TALKING EVIL WITH ALEX TSAKIRIS -- GORDON WHITE -- RUNE SOUP

Hi Alex, I'll be glad to sit down with you again. In the meantime, of all the ET issues I've worked with over the years, the one I think is so important is that individuals, as souls, have the right to end any ET contacts. Like with spirits, though, you often have to find the access. It's not unusual to find that ET's have accessed a person through a past life contact. Many times, I have identified a past-life ego-state as the original contact and it is this part of the person that responds. So, like with spirits, it's a 'permission' from an unconscious part of the self. The bottom line is that individuals do have power in these situations but are not aware of it.
I've heard of people invoking the the name of Jesus and their experience ends...I don't think it matters what name you say in terms of religious figures but it's the power behind what you say...you're speaking with power. We are very powerful beings, we just forget that.
 
So, like with spirits, it's a 'permission' from an unconscious part of the self. The bottom line is that individuals do have power in these situations but are not aware of it.

In general I agree; however, this is the contrary question that comes to mind: isn't everything "by agreement"? And aren't some agreements more difficult to change than others?

What I mean is: it sounds easy when you put it like that, just become aware of the subconscious agreement that was made and then change your mind. Maybe it is that easy.

But other "solid" aspects of physical reality are also supposedly manifest by agreement... so bending a spoon... just a matter of recognizing the subconscious agreement to see the spoon in its present form and then changing your mind in order to bend it. Sounds easy in theory.

I guess I'm saying maybe there is a spectrum of difficulty here. Some things are easy to change your mind about once you become aware and others are more difficult. Where do agreements with ET fall on the spectrum of difficulty?
 
***
Excellent post! It would seem to me, that the next evolution of man would be a combination of man & robot. Like we are connected now to this "borg" of a machine. So in the future, they want us "connected". I think (maybe) those ET's are part biological & part machine. Some are like... connected to the operator. THAT is exactly what it seemed to me (when I saw 3 of them). One seemed to be the leader and 2 were kind of under his control Although they (the other 2) could reach out to me to think, "don't be afraid." The moment he thought back, "don't bother." They just turned off. This was years ago, so it never occurred to me 2 of them could be part biological/part machine. BUT NOW, knowing what I know, that would make total sense.

Maybe it is us in the future coming back. I have no idea.

I have two Titanium hips and 20/15 vision with Lasik. I'm ready for my Neuralink now.
 
hey David, thanks for persisting with the ID stuff. I think you're onto something.
ID does not specify what the alternative is - so yes, life on Earth could be the result of a lot of Genetic engineering done by a master race, but how did they get here?

therein lies the problem for me... I mean, they've never been able to separate them self crippling cosmology of Christianity.

I wish you could do a podcast on this subject, but I think the DI must be overloaded with requests for them to speak. As you know, I wrote again to try to get in contact with Behe, and hopefully arrange a podcast, but without any success.

David
thanks. Let's keep trying. I think it would be a good one :-)
 
***
Excellent post! It would seem to me, that the next evolution of man would be a combination of man & robot. Like we are connected now to this "borg" of a machine. So in the future, they want us "connected". I think (maybe) those ET's are part biological & part machine. Some are like... connected to the operator. THAT is exactly what it seemed to me (when I saw 3 of them). One seemed to be the leader and 2 were kind of under his control Although they (the other 2) could reach out to me to think, "don't be afraid." The moment he thought back, "don't bother." They just turned off. This was years ago, so it never occurred to me 2 of them could be part biological/part machine. BUT NOW, knowing what I know, that would make total sense.

Maybe it is us in the future coming back. I have no idea.

Thanks for this post. I hope you'll share more detail about this (these) experiences. If you have, I missed it... if so, please, point the way to the post(s).
 
Please, what is ID stuff?

Intelligent Design.

AubvaJdG-Pz0p1kPhups6tqKMoMpgIlwX3JX1rz2JvE.jpg


self crippling cosmology of Christianity.

Which self crippling cosmology? Then again, maybe you don't want to go there. Understandably.
 
hey David, thanks for persisting with the ID stuff. I think you're onto something.


therein lies the problem for me... I mean, they've never been able to separate them self crippling cosmology of Christianity.
I get the impression that the conventional biologists love to go on about Fundamentalist Christianity as a distraction from talking about the actual issues. The scientificbooks in ID I have read, certainly seem to downplay the Christian thing.

