed in, nothing but a box that prevents us from hearing the Truth, whatever that may be.
I can't get past the sense of this being a self serving comment, as it stands. You say "I’m not trying to tell anyone “the Truth.” I don’t know what the Truth is" as the rest of your comment is full of assumptive truths about what Truth can certainly NOT be , and what are certainly defeater flaws of anything construing organized belief systems, and the assumptive truth that anyone who thinks otherwise is truly trapped in the Matrix.
LOL.
Why not keep it simple? If you cannot, from your delvings of wise-agnostic research, account for say the existence of the laws of logic, these laws of which are
Immaterial
Uncreated
Unbound by a space
Unbound by time
(sound familiar?)
And yet you wholly depend on them to argue for or against every other ultimate reality or entity,
then why bother positing about the impossibilities of anyone ever possessing an intellectually responsible belief system that corresponds to metaphysical reality? Deal with your own dilemmas first, as a non-theist you have a bit of a mountain to climb.
the rest of your comment is full of assumptive truths about what Truth can certainly NOT be
Where did I make a claim that something is false? I gave an argument. There are no statements of "this or that is false" in any absolute sense, at least not that I did intentionally. If I did it unintentionally, please let me know with specific examples. You also have named some of my arguments "flawed" without providing examples. That is meaningless to me.
In any argument there must be some assumption of truth, some premise. If we eliminate all premises we can't say anything at all. I tried to be explicit, at least to some extent, that my argument was based on premises, even if I didn't go through and list them all. I did however link to the first part of the report of my investigation which gives the evidence to support the statements I did make.
what are certainly defeater flaws of anything construing organized belief systems
I am talking about what my investigation said about the systems we have, and who created them. I have looked into the ORIGINS of these systems. The focus was not intended to be on any possible system, but rather the ones that are prominent in our society. Once you dig in, you see that they were all constructed by the same entity, a single body that controls everything.
Please read my report for the actual evidence I am offering that supports that statement.
the laws of logic
Logic has nothing to do with Truth (AKA That which Is AKA Reality). Logic is a self-consistent language. It can make statements that are logically "true," but are based on premises that are not proven. Thus any conclusion derived from a logical process is at best unproven as a part of the larger Truth, and at worst, provably incorrect, with hidden premises, faulty premises, or faulty logic (usually one of the first two).
If you believe that I have stated faulty premises, not stated premises I should have (hidden premises that prove the conclusions incorrect or reasonably call them into question), or even made logical errors, I suggest you elaborate that belief with explicit examples. It will make conversation much easier.
Then why bother positing about the impossibilities of anyone ever possessing an intellectually responsible belief system that corresponds to metaphysical reality?
What?
If you think that's what I did, I'm not sure you understood what I was saying (or I just really don't get what you are saying).
Did you read the entire conversation or are you just responding to the first part?
My investigation suggests that everything other than Religion is Controlled Opposition. People are placed into boxes; their thoughts and beliefs are guided through Propaganda, Rhetoric, Experts, and False Flags. Every event that I have looked in to has shown direct control on all sides by the same Agency.
This Evil that J.P. Sears says he has seen that led him to The Good has been controlled by Someone. Nothing is organic. The questions are, Who was the evil controlled by, and why. The "how" is important too, but my report (linked above) is all about the how.
"Who" is a group I call The Trust. The Trust is sometimes called The Cabal, or Satanists, or the Illuminati, etc. I call them The Trust because they currently rule by Trust Law; laws specific to a type of corporation (legal entity) called a "trust." I suggest their name is irrelevant and tends to place investigation itself into a box.
My investigation suggests The Trust is everywhere, and they control everything. My investigation suggests that all entities in "opposition" are either created by or, if they arise organically and reach sufficient popularity, are subjugated by The Trust. In other words, there are, on this planet, as far as I have been able to find, zero organizations with reasonable popularity that were not created by or subjugated by this single entity. That may have changed recently, but I am not convinced of that. For now, I will assume nothing. Through the control of these organizations, the beliefs of everyone across the planet are controlled by The Trust. I call this conglomeration of beliefs The Matrix. The organizations (echo chambers) that promote all the various beliefs, have at the top, and scattered throughout, agents of The Trust. It is these people who’s work gains prominence because they get the financial backing and the promotion in publication and the news required to “make it big.”
Most people here are aware this happens in the corporate world, the government, and any “Leftish Political Group” (BLM, Antifa, etc.). What some appreciate, but not all, is that all the “right” groups are also controlled by the same entity. The Right's beliefs have been guided just as much as those on the left. Both sides receive parts of the Truth, but not the whole truth. They are set against each other through talking points handed out by the talking heads. This allows “The Left” and “The Right” to focus on their disagreements, not looking at their commonalities; not attempting to discuss, but rather, fight over “irreconcilable differences.” They are only irreconcilable because they are designed to be. Each side takes a stance for which there can be no compromise, thus there will only be a strict line of division. I call this method of control "The Prison of Two Ideas."
