Home Guidelines Reading Alternative Grail Psychonautics
Lydia's Well Gnostique Gaia-Sophia Magdalene Living Myth
Sky Lore 2012 S h i f t Rite Action

 

 

Site Guide

 

 

 

Telestics 101: Arrogation

Three Probes for Deconning Social Reality
The Vacuum of Authority

 

In the introductory essay on telestics, I proposed some definitions and what I hope to be catchy jargon: soundtrack, diss, three-band mental radio, decon. These terms may be helpful in developing a coherent discussion of the psychodynamics particular to human insanity in our time, the last two centuries of Kali Yuga. .

I understand that some of you may find my titillating over termini logy tedious and off-putting. At worst, I may appear to be inducting people into a private cult of Lashian jargon. That is neither my stated nor my actual intention! My intention is simply to follow the Socratic guideline stated in the Gorgias: adopt provisional terms to generate a dialogue that will move along productively for both parties, rather than bog them down in semantic quibbles and undeclared linguistic presumptions, the latter being sure sabotage to instructive dialogue. A Socratic provisional definition declares its presumptions out front. As the discussion proceeds, the presumed elements can be sheared and honed to the higher satisfaction of mutual understanding.

Terms of open dialogue are like pitons in rock-climbing strategies. You move them as you advance on the terrain, but keep some stable for rappelling, or in case of a slip and fall.

Smart-Ass Seers

Scholars warn that a good deal of what we know about Gnostics, the telestai of the Mysteries, comes from the dossier of the opposition, the Church Fathers or patristic ideologues. Researching the NHL at Leuven in Belgium, I was struck by the protest of Irenaeus or Epiphanius (can't remember which it was) that the directors of the Mysteries had an arrogant way of walking around, perceived by the devout Fathers as a stance of superiority. Some polemics against the Gnostics actually berate them for body-language! No doubt there is some allusion here to their self-designation, "the standing race." To outsiders this meant that the telestai stood apart from the rest of humankind. but in what sense? For one thing, the directors of the Mysteries chose to remain largely anonymous in the program of educating the human race: Who taught Pythagoras to calculate or Euripides to read and write? Gnostic detachment was a stance of dispassion and selflessness, rather than arrogance or superiority.

To the telestai themselves, the standing race indicated that they took their instruction from the Organic Light standing up. Also, that they stood for or represented the cause of the Anthropos, the divinely emanated template of all human strains in this galaxy. The Anthropos is the free-standing two-legged animal, the problem species of the Aeon Sophia in Gnostic mythography.

On the other hand, Gnostic arrogance was a mark of true defiance. The intellectual seers of the Mysteries stated their views on numerous topics in no uncertain terms, especially in the genres of cosmology and theology. Like Hypatia, who "eclipsed in argument every proponent of the Christian doctrines of Northern Egypt," their expositions were far superior to the Neanderthal conceits of the Fathers, not to mention the average slave convert to Christocentric salvationism. Unfortunately, they had little time to air their views in the encroaching shadow of the Empire. It appears that open arguments with the first ideologues lasted from about 150 AD to 350 AD, a mere two centuries up to the point when Roman Christianity, to define its identity and policies, both divine and mundane, launched its campaign to destroy the Mystery Schools and annihilate the intellectual, cultural, and vocational endowment of antiquity that had been nurtured for millennia in those sacred precincts.

In the damning idiom of the Church Fathers, gnostikos meant "smart ass, know-it-all." Those so labeled generously lived up to the role. Gnostics were ruthlessly clear on their knowledge of the true nature of evil, of error, and all the cosmological and theological baggage those terms entail. They saw evil as perversion of human potential, not an autonomous cosmic force. They insisted ferociously that a loving creator could not do evil to humanity, or test people by suffering and injustice. They coolly busted the syntax of Persian single-source or split-source duality, as I have done in Not in His Image:

Moral and cosmological concept found in Zoroastrian religion and Zaddikite ideology (set out in the Dead Sea Scrolls), asserting that good and evil are absolute and autonomous principles that arise from the same source. Makes God or the Godhead the source of violently opposing tendencies. Also makes God responsible for making right the injustices deriving from God that human beings suffer and cannot (presumably) reconcile or rectify on their own.
(From the Glossary, modified)

Gnostic argument blew this conception totally out of the water by the simple refutation that the problem of human morality is error and deceit, a situational and existential quandary, not a cosmic good-evil dichotomy sourced outside the species. Now as then, no Christian or Jewish or Islamic theologian can hold a candle to this refutation, I reckon.

