Astrology, Tarot and a New Age of Humanity

a reply to: Grenade

I don’t think future generations will be designed in a lab. I think that’s a possibility if the dark forces that currently rule this world win. But I don’t think they will.

I too would rather take my chances in the forest. Unfortunately, with all the high tech in society, all areas of the globe have been discovered and mapped; satellites provide 24/7 coverage of every square in of land and sea. Drones fly overhead for days. Fact is, there’s nowhere to run—and TPTB will see any outsiders as a rebuke to their power, which they WILL NOT tolerate.

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

They will be if we ever wish them to exist, survive and thrive, anywhere else but down here on Earth.

Humanity does not invent tools she does not use.

Hence at some point in the not to distant future we are apt to build a better Human.

There has been nowhere to run for quite sometime Thoughtcrime, there is no true anonymity in todays world and the information age in which we exist, and trying to create such simply draws attention given the meta information that everyone generates.

Short of a Carrington event or large scale nuclear war, technology is only headed in the one direction, and the pace of progress is only going to increase.

The singularity is in the post so to speak.

a reply to: andy06shake

“ There has been nowhere to run for quite sometime Thoughtcrime, there is no true anonymity in todays world and the information age in which we exist, and trying to create such simply draws attention given the meta information that everyone generates.”

That’s exactly what I was telling Grenade: there IS nowhere to run, and hasn’t been for some time, since all areas of the globe have been discovered for a while now.

As someone who believes in God, I don’t believe He had cyborgs as the ultimate Human in mind when He created us. Technology has steadily reduced the human element within Western civilization; already we see the stirrings of anti-technology sentiment, a nascent rebellion against AI. One can argue that the Singularity has already occurred—which I have—but it’s outcome is far from resolved.

It could happen that us ‘primitive’, God believing humans remain here on Earth, while those who wish to be gods [Transhumanists] scatter to the ends of the universe…and leave what little is left of the Divine within themselves behind.
Just another battlefront between Good and Evil.

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

First thing, you are now in the Age of Aquarius the determining transition of which occured around 2012 as the Sun rose at the intersection point of the Galactic and Ecliptic plane at the Winter and Summer solstices, the dividing point between Gemini-Taurus and Scorpio-Sagittarius that effectively divides the Zodiac into two halves.

Second thing, Zodiac Ages are fixed developmental phases, the nature of the advancement is pre-determined however the interpretation and application of such is up for grabs, Israel claimed the leading role during the Age of Aries in terms of Shepherd Kings, the sacrifice of the Ram by Abraham upon a supposed rock of Ages, the enduring principle of the Archons, and Cnristianity made claim to the Age of Pisces, the Shepherd King became a Fisherman.

A Zodiac Age waxes and wanes in the same sense as a Lunar cycle or Solar year, it reaches it's high point after a thousand years or so then declines, the Book of Revelations attempted predictions based upon this, Israel was at it's peak around 1,000 BC, Christianity around 1,000 AD, neither are any longer relevent and both were deeply flawed interpretations.

The sign of Aquarius is the sign of Enki, Pisces his daughter the Goddess Nanse Queen of the Fishermen, Enki is the principle of organic life emergent from the waters, the Age of Aquarius is going to be all about Biology, the origins of such and Universality, it's got off to a bad start as reactionary forces that have controlled the narrative of the previous two Aeons are waging Biological warfare and everyone is obsessed with viruses, but there were positive expectations with regards to raising the dead and increasing longevity and those currently in control obviously want such for themselves, that's a question of race realism, some are naturally inclined towards evil for Biological reasons and will attempt to genocide those that aren't, again it's going to be a question of who controls the narrative most are entirely incapable of grasping any of it, and the deeper question is who determined the Houses in the sky in the first place.

originally posted by: Thoughtcrime
a reply to: Caver78

Dunno that personal responsibility is a marker of either political party since it boils down more to a individuals personal maturity or lack thereof

Totally disagree with you on that. It is the LEFT that has spent decades absolving individuals of personal responsibility, not the Right. So-called ‘Progressives’ practically invented Identity Politics, where the individual is sublimated by the Group into ever more atomized subgroups. The charge of Systemic Racism is a good example: if you’re Black individual, you just can’t get ahead because of Systemic Racism has stacked the deck against you. Remember that Phillipino Transexual Gay activist who shouted and disrupted of of Obama’s speeches? The activist was angry because he/she/it was upset that Obama wasn’t “doing enough” for Gay Phillipino Transexuals. Talk about atomization!