WRT the OP, J.P. gives reasons for his “change of heart” on what is “truth”. He cites evidence that supports some of the tenets of his new/old Religion. Because things he thought were bullshit before turned out to have evidence for, he assumes that all of the tenets that he formerly believed were false are actually true. This is a self-induced fallacy of composition argument. “Part of it is true, when I thought it wasn’t, therefore the rest must be true as well.” The evidence suggests that this fallacy is used intentionally through rhetoric (and thus taught to us and commonly employed in our reasoning) in all other areas of controlling the beliefs of people, a form of Controlled Opposition.
He also says that the “other side” (in this case Communism) are trying to keep us away from these tenets, and Communism is bad, therefore “what they are trying to hide” must be the truth. That also is a self-induced fallacy, in this case an ad hominem (against the person argument), and a fundamental control system for controlled opposition in all other areas. I suggest ad hominems are the most prevelant form of rhetoric that guides belief. They are so common in fact, they literally rule the world. Or rather, the world is ruled by the creation of “other,” and by stating “other’s beliefs” are false because they are other. Through this method of dismissal, we allow ourselves to not actually listen to what “other” is really saying. Instead we pull out the talking points we were handed and use them as rebuttal. Those “rebuttals” are designed to cause a reaction strictly in opposition, thus keeping everyone divided. Controlled Opposition.
When a person transitions their beliefs, in all other areas (a Left to Right shift, e.g.), they transition from one box to another by these self-induced logical fallacies.
If these methods are employed in all other areas, is it possible that all of our beliefs are subject to the same controlling entity?
My investigation has put it beyond a reasonable doubt (for me) that this same method of control includes the Formal Religious Organizations themselves. They are a part of The Trust. Worse, it’s not just the ones that exist today; rather, this goes back forever. I’m not talking about the inspirations of the various Religions (Jesus, Buddha, etc.), I’m talking about the formal Religions, the canned box of beliefs, the tenets, and the control structure that surrounds those tenets. When you really dig into their origins, and the origins of the tenets themselves, and more importantly, what's been left out, an entirely new picture emerges of the nature of our reality.
In the case of Religion, which J.P. is espousing, whether the beliefs of that Religion are true or not, the Religion itself puts the mind into a box. Thus any investigation from within that box fails if any important evidence is outside of it. So IF it isn’t true, or is missing really important pieces of information, a person will not see it, nor will they be able to see it, because they believe their box contains all the truth there is on the subject.
I suggest the only way to get to the truth is to keep your mind open to seeing all of the evidence. If you are in a box, if you are “Religious” over “Spiritual” you have placed yourself in a box of someone’s design. Every other cult than yours believes their box is special; divinely inspired. "There is no need to look at anything else; it’s all self-contained." What makes yours right, when all the others are wrong? Might they all be boxes, designed to control?
I’m not trying to tell anyone “the Truth.” I don’t know what the Truth is. But I suggest if you aren’t willing to look at certain pieces of evidence in earnest, you should ask yourself "why?" Is it because your beliefs make you feel safe? It is by exploitation of our concept of “safety” that all fuckery occurs in all other areas ("Those who would give up Liberty for Security will get neither" (paraphrased)). Is it POSSIBLE, that that has happened in the beliefs systems that ruled most of the world for the previous two millennia as well?
I suggest that if you can’t ask that question in earnest, you are still stuck in The Matrix.
We are living in a type of separation, and until we are in heaven, nothing will be completely right. Religions are like cultures; it's hard to relate to a different one. God is greater than religion, but religions provide a pathway to the divine for many, and enforce good behavior as a blessing to us all. Also, the benefits and strength of the divine connection increases with numbers, so a good worship community is also a blessing. If you connect with the divine, I will not say you are wrong to be Korean since I am American, or that it is wrong to be Buddhist since I am Christian.
You've hit the nail on the head, at least with regards to my research, though I'm not certain you meant to.
Again, I don't know the Truth, but my research suggests that the key point that is left out of all the standard Religions is a separation from God. I mean that precisely. All of our present day religions (except Buddhism) teach that God is fundamentally a separate entity from everyone else. God is "over there", ruling from "on high." We are "over here," subject to "God's Rule." By this hierarchical method we are controlled. By this hierarchical method we can never realize our self-determination and self-assertion, our Sovereignty.
The fundamental argument for what we call "science" is that the universe can be fully explained by what we call "physical" phenomena. This belief stems from what amounts to a philosophical war that occurred in the 19th century between "Dualism" and "Physicalism" (the formal philosophies). The outcome of that war was determined not by argument, but by fiat, more importantly, by funding. The entity we call "school" was forced to not allow any teachings on the concept of "spirit" through conditional funding a la John D. Rockefeller. Thus, the debate of that which can't be explained by purely physical processes was forced out of the conversation.
The biggest problem I have with that is that we can't even define what we mean by "physical." It's a word that we think we understand, but the deeper our observations go into the very small and very large, the less our concepts of "physical" apply. Thus, what "won," may not have any meaning at all, at least not as we understand it. Science, ultimately, stopped looking into anything outside of that dogma. Science, through Rockefeller funding, separated us, through belief, from God, yet answered the question definitively, "there is no God," despite not looking into it at all.