There is no way I am a closet Christian, never mind a closet Fundamentalist!

About the joke - it seems scientists aren't sure how they mated! Dogs masturbate sometimes so I guess they could use the same trick - rub themselves off against something.
thanks. Let's keep trying. I think it would be a good one :)
I will - I might try someone else from the DI.

David
 
Last edited:
Thanks dpdownsouth... I am embarrassed as I "knew that" (duh) and just had the ole brain freeze which is more and more happening, perhaps by design by the designers OR one or more PTB factions - haha.

The thing about ID I find fascinating is the explorations of that idea which led me down several paths.

One: A "God" designed all creation, including as (at all levels of our being) our world, all extended consciousness realms (and/or "spiritual realms), the soul, ourselves, etc.

Two: A massively advanced race of beings "designed" physical "shells" (our bodies, and perhaps bodies of other physically anchored beings) which has the capability of hosting a soul fragment where a self emerges and experiences a lifetime.


In the first, I grapple with the same "thing" found at the top of all monotheistic religions and I have a sort of natural bias against such an idea.

In the second view, there is still that sort of... "spiritual component" and I grapple with that because, though at this point in my life, I want there to be a continuation of what I perceive to be "my being" once the physical vehicle ceases its animation... I am averse to anything that smacks of religion and "dogmatic spirituality" in any form that is vulnerable to such.

What I liked the most about Dr. Tom Zinser is that I sensed as near zero, if not zero "religious" attachment/projection. When we communicate, we have to use words... but it has really helped me to hear and interpret certain words Alex said would likely "trigger some" like "divine" for example... where I interpret it from a point of view based in respect but nothing additional. This method has freed me of being triggered.

And so what Dr. Zinser's interview (and my continued interest in his website webpages, especially his summary of Soul-Centered Healing (the name he has given to his healing process), is that some of the structural questions as to the nature and science of being I have been seeking answers, seems to have been answered and all by a four way collaboration between Tom, Katherine (the medium that channeled a spirit), that spirit, named Gerod and the fourth... each client.

This interview, for me, has been the single most impactful gift ever received of the Skeptiko discussions.
 
Last edited:
Intelligent Design.

AubvaJdG-Pz0p1kPhups6tqKMoMpgIlwX3JX1rz2JvE.jpg




Which self crippling cosmology? Then again, maybe you don't want to go there. Understandably.
The problem is that IMHO the only way orthodox science can counter the scientific arguments that come from the DI, is to distract people with that kind of stuff :)

Do you know a bit of chemistry and biochemistry - if you want I'll suggest some reading, but you could start with my thread about Michael Behe's book:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/behes-argument-in-darwin-devolved.4317/

David
 

An interesting very first statement in the Editorial Reviews section on Amazon about this book -

"But what if the skeptics went too far? What if some of the children were really abused? And what if the legacy of these cases is a disturbing tendency to disbelieve children who say they are being molested? Those are the questions that frame this new book by Ross E. Cheit, a political scientist at Brown University who spent nearly 15 years on research, poring over old trial transcripts and interview tapes." --New York Times

And there's the additional point... what about when an adult decides to incorrectly interpret what comes from a child... even where they engage in "leading" the child whereby then they go and destroy the life of one or more innocent adults? And in this case I am suggesting "knowingly" and with ill intent.*

But then further to that - in a similar case where an adult has generated a huge resentment towards someone, somehow comes upon an opportunity to "get revenge" (this idea coming from their sub-conscious mind) then, being driven by this sub-conscious mind, they lead the child to say what they sub-consciously want to hear. And the situation results in the adult consciously drawing the incorrect conclusion... and they are left actually believing the false story!

This precise scenario happened to me within the last year and though I left out of my post of June 8 the exact nature of the issue, I am compelled to share it as these things are so freaking relevant now more than ever. And it goes to the question of, what is actually true! And how can anyone know for certain?

Here was the post - (and have added a new part)
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...nto-evil-thinking-450.4520/page-8#post-142280

*Ohhh and make sure this is understood - I am very convinced about McMartin (that it happened). I am also convinced that this extends to the very things Alex has featured in some of his other interviews - organized Satanic Ritual Abuse, Satanic Ritual Sacrifice, MK-Ultra, etc.
 
it seems scientists aren't sure how they mated! Dogs masturbate sometimes so I guess they could use the same trick - rub themselves off against something.