Historically, Conservatives have extolled the virtues of Rugged Individualism. Going it alone (or within ones small community of friends, relatives and church), hacking a place out of the Wilderness as a self-reliant individual…as opposed to blaming ones DNA for being fat, being Gay, suffering from alcoholism and now, racism. In sum, according to the Left, one suffers NOT from one’s own bad decisions or inability to rise from adversity; individuals suffer from factors beyond their control—either at the hands of the majority in society or from biological factors they can’t change.

Good clarification. While the leadership of parties and individuals in the spotlight can be quite muddy, the goals and intent of the people on the ground as conservatives or progressives/liberals are vastly different and quite easy to differentiate unless you are purposely trying not to look or muddy the waters yourself.

Individuals fail on all sides, but giving up an rolling over is far worse than not striving for an ideal.

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

Mate if God did exist Humanity probably ate the poor sod.

We will build one soon enough current technological pace withstanding.

Who is to say what God intended us to achieve, created in his image and all that jazz.

For all we know humanity's ultimate purpose aside from our biological imperative is to spawn Humanity 2.0.

Maybe its a circular conundrum that repeats throughout the epochs?

God builds/creates us, we eat/consume god, then build another, rinse and repeat.

a reply to: Halfswede

Gave ya a star! Thanks!

originally posted by: Thoughtcrime
a reply to: Gothmog

LOL! Yeah…remember that Rock musical, ‘Hair’? And that hokie song “it is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius”?

That was anticipation of the Age of Aquarius which, as someone pointed out we didn’t actually enter until December of last year.

The saying goes : "If you remember the 70s , you weren't there"

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Thoughtcrime

Mate if God did exist Humanity probably ate the poor sod.

We will build one soon enough current technological pace withstanding.

Who is to say what God intended us to achieve, created in his image and all that jazz.

For all we know humanity's ultimate purpose aside from our biological imperative is to spawn Humanity 2.0.

Maybe its a circular conundrum that repeats throughout the epochs?

God builds/creates us, we eat/consume god, then build another, rinse and repeat.

LOL! True enough. For Christians, Man has been running from God since the Garden of Eden.
I would say that for Transhumanists, Humanity 2.0 would be logical. For everyone else, the ultimate purpose is to return to God. And I agree, Humans have torn down God and replaced him with their own, fallible Technology. But I can’t help but doubt God would WANT to be cut out of the picture, so to speak.

As you said, “its a circular conundrum that repeats throughout the epochs”.

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

Have to completely disagree.
If someone isn't mature enough to recognize "hog swill" when they see it then you get platitudes exactly such as you pointed out.

There is always going to be a percentage of any population which would prefer not to work for anything, but be content with whatever they get. Equally there is always going to be a segment of any population which are self motivated not content until they've achieved whatever goal they've chosen as a benchmark.

It falls more to personality types than political ideology.
I would guarantee you if you stood on a street corner handing out $10 dollar bills just as many conservatives would take one as liberals!

a reply to: Grenade

It took me a bit to reply, but thank you for explaining your perspective a bit!

From that explanation, I have a clearer view of where you are coming from on it and would probably largely agree.

Do you believe that technology and nature are fundamentally incompatible?

If so, where do you draw the line? Meaning.. is a hammer something to be discarded, or the concept of housing? Agriculture? Most draw that line at transistor based technology.

Personally, I believe its how we have designed and utilized technology that creates the issue. We have designed an entire paradigm that places a digital filter between us and the experience of the world around us. While that is something that is relatively specific to our current age, I believe that the misuse of technology to "dominate" and separate us from nature has been at play for millenia. I would probably go much further than you and call it outright blasphemy. However, I wouldnt determine that by the current stage of development itself, rather how it is designed, implemented, and (ab)used.

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

I might have misinterpreted it!

I find it to be an interesting paradigm shift all the same. It seems that all drive for individualism and self-sufficiency has been excised from "the left."

It wasnt always this way.. Though large social group dynamics will always yield something of an egregore around the collectivism.

In the before time, in the long, long ago.. The general split between individualists of left-leaning philosophies vs right revolved around primitivism vs technology. "Left" leaning thought tended to look to technology to better enable the individual, while also living in unison with nature. "Right" leaning thought tended to look towards rejection of all technology past an arbitrary stage, while also living in unison with nature.