Even more inflammatory to the apologist ic simpletons of the Faith was the Gnostic argument that the revered father god of Judeo-Christianity, whose son is the Pauline messiah Jesus Christ (though truth be told, Paul cared little for the Jesus part of the "avatar" hybrid), was a demented imposter, a pseudo-divinity who works against humanity through the subliminal intrusion of the archontic factor, error. Not evil. The archons "authorities") are not inherently evil, but they are corrupt. They are agents and messengers of deception who inspire acts of personal and social evil, violations of the natural symbiotic designs of life. In their expose of the alien identity of Jehovah, the ancient seers highlighted the arrogance of the false creator god, tracing it all the way back to cosmic origins:

What Sophia created [by her impact] became a product in the matter [the dema], [a neonate form] like an aborted fetus. And [once formed] it assumed a plastic shape molded out of shadow, and became an arrogant beast resembling a lion. It was androgynous, because it was from [neutral, inorganic] matter that it derived. (The Hypostasis of the Archons, II, 4, 94 ff, with my glosses in brackets.)

The demiurge is arrogant of his status, ambitions, and powers. He is a bully, tyrant, and sadist—well-known qualities of the psychopath, consistent with the OT profile of Jehovah. Mystery School insiders called this celestial monster Ialdabaoth, pronounced, E-YALL-duh-BUY-ot. An extremely odd slur of Aramaic that means something like, "lord of the drones, hive master." Al/El denotes the title "Lord," and baoth suggests something like "false form, drone, simulacrum." As I wrote in NIHI, "In the matter of the ET/UFO enigma, the Gnostics were ahead of everyone today. Way ahead" (Ch. 21, Unmasking Evil). Those goddamed smart-asses were veteran seers of the supernatural who knew exactly what they were talking about.

Decon Probes

Now, to titillate for a moment over terminology, I want to introduce a term that inverts the arrogance of the demiurge: two can play at that game. It summarizes the essence of telestic deconstruction of social reality, and especially the orchestrations of social evil by psychopathic members of the human species who prey on their own kind. The term is arrogation. Telestics is arrogation, hence closely related to the patristic condemnation of the gnostikoi for arrogance. Standard definition of arrogance by etymology: L arrogantia, from ad-, to, for, against, + rogare, to ask.

Arrogation is the pristine practice of arrogance: posing a challenge to what is said, asking for proof and verification, asking against, talking back. Arrogation is talking back to authority, all and every kind of social and intellectual authority, even the authority attributed to God. Especially the authority attributed to God. This practice of talking back is the essence of Gnostic arrogance and the thrust of modern telestics.

Telestics adds to the ironic, self-effacing stealth of Socratic dialectic the frontal impact of Gnostic arrogance. It is a simple, systematic method of talking back to any dictated interpretation of social reality, the official view of things such as the official version of the 911 attacks, or the JFK assassination, or the murder of Marilyn Monroe, or anthropic global warming, and on and on. Society as it is today, spun into a blind fracas of collective schizophrenia, offers no lack of occasions to arrogate, to protest and repeal a stated view or plan or message or intention. To stand up against a deceitful message shoved in your face is the signature of arrogation.

But protesting is one thing, and deconning is another. Merely to protest a suspected untruth or deception is not enough to countermand it. To decon requires specific syntactical measures, tools for arrogation. In telestics, I propose three basic tools in the form of hard-pointed questions or probes:

Does the stated intent of this action, plan, message, or view match the actual intent?

Who benefits from this action, plan, message, or view?

On what authority is this action, plan, message, or view to be enforced?

In these syntactical formulas, view means interpretation, the way anything is explained or even how it is described. for example, the way the events of 911 are described: jetliners were hijacked by Islamic terrorists with box-cutters and flown into skyscrapers. Arrogate that. I am convinced that now, coming on nine years after the events, we finally can.

These three question-probes comprise the entirely of the method of telestic deconning. To arrogate is to bring these questions to bear on an action, plan, massage, or view. No false, deceitful, or specious view can hold against the impact of these Socratic decon probes.