I'm glad you've given this some serious thought.
Do you know a bit of chemistry and biochemistry - if you want I'll suggest some reading, but you could start with my thread about Michael Behe's book:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/behes-argument-in-darwin-devolved.4317/

Only on a popular level. I'll start with the thread. It does look interesting, thanks.
 
Tom quoted me but did not answer my question which of his theree books most fully spells out his ontology of evil spirits? (I am like Alex truly impressed with his work.) I can't afford to buy more than one ot them, Tom.

And Alex overlooked my question
WHAT IS THE FULL CITATION FOR THE BOOK WITCHCRAFT WHICH YOU AND gORDON BOTH MENTIONED? TY

My first book is the best one in that it gives an overview of the inner world, including different levels of spirit intrusion and interference. Anytime I engage a dark soul, the focus is on its leaving. I might feel safe to ask an earthbound spirit about itself, the life it has lived, but not with dark souls. In my practice, I communicated with hundreds of spirits, but I did not go into the darkness to do that. With these kinds of spirits, it's as though we met at the boundary between Light and dark to carry out negotiations. Gerod and I talked at length about this boundary. If you enter darkness, even with just the intent of exploring and understanding, you will have to pay a price. From the point of view of darkness, you are the Light violating its boundary. If there is something you want from darkness, you will have to deal. There are other legit ways to gain knowledge asbout the dark or at least know what kind of deal you are willing to make. If you are a soul in darkness that has learned how to harness the forces of darkness itself, the exercise of that power has a steeper price yet. The desire and pursuit of such power is probably what pulls some souls so deep into darkness that they forget who they are. From my point of view, the labels we place on spirits is artificial. Spirits come in all shapes and sizes just like people on earth. What I pay attention to when I engage a spirit is its attitude toward the Light, its intent toward my client, and its level of knowledge in interacting with humans in the psychic and spirit levels. I'm going to stop here. I hope some of this speaks to you.
 
In general I agree; however, this is the contrary question that comes to mind: isn't everything "by agreement"? And aren't some agreements more difficult to change than others?

What I mean is: it sounds easy when you put it like that, just become aware of the subconscious agreement that was made and then change your mind. Maybe it is that easy.

But other "solid" aspects of physical reality are also supposedly manifest by agreement... so bending a spoon... just a matter of recognizing the subconscious agreement to see the spoon in its present form and then changing your mind in order to bend it. Sounds easy in theory.

I guess I'm saying maybe there is a spectrum of difficulty here. Some things are easy to change your mind about once you become aware and others are more difficult. Where do agreements with ET fall on the spectrum of difficulty?

I would say that what is easy for a person is to remove spirits, ET's, or other kinds of external entities once all accesses have been identified and closed. It is not necessarily easy to find and close accesses. If it's a past life ego-state, for example, that the ET's have re-contacted and that past-life person had a strong relationship with one or more of the ET's, then that part may welcome the contact and cooperate with ET's without any knowledge of the conscious self and 2020 reality. The problem is that I could give you ten scenarios right off the top of my head of how these connections, agreements, permissions may be instituted by outside beings. The bottom line is, for them to gain entry, there was a 'give' and there was a 'take,' and some of those can be quite hidden or entangled.
 
I would say that what is easy for a person is to remove spirits, ET's, or other kinds of external entities once all accesses have been identified and closed. It is not necessarily easy to find and close accesses.

Would you say this is similar to the common folkloric notion that if you can learn a spirit's name, then you have power over that spirit to command it?

A nameless entity is unknown, but once an entity has been named it is then classified into a logocentric structure, it is brought into the domain of the Logos, or brought into the light of consciousness, at which point consciousness can exercise will over the entity.

Whenever the topic of naming things comes up, I have to go back to Genesis where the gods brought the beasts to Adam to see what he would name them. The next statement always puzzled me: "but for Adam no helper was found." What does helping have to do with naming?

But recently it occurred to me that naming is setting boundaries which are a matter of choice. It is an exercise of the will. And we exercise will according to a purpose. A "helper" helps us accomplish our purpose. The Man had not yet discovered his purpose. So in a deep sleep (subconscious) the Man's purpose or will was separated and externalized in the form of Woman and awakening to see her was the manifestation of will into conscious awareness. His will was to gain knowledge so his externalized will helped him accomplish his purpose and gave him the forbidden fruit. Gaining knowledge is exercising choice over boundaries. The will to truth is the will to power.