The latter train of thought still largely persists, but the former has been all but eradicated from social consciousness. People like me have been losing many battles on that front for decades, for a variety of reasons, but there has been a resurgence in it in the past few years too and I find that very encouraging.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I think it’s the motivation behind the technology which validates it’s inception.

Without human interference our planet has sustained and nurtured life unimpeded for millions of years, nature has given birth to our consciousness so it’s only fair we consider our creator in all aspects of life.

For example a fishing rod is utilising technology to feed ones family, I can’t argue with that motivation, however a trawler catching tonnes of fish in nets, unintended killing of our ocean mammals and rampant pollution as a result, purely for monopolisation of profit driven industry, i can’t support.

We must always look to sustain and balance our natural habitat, anything which tilts this harmonious relationship is the beginning of the end.

Digital technology and artificial intelligence could be utilised for the greater good, unfortunately the moral fabric of those in control of our scientific and technological communities is highly questionable.

With great power comes great responsibility, unfortunately i feel we desire only one of these virtues and our moral compass has been deceptively and deliberately rewired.

Thank you for your thought provoking questions, I’ve read many of your posts and I can tell you’re a good man with a compassionate heart.

a reply to: Grenade

I truly appreciate the kind words I really do my best. I can get pretty sarcastic and snarky at times, which never comes across well on a message board lol

You say:

With great power comes great responsibility

I think we are entering an age where this has never been more relevant. A lot of this technology is dangerous. There is no stopping it though, in my opinion. At least not without destroying societal and civilization systems completely. I cant say that is an appealing option..

Years ago, I came up with the design principle of building systems that supplement, complement, and enable beneficial growth between the relevant systems. What I found was very interesting; not only did this end up being significantly more "moral" and "ethical," it also enabled even greater growth over time than systems that just.. devour everything to build themselves.

Or even ones that focused strictly on stability (which is an interesting discussion all on its own: strict stability vs balanced growth).

So, your fishing example is absolutely perfect! In the case of mass industrial fishing, we are looking to feed people. Simple! Over time however, even overlooking the truly destructive nature of the industry itself, we end up crippling our ability to feed people. Even just looking at the two most obvious connected systems in this scenario (food production & aquatic ecosystems), not only are we not achieving beneficial growth between these systems.. we are destroying them for temporary benefit.

I truly believe we can design and implement staggeringly advanced technology in a form that just gets out of the way of our life and existence on Earth and the universe. It softly supports us from the background, as well as the planet & nature itself, rather than becoming the primary means through which we perceive literally everything. That latter scenario, where all we know is filtered through digital sieves, will lead to very bad places.

I think that our very presence will inevitably change the surrounding environment. But, we can do it in a way that leads to a better life for both humanity as well as the world around us. This notion doesnt seem to have really penetrated most discourse, but I believe it strongly enough that I will keep talking about it. And I greatly appreciate being able to do it, so thank you

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

The 'New Age' is supposed to start, when 'The Age of Aquarius' starts.

There seems to be so much debate and confusion as to when that happens, I decided to research it for myself. I almost wish I hadn't.

In my opinion, it's almost impossible to truly, firmly and accurately know or categorically state, WHEN this age actually begins. With some other signs, it's easier, but the 'borders' can be interpreted to be in so many places very easily, you can't truly ever know.

According to my most optimistic and careful estimations and calculations, it can't probably begin until around 600 or 700 years from now, so .. not in our 'lifetimes'.

Another thing I kind of noticed.. 'old order'? What does this mean. Could you mean.. the spiritual 'world order' that these TPTB bastards are trying to replace with a 'new world order'?

Every planet or world has a 'Law of the World Order' that highly evolved (from our perspective) beings are obliged to follow. I have translated a few snippets from an allegedly 'channeled' text from an E.T. to an individual living on this planet, this was done in the seventies and eighties if I remember correctly. I am not sure if I am allowed to quote myself or repeat - I just recently found out it might be against the rules.

I am sure you can find my post if you search for something like 'What New World Order really means' - I can't be bothered to try to find it right now.

In essence, according to the alleged channeling, World Order (without the word 'New' attached to it) is a spiritual set of laws that both liberate and confine, for example, prohibiting injuring or harming anyone, and so on. Since every planet and world has 'World Order', and this would stand in the way of the evil people, they want to eradicate it and replace with their own, evil, occult version they call 'New World Order'.