Decon Test Case

For a decon test case I select a message often quoted by 911 truthers and researchers who would expose the NWO domination scheme of the globalist mafia, the corporate-military predators. this oft-repeated message was memorably stated by Ronald Reagan who oversaw the end of the Cold War signaled by Gorbachev's glasnost and dramatized the fall of the Berlin Wall, November 1990. Surely with his mind (or minders) on the demise of America's arch-enemy, Reagan mused that, wouldn't it be a fine thing if humanity came together in the face of a huge common threat, such as invasion from outer space.

Both before and after Reagan made this statement, it was restated by others. It forms a plank of the globalist scheme of world unity and totalitarian control for the sake of security. In other words, the end of the free world as we have know it, some lucky ones among us. Now what happens when we apply the three decon probes to this message?

Does the stated intent of this message, i.e., to propose a good cause for unite humanity and setting aside differences, match its actual intent, i.e., to raise a phony threat and prepare the way for a false-flag alien attack, the endgame scenario of the globalist takeover?

The question so put states a self-evident answer. You can run it through several times and fill in the blanks differently with equally revealing results. These decon probes operate like surgical strikes on expressions of deception.

It may seem that I am cheating here. Granted I already have a conception of the actual aim. The stated aim comes with the message, or it strongly implied in it. The actual aim I have inserted into the probe formula is one of several that comes to mind upon investigating the topic. In telestics you have to inform yourself of the evidence and probabilities that bear on any situation, message, or view. You examine concerns and define considerations relating to the stated intent, then let the evidence weighed in your mind bring you to a phrasing of the actual intention. It's a game of invention within the simple syntactical format of the probe.

At the end of the day, all we can say is that all interpretations are invented. You choose the invention you prefer, but you do not choose it arbitrarily. The official version of 911 is one invention. The scenario of GCI-cloaked drones commandeered in a black ops by the US military is another invention. Which invention is supported by the most comprehensive and consistent evidence? Which invention is more coherent and free of absurdity, anomalies, and identifiable lies?

In the human mind, preference of invention is twinned to the sense for what is true. For the veracity that suits common sense and overall sense, based on evidence. Telestics is a way to hone your preference of invention.

And so it goes. Decon probe 1 is pretty slick, if I say so myself. It slides into deception like that presumed passenger jet slicing into the north tower: a hot knife into butter. The three probes can be used in any order but the sequence given feels easy and natural. There is deepening difficulty advancing with probes 2 and 3, but also deepening deconstruction, more lucid and liberating insight to take on board. Such, at least, is the keen sensation felt where I'm standing.

Inhuman Purpose

There is not a lot more to say right here and now about using these probes, but I will conclude with two broad points relating respectively to questions 2 and 3.

The question Who benefits from this action, plan, message, or view? raises the issue of purpose. The telestai who took their self-designation from telos, "aim, goal, purpose," taught that human purpose is a special case in the natural world, an exception to the general design of things. Because humans are endowed with exceptional capacities to learn, a broad latitude for experiment and play, trial and error, we are prone to make mistakes and stray from the symbiotic designs of life more widely than other animals. The archontic factor comes into play when error, left undetected and uncorrected, extrapolates beyond the scale of correction.

As explained in the first entry in Telestics, the sacred myth of the Mysteries tells how Sophia's correction is intimately bound up with the self-correction of the human species, but the former ultimately does not depend on the latter. Gaia's correction is diorthic, consisting of two methods, one incorporating human correction into her long-term trajectory, and the other excluding it. How wonderful is that.

I strongly advise that anyone who can follow these propositions consider the next sentence with great care:

The two-method "correction" of Gaia-Sophia places humanity at a chaotic bifurcation of the species, where it has to verge in one direction, along with her, toward transmutations with-and-in her designs, or in the other direction, without her, toward moral entropy and inhumanity, i.e., self-extinction.

I feel enormously privileged to be able to teach Gaia's correction in this manner, in this language, after long and intense preparation. This teaching brings the evolutionary responsibility of the human species toward all life to focus and maturity. All the propositions involved in Gaia's correction are lucid and eminently simplific—a term I invented years ago, meaning profoundly and elegantly simple, complex but elementary, not simplistic. These propositions are not my invention solely for they are to be discovered and devised, rephrased and refined, in the moral imagination of every single member of the human race with the basic decency to care about the deeper ecological Gaian view, and the basic intelligence to manage it.