The consequence of gaining knowledge (exercising the will) is to individuate which means both to become as a god as well as to die in separation.

We always have this choice before us: chaotic freedom or oppressive order. Or individuated death vs merging with the light/life. Or power vs love.

If it's a past life ego-state, for example, that the ET's have re-contacted and that past-life person had a strong relationship with one or more of the ET's, then that part may welcome the contact and cooperate with ET's without any knowledge of the conscious self and 2020 reality. The problem is that I could give you ten scenarios right off the top of my head of how these connections, agreements, permissions may be instituted by outside beings. The bottom line is, for them to gain entry, there was a 'give' and there was a 'take,' and some of those can be quite hidden or entangled.

So it sounds like you're saying a person in the present might unconsciously have a relationship with an ET or other entity as the result of a conscious agreement made in a past life. Once that is brought into present life consciousness, it can be terminated if desired.

A related scenario: If a person presently has repressed desires that are not brought into the light, could those repressed desires act as a sub personality with agency to make an agreement with an entity without the conscious awareness of the Ego?

Could we say that repressed elements of our sub-conscious are creating scenarios for us in physical reality to awaken us to their existence? (much like the externalized sub personality in the form of Eve bringing the fruit of knowledge to Adam resulting in a fall into the depths of the subconscious to become conscious of what shameful things are hiding there in the darkness under the fig leaves)
 
Last edited:
My first book is the best one in that it gives an overview of the inner world, including different levels of spirit intrusion and interference. Anytime I engage a dark soul, the focus is on its leaving. I might feel safe to ask an earthbound spirit about itself, the life it has lived, but not with dark souls. In my practice, I communicated with hundreds of spirits, but I did not go into the darkness to do that. With these kinds of spirits, it's as though we met at the boundary between Light and dark to carry out negotiations. Gerod and I talked at length about this boundary. If you enter darkness, even with just the intent of exploring and understanding, you will have to pay a price. From the point of view of darkness, you are the Light violating its boundary. If there is something you want from darkness, you will have to deal. There are other legit ways to gain knowledge asbout the dark or at least know what kind of deal you are willing to make. If you are a soul in darkness that has learned how to harness the forces of darkness itself, the exercise of that power has a steeper price yet. The desire and pursuit of such power is probably what pulls some souls so deep into darkness that they forget who they are. From my point of view, the labels we place on spirits is artificial. Spirits come in all shapes and sizes just like people on earth. What I pay attention to when I engage a spirit is its attitude toward the Light, its intent toward my client, and its level of knowledge in interacting with humans in the psychic and spirit levels. I'm going to stop here. I hope some of this speaks to you.

I thank you, Tom. I just ordered the Kindle version of the first of the trilogy. I have dipped into it and already discern that it will speak to me.

I would be grateful for your opinion on the adage I have seen in many contexts, which I have always dsimissed as baloney, that you will attract what you focus on. Most recently I have seen Alex state a stronger version: you will become what you focus on.

This adage was traced to the Vedas in Alex's most recent interview. I still find it to be baloney, indeed inherently absurd. You and Alex are still intact after focusing on evil !

Many thanks in advance,

Lone Voice
 
I would be grateful for your opinion on the adage I have seen in many contexts, which I have always dsimissed as baloney, that you will attract what you focus on. Most recently I have seen Alex state a stronger version: you will become what you focus on.

I'm curious to hear Tom's answer too.

My first thought is... considering the iceberg model of the self... maybe the 10% of you that is above the surface in conscious awareness... maybe that small part of you is intently focusing on something, but while you're busy with that, what is the other 90% of you focusing on? Do the sub-personalities in your subconscious have more agency then the part of you that you are presently aware of?
 
I would be grateful for your opinion on the adage I have seen in many contexts, which I have always dsimissed as baloney, that you will attract what you focus on. Most recently I have seen Alex state a stronger version: you will become what you focus on.
The thing that seems so odd about such a comment, is that we all live together in consensus reality - so how can we all choose our own path?

Maybe one possibility is that time is branched, so that reality morphs in various ways and we all exist in our particular branch. Thus we have a consensus reality with the versions of others that correspond to our branch of reality. This would be a very coarse version of the Many-Worlds interpretation of QM!

David
 
Back
Top