We all know that they're obsessed with the occult, regardless of our own personal 'beliefs' or viewpoints. They love that stuff. So it would make sense they would want to use ALL paths to power, including the 'occult one'. They can't do that if there's some ancient spiritual law standing in their way, so they have to destroy and replace it. Again, regardless of what we think of it, this would certainly fit their agenda, from what we know of their occult practices and obsessions, right?

World Order = good, natural, elevating people to evolve spiritually.
New World Order, evil, unnatural, decadence, devolving people into demons (they're halfway there already).

I mean, imagine the most elevated people on the most spiritual, beautiful, elevated planet you can.

Even in this thread, the OP laughs at the idea of 'everyone being vegetarian'. This shows how normal 'evil' is in this world. Not for a second does the OP consider how evil it is to eat animals, but rather laughs at those that refrain from doing it.

If you imagine those elevated, super spiritual people, maybe you can imagine them as 'glowing light' or at least dressed in bright, colorful clothing, doing things that benefit everyone and make everyone happy, and not as selfish monsters that are so greedy they're trying to grab more than their fair share, and even then some, even if it makes other people miserable.

Now compare that image of a 'serene, beautiful, harmonious, colorful world' with the reality of this world;

People COMMONLY dress in black (in the eighties, this was seen as weird, but now it's normalized).

People COMMONLY listen to VERY aggressive and tearing 'music' (basically rhythmic noise designed to lower your soul to more demonic level - I can't stand heavy guitar AT ALL, but it's the normal thing for most people)

People COMMONLY practice atheism (worshipping of darkness, 'nothing' or self is very demonic and selfish indeed)

People think it's OK to insult other people and call them all kinds of names (usually autistic or troll), regardless of truth.

People think it's OK to lie. Lying is the norm. They rationalize it with superficial 'goodness', like 'not hurting feelings'.

People keep carnivore pets - so they feed animals to other animals, they perpetuate the animal cruelty industry just so they can be bad carnivore handlers and then take those raging pets to the 'final stab' because they never learned dog psychology. Why research something before getting a complex 'toy' (as they see them), when you can just wing it and think 'love solves all' (and it's not love, it's selfishness).

People think it's love to lust for someone emotionally. There's no ACTUAL love anywhere in this world. Someone once told me, you don't have to FEEL anything to love someone. So love is just a mental construct, then? I can't believe someone thinks like this! So every time they say 'I love you', they're NOT expressing themselves honestly, but just going through some kind of mental program that needs to be fulfilled, regardless of what they're feeling.

People COMMONLY pollute the planet with their cars, cigarettes, mopeds, houses, etc. Who cares if others can breathe, I need to get to places - even though electric cars exist..(and the reasons are even stupider than that, like 'I love the ear-injuring NOISE the 'gas cars' make' (how childish and selfish can you get?), even though said noise destroys and pollutes other people's aural space and possibly injures their ears - who cares as long as _I_ can enjoy, right?)

People actually murder each other.. this is something I just can't understand.

People fight each other - in sports, in the streets, when drunk, when sober - it doesn't seem to matter, they just want to punch and kick each other until someone is in a hospital, dying for the rest of their life.

People go to be brainwashed and indoctrinated in armies, militaries, etc. so they can go to war and murder each other and be proud of it (which is a sin in itself) - there was some story of some sniper that broke the record by murdering someone from three kilometers away. Wow.. what an achievement to unlawfully TAKE SOMEONE'S LIFE from three kilometers away! Your mom must be so proud, Jesus would probably praise you. Or..?

People then WORSHIP these murderers called 'soldiers'. If you voluntarily go to some 'army' or 'military', and let them condition and brainwash you until you obey a command without thinking (someone actually QUIT when they realized they started doing this, and were scared of it), which means any 'soldier' can insta-kill you just because someone says a certain word or a few words. Think about that. That soldier would NOT think, not even for a 0.001 seconds, that soldier would pull his gun and shoot you BEFORE he can think. That is how military conditioning works.

For some reason, NONE OF THIS scares anyone. It's all normal, let's celebrate it. Now, eat your innocent, bloodily and painfully murdered animal's buttocks-muscles-slice that has been fried for so long it doesn't have anything healthy for you, but lots of carsinogens, and then wonder why you die of heart or blood disease.

I could go on, I could mention sex and more pollution, politics and beliefs, the damage done by religions and such, but I hope I made my point.

If anyone disagrees with my assessment about people already being halfway there, they either didn't read this post or they're one of them already.