Logical conclusion of rejection of belief

1.4K

• (edited )

We can see the results of mass belief systems being taken to their logical conslusion happening in our 'new normalized' Soviet/Israeli/CCP/Rothschild-run world today; and is in fact the source of inspiration for this post here & right now.

Mask madness is the most modern blatant example of such belief systems in motion. It is an offer made by the few and accepted by the many. The offer? Belief in an invisible 'germ' (which in turn is based on 'germ theory' an aspect of Talmudic reasoning ie- you consented to belief in theory therefore the offerer is clear of karma and thus has no guilt when your mouth becomes infected with fungus or your brain damaged from depleted oxygen supply - same reason why the vaccine will always have a pamphlet with the truths about what kind of deadly side affects it may or may not give to you as apart of consenting to it. Personally I don't follow the Talmud nor agree with this line of reasoning but I do see how it could be effective in convincing those in a caste system to commit atrocities ie- to rationalize deception by offering the truth - even if burried deep in the fine print).

This literal parastical belief is not so much a danger to one's way of life in isolation; ie- if one rejects such beliefs and instead only 'others' believe - the big problem is however when the masses of your communitiy believe in insanity you who is not insane may be subjected to the results of this cult behavior whether you like it or not. Those who do not believe may be 'forced' to believe in order to keep their way of life; perhaps even to survive - or be left in the cold; starved or worse - to be attacked by those radicalized so much in their beliefs that they would seek harm to those who do not comply. In their homes, on the street, at the store - or maybe in captivity, after being rounded up by troops of believers indoctrinated to the point of formality; who wear uniforms to announce their loyalty to the idol authority for which they subscribe - a warning to others that they will act with force to enforce the will of said idol. Yet are these troops empowered by the idol - or are they are empowered by the masses who believe in the idol? Who is really at fault here?

Taxation is another mass belief system: yet interestingly not all believe the same finer details of the offer - yet consent acheives the same desired outcome (for those making the offer): the masses consent - and thus, the masses are paying taxes. Whereas one person may believe they are paying taxes for roads, another believes they are paying taxes to not be thrown in jail. Both are selfish 'beliefs' that endanger those who do not believe in either scenario: because the resulting aggregattion of power gives a rather real capability to those who hold such power. The power of consent of millions of people creates an imbalance of power - that which can easily be used, or abused, to build roads - to build jails or to force people to build roads into jails where people are forced to go. The power to build or to imprison is from the consent of the belief in those who offer to do it. The bigger the mass of believers, the bigger the mass of power wielded by the idol or those who control said idol from behind the scenes (or those who may assume the power of said idol by means of inheritence over time or covert infiltration suddenly).

And religion, of course - if only those who are so selfish enough to believe that they are chosen by 'god' (an idol) to carry out 'gods will' (terms of the offer - defined by those who write & preach it ) then perhaps we would not see such extreme levels of violence that we see in parts of our world. Places like in Israel/Palestine where there are evidently bombs going off on Christmas Day.

The logical conslusion I am thus trying to highlight here is that if every offer of belief was instead rejected: if we instead recognized our authority over-self as an instinctual survival need that is dangerous to give away - perhaps we may find ourselves in a much safer, balanced world.

If beliefs represent fixed stagnant cancerous regions of our mind - which only serve to give energy to those who created & offered us those beliefs (and who now have the resulting 'authority' to both define the defintion of said belief & to enforce the terms of what it means to accept that belief) then as prudent sentient beings with the ability to exercise free will we can & should consider to reject beliefs as a matter of not only 'policy' but survival. We can see the results of mass belief systems being taken to their logical conslusion happening in our 'new normalized' Soviet/Israeli/CCP/Rothschild-run world today; and is in fact the source of inspiration for this post here & right now. Mask madness is the most modern blatant example of such belief systems in motion. It is an offer made by the few and accepted by the many. The offer? Belief in an invisible 'germ' (which in turn is based on 'germ theory' an aspect of Talmudic reasoning ie- you consented to belief in theory therefore the offerer is clear of karma and thus has no guilt when your mouth becomes infected with fungus or your brain damaged from depleted oxygen supply - same reason why the vaccine will always have a pamphlet with the truths about what kind of deadly side affects it may or may not give to you as apart of consenting to it. Personally I don't follow the Talmud nor agree with this line of reasoning but I do see how it could be effective in convincing those in a caste system to commit atrocities ie- to rationalize deception by offering the truth - even if burried deep in the fine print). This literal parastical belief is not so much a danger to one's way of life in isolation; ie- if one rejects such beliefs and instead only 'others' believe - the big problem is however when the masses of your communitiy believe in insanity you who is not insane may be subjected to the results of this cult behavior whether you like it or not. Those who do not believe may be 'forced' to believe in order to keep their way of life; perhaps even to survive - or be left in the cold; starved or worse - to be attacked by those radicalized so much in their beliefs that they would seek harm to those who do not comply. In their homes, on the street, at the store - or maybe in captivity, after being rounded up by troops of believers indoctrinated to the point of formality; who wear uniforms to announce their loyalty to the idol authority for which they subscribe - a warning to others that they will act with force to enforce the will of said idol. Yet are these troops empowered by the idol - or are they are empowered by the masses who believe in the idol? Who is really at fault here? Taxation is another mass belief system: yet interestingly not all believe the same finer details of the offer - yet consent acheives the same desired outcome (for those making the offer): the masses consent - and thus, the masses are paying taxes. Whereas one person may believe they are paying taxes for roads, another believes they are paying taxes to not be thrown in jail. Both are selfish 'beliefs' that endanger those who do not believe in either scenario: because the resulting aggregattion of power gives a rather real capability to those who hold such power. The power of consent of millions of people creates an imbalance of power - that which can easily be used, or abused, to build roads - to build jails or to force people to build roads into jails where people are forced to go. The power to build or to imprison is from the consent of the belief in those who offer to do it. The bigger the mass of believers, the bigger the mass of power wielded by the idol or those who control said idol from behind the scenes (or those who may assume the power of said idol by means of inheritence over time or covert infiltration suddenly). And religion, of course - if only those who are so selfish enough to believe that they are chosen by 'god' (an idol) to carry out 'gods will' (terms of the offer - defined by those who write & preach it ) then perhaps we would not see such extreme levels of violence that we see in parts of our world. Places like in Israel/Palestine where there are evidently bombs going off on Christmas Day. The logical conslusion I am thus trying to highlight here is that if every offer of belief was instead rejected: if we instead recognized our authority over-self as an instinctual survival need that is dangerous to give away - perhaps we may find ourselves in a much safer, balanced world.

(post is archived)