Probe 2 is a trusty tool for arrogation, but it can also serve to deepen the inquiry into human purpose, of two kinds: concerning humans among themselves, i.e., intra-species purpose, and concerning human relations e toward the rest of life on earth, i.e., inter-species, and the cosmos at large. Evil is not a cosmic agency, the telestai insisted. It arises through corruption of intra-species purposes, itself due to wrong use of human potential—grandiose, Egyptian-style schemes of social engineering, for example. But evil takes on a cosmic look through humanity's connection with its alien cousins, the archons.

The riddle of the archons is like a test we face to determine if humankind can move to the next level of cosmic relations. The archon problem is the litmus test of our orientation to the inter-species connection. It is also a real-time, no-rehearsal survival test.

Masterminds of social evil work through perversion of intra-species purposes. In the extreme of our species' pathology, certain members of the human tribe turn on their own kind. They become surro-predators, a clear and present intra-species menace. One insight Gnostics may have had about such predators, well back in their time, is this: they operate on the corruption of intra-species purposes, and may in a demented manner invoke the inter-species cosmic outlook, yet they actually have no cosmic view, absolutely no understanding of transcendent inter-human and cosmic purposes. Note well, they do not have a wrong understanding of inter-species and cosmic relations, they have none at all. Like Saklas, another name for the demiurge, they are blind in that domain.

This being so, whatever the NWO schemers are plotting in their twisted minds, their conception of cosmic and alien matters is pure fantasia. Whereas humans who mature into reasonability for intra-species purposes can naturally expand to the cosmic view. Doing so, they have to into account the presence of archontic elements in human mind and in the cosmos at large (the solar system exclusive of the earth), but they do not indulge in fantastic scenarios about alien intent. If the telestic seers were right, the archons have no intent. That absence is in great measure the riddle they pose.

To come down to earth from these rather broad reflections, let's apply the second decon probe to Reagan's message:

Who benefits from the message that humanity would be globally united, and voluntarily set aside all its differences and divisions, if faced by the threat of an alien invasion?

Who benefits from putting out that statement? Obviously, not humanity (stated intent) but those who can orchestrate that invasion and, at the same time, save the world from it (actual intent). In telestic essays to come, I will show that the orchestration of that event is the endgame scenario of globalist domination, the last card of the great deception.

The great deception cannot succeed globally, as planned, but selectively, in a way, it can. It can prevail only if the inhuman purpose that drives the dominators replaces in every human conscience the sense for truth and fidelity to the visionary intent unique to our lot, our share in Sophia's correction. There is some good argument, I would guess, for regarding the endgame scenario (aka Project Blue Beam) as a test humanity has to pass to advance toward planetary awareness and inclusion into the transhuman designs of life, HER life.

Inclusion by visionary intent. Others need not apply.

Without Authority

Finally, on the matter of authority, I will be as cogent as I can manage. Here is Reagan's message framed in decon probe 3:

On what authority is the message that humanity would be globally united if faced by the threat of an alien invasion to be enforced?

Take a wild guess. It might help to consider two letters: U and N. Just imagine what scope of authority, what a massive preparatory orchestration of faceless bureaucratic powers and masked, armored militia, would be required to accomplish such enforcement? And then look around and see it being done... Or more precisely, being attempted.

Scary? Perhaps, but I really don't think so. In fact, the globalist scheme doesn't scare me a whit or a whisper. But then I defend my mind and freedom, including freedom to think for myself and say whatever the hell I want, with an outrageous proposition:

There is no authority that can enforce such a message of domination, because, in reality, there is no global authority at all on the planet and there can never be.

Why not? Well, in order to establish global authority of the scope required for such a deceitful orchestration as the New World Order or global governance over the air we breath, etc., the "management" has to depend on vast numbers of individuals who "follow their authority." In other words, the psychopaths who would pull off such an operation are entirely dependent on others to act on their authority because they, the management, have none of their own. These psychopaths, as individuals, have no direct authorial capacity to do anything to command others. Proof is, you never see them doing any direct action to implement global governance, except perhaps to command a meal or a hooker, purely casual matters. Their power to act in the global range is totally delegated.