Yet it did look. It looked a lot. What we call "physics" are experiments into the nature of reality, and physics says "there's nothing physical there." According to all of the evidence of physics, it is more appropriate to say "It is all 'spirit'" (at least our concept of "spirit" as the other from "physical").
Science found other things, such as "there is no separation from Source." In other words, that fundamental "spirit" that is the essence of all things intimately ties everything together. You are Source. The "Boundaries" that define "You" are a lie. They are only true from a certain perspective. When you dig deeper, those boundaries disappear. You are Source, Source is You. All is Spirit, and perhaps All is Mind, AKA Source is Intelligent. The evidence doesn't necessarily support the last one, but science doesn't look into it at all. It refuses, and there is no funding.
The older religions say the same thing. "God is Source," and "There is no separation from Source." Jesus said, "I am the Son of God." He also said, "You are all the Children of God." Maybe he was trying to tell us something. The formal religions put the inspirations on a pedestal (Christianity is the worst in this regard). The inspirations say "we are ALL Source." The religions say, "Source is over there, and it rules you."
The formal religions that are ostensibly built upon the teachings of Jesus (Christianity and Muslim) have, like Science, separated us from Source. This is the fraud, according to my research.
Until people get that, they will be stuck in The Matrix.
For as long as people stick to their "worship groups," which is just another word for "echo chamber," they won't get that God is not a separate thing from Themselves. This goes beyond just the individual not experiencing the "Awakening." It is through this separation from Source that is the commonality of the Religions that came before (Christianity, Muslim, Hindi, Judaism, etc.), and the Religion that exists now (Science), that we are ruled.
Everyone follows that same tenet. "You are separate from Source," and it controls the actions of everyone.
It is always where all sides agree that the greatest fuckery happens. It is what people aren't arguing about that ultimately controls us.
Good philosophizing comments, u/Slyver. Yes, but how do you finally come to a place where you know what to believe with certainty? Where does your foundation begin to form?
Why do I need to believe anything "with certainty?" Why is that important at all?
I work strictly (or at least try to) on whether or not the evidence suggests something is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Well, perhaps not strictly. Sometimes I make decisions even when I have "reasonable doubts" AKA doubts based on the process of reason, but we do the best we can with the information we have available at the time. By this method of "the measure of reasonable doubt" in the decision making process, I can make sound decisions while leaving myself open to seeing evidence to the contrary at all times.
I experience Reality only when I don't try to tell It what It is. The rest of the time I'm just trying to fit it into a box.
My foundation is "experience That Which Is by listening" (AKA not speaking, not telling it what it is). From there I investigate and appreciate.
Only by letting go of the need to "know" the Truth can you appreciate it for What It Is.
"Knowledge" is, if believed in, nothing but a box that prevents us from hearing the Truth, whatever that may be.
I can't get past the sense of this being a self serving comment, as it stands. You say "I’m not trying to tell anyone “the Truth.” I don’t know what the Truth is" as the rest of your comment is full of assumptive truths about what Truth can certainly NOT be , and what are certainly defeater flaws of anything construing organized belief systems, and the assumptive truth that anyone who thinks otherwise is truly trapped in the Matrix.
LOL.
Why not keep it simple? If you cannot, from your delvings of wise-agnostic research, account for say the existence of the laws of logic, these laws of which are
(sound familiar?)
And yet you wholly depend on them to argue for or against every other ultimate reality or entity,
then why bother positing about the impossibilities of anyone ever possessing an intellectually responsible belief system that corresponds to metaphysical reality? Deal with your own dilemmas first, as a non-theist you have a bit of a mountain to climb.
Where did I make a claim that something is false? I gave an argument. There are no statements of "this or that is false" in any absolute sense, at least not that I did intentionally. If I did it unintentionally, please let me know with specific examples. You also have named some of my arguments "flawed" without providing examples. That is meaningless to me.
In any argument there must be some assumption of truth, some premise. If we eliminate all premises we can't say anything at all. I tried to be explicit, at least to some extent, that my argument was based on premises, even if I didn't go through and list them all. I did however link to the first part of the report of my investigation which gives the evidence to support the statements I did make.
I am talking about what my investigation said about the systems we have, and who created them. I have looked into the ORIGINS of these systems. The focus was not intended to be on any possible system, but rather the ones that are prominent in our society. Once you dig in, you see that they were all constructed by the same entity, a single body that controls everything.
Please read my report for the actual evidence I am offering that supports that statement.
Logic has nothing to do with Truth (AKA That which Is AKA Reality). Logic is a self-consistent language. It can make statements that are logically "true," but are based on premises that are not proven. Thus any conclusion derived from a logical process is at best unproven as a part of the larger Truth, and at worst, provably incorrect, with hidden premises, faulty premises, or faulty logic (usually one of the first two).
If you believe that I have stated faulty premises, not stated premises I should have (hidden premises that prove the conclusions incorrect or reasonably call them into question), or even made logical errors, I suggest you elaborate that belief with explicit examples. It will make conversation much easier.
What?
If you think that's what I did, I'm not sure you understood what I was saying (or I just really don't get what you are saying).
Did you read the entire conversation or are you just responding to the first part?