Imagine that you meet Henry Kissinger standing all by his lonesome, without handlers or bodyguards or delegates or sycophants, stranded at a bus station in Kingman, Arizona. What could the mighty man command you to do out of his massive authority? Nothing. Nothing at all. "Authority"—the signature of the archons, according to Gnostic seers—is a global illusion. A mere imputation, to use the idiom of Tibetan Buddhist deconstruction. Kissinger and those of his ilk only have the authority imputed to them by others. To the extent that he exemplifies inhuman corruption of intra-species purposes, he has no internal power of conscience or sense for truth, hence no basis for genuine authority, i.e., authentic, autonomous, self-assertive action that can stand by itself, effective on its own terms.

But wait, it gets better. To implement their grand schemes, globalist masterminds must depend utterly on others who also have no authority of their own, no inherent force that can be exercised in a global, totalitarian, anonymous manner. The only true authority any human being has resides in the intimate presence of conscience. All the rest that passes for authority, transferred down the chain of command, is illusory, like the presence of a vacuum in the open air. Wilhelm Reich noted that the power of tyrants such as Hitler and Stalin does no reside in some mysterious force or agency they possess, but in the pure vacuum where they operate.

I suspect these propositions might sound exotic and incredible at first encounter, so I will conclude with a situational illustration:

A fireman stands at the entrance of a building, commanding people to stay out because there is a risk of an explosion in the boiler room. His authority as a fireman is an imputation, but his training and judgment of danger are real. Those who accept and assist the imputation will just obey his orders without questioning. But he could be using his authority to command and control people for one purpose of deception or another. For instance, to keep anyone from detecting an illegal or immoral action being conducted in the basement, such as waterboard torture.

Now, if the fireman acts from his conscience in full and clear knowledge of the actual situation in the basement, and in reliance upon his training, he will protect people by preventing them from entering the building, on command. In that case, if his conscience matches the stance of authority, he does what he would do anyway, even without authority: namely, act to warn and protect others. Anyone cognizant of the hihg-risk situation could take his place without needing the authority of a fireman or policeman, and do the same. In the true authority of conscience the fireman does not "exercise authority" over anyone: he does what he would do anyway, without the imputation of authority.

This example illustrates the unique instance in which any stance of authority can be humane and ethically acceptable. Authority that does not match conscience can be challenged by arrogation. Discretion may be the better part of valor in some challenges of this sort, but human-to-human confrontation with authority is always an option.

True social freedom on this planet means living without authority that does not match conscience, without the vacuous tyranny of imputed power transferred from one moral zero to the next, and magnified by the accumulation of zeros like the Fed manufactures fake dosh. The chain of command persists whenever an individual assumes the stance of authority in disregard of conscience, for conscience alone determines what is to be done in the same circumstances without the role, badge, uniform, papers, etc. The chain of command crumbles wherever an individual matches the call of conscience to the act of imputed authority. Then they do what they would do anyway, without the authority granted.

Policemen who viciously attacked passive protesters seated on a side street during the Copenhagen summit on climate change acted on authority. Each individual of the militia had the opportunity in that situation to follow human conscience or disregard it and act on the authority granted to him: to do what they did to those young people without being authorized, or not. Those who disregarded conscience acted as automatons of authority.

But is it probable that some of those men would have done the same kind of thing without the need of to be "authorized"? Unfortunately, I would say yes. Such is the brutal truth of life today. Those men who looked for their conscience and found in themselves the unmasked, unexcused desire for sadistic violence, would have acted on their inclination as well as on their imputed authority. In either case, sadistically inclined or not, the militiamen turned violently on their own kind. It is open season on predators who behave in this manner, with seeming impunity. There are no neutral or irresponsible agents of global authority in the intra-species predation scenario. Accomplices at all levels of command go down with the gutless psychopaths who command them.

But in greater measure than blind collusion, perhaps, many would-be accomplices in delegated authority could choose to break command. Individuals risk severe penalties for doing so, of course, but the more numerous the individual refusals, the more difficult it becomes to penalize anyone. There can be no coming war on Iran, or anywhere else, if those delegated to fight for the others who command them on authority, and confer authority to them in turn, refuse to uphold the illusion.

There is no authority on the planet that can rule the planet. The only authority that can command your actions is your own autonomous conscience, or that of another individual who acts on the presence of conscience, free of the stance of authority, free of imputation, liberated from the illusory contagion of delegated remote control.

Such are my personal reflections derived from some considerations raised by decon probe 3.

jll : 16 February 2010 Andalucia -- one of five essays in development

Kali = Deliverance

 

 

 

 


Material by John Lash and Lydia Dzumardjin: Copyright 2002 - 2017 by John Lash.