Genuinely one of the hardest pieces ever published on the entirety of this site, in my opinion. I still think about it all time and I've probably sent it to two dozen people since it was first published.
Eustace Mullins wrote a book on the biology of parasites ("The Biological X"), noting that many species of plants and animals have a parasitic sub-species that prey upon the non-parasite versions of their species. Across multiple species, these parasite versions diverge in similar physical and behavioral ways. (Physiognomy is real.) What you see as demonic is simply how we the host-variant view the alien behavior of the parasite-variant.
Mullins indicates that there is one noticeable sub-group that seems to be parasitical as the norm, but I would add that all human races seem to have varying rates of individuals that fit in with this sub-groups behavior.
"What you see as demonic is simply how we the host-variant view the alien behavior of the parasite-variant."
What you see as the alien behavior of the parasite-variant is simply demonic.
Hey look, I can do it too! ;)
But seriously: I don't entirely discount the parasitical model. But it is only a language model; and necessarily an incomplete one, because it doesn't take into account the hard problem of consciousness. That's not to denigrate the model; no reductive scientific model can account for that territory. The best it can do is evaluate and (however imperfectly) predict downstream effects, and there are better and worse methodologies for doing so. The same could be said of the demonic model; both have their strengths and weaknesses, when it comes to describing the phenomena usefully.
My buddy Harrison Koehli at Political Ponerology had a very good post that attempts to integrate both models, if you're curious:
My theory: the earth is a living organism and aliens are thought-constructs from a mind so powerful, it manifests them as 'reality.' They exist only in our minds, however, which is why they seem to defy physics. They are imaginings thrust into our minds from our global over-mind.
Consider: thunderheads in a squall line will fire off lightning with the exact pattern our neurons fire. May of the patterns of our own biology, quite sensibly, mimic large scale biological processes of the world around us. What is our living environment comprises one vast organism. What if it 'thinks' and is 'aware?' What would such a mind make of us, living in its guts, and re-ordering the natural world on the scale we have?
What if our global-over mind is trying to talk to us? Trying to reach the part of itself that is changing things?
UFOs, sasquatch, sea monsters, goblins/elves/dwarves, vampires, ghosts, Leonard Nimoy....all manifestations of its imperfect efforts at communication. All touch on our internal myth/archetype wiring. All are untraceable and impossible by our knowledge of physical law. It also touches on why they are so strange: they are a combination of our subconscious being influenced by the over-mind. These encounters carry in them both dread and awe, touch on primal fears and desires, and are as much a reflection of the mind of the one encountering the mind-intrusion anything the mind-intrusions are or do.
Consider if you tried to talk to the biome in your gut...how difficult would that be? How does one talk to a microbe? Try a much higher order of creature...and ant, say. How does one talk to an ant? Magnifying glasses on sunny days are perhaps not the best means to communicate with an ant colony. How would one talk to a tree?
We can barely communicate with cats and dogs, and we are much closer to them than ants or trees.
Our world is one vast living thing. We are part of a biome in its innards. It may not even be 'talking' to us so much as reacting to our presence in what would be, for us, an subconscious way.
It's as good a theory as any, I suppose. How to support it with evidence?
An interesting idea. Reminds me of Sheldrake's morphic fields (which I'm referencing also here, in some indirect ways). I have a few questions.
1) "...thought-constructs from a mind so powerful, it manifests them as 'reality.' They exist only in our minds, however, which is why they seem to defy physics. They are imaginings thrust into our minds from our global over-mind."
If that's the case, what phenomena actually counts as "real", so to speak? In other words, one way to look at reality is as a compilation of sensory data that is persistently synthesized by the observer-mind. That synthesis includes everything I can see, hear, smell and touch. If that is the "right way" to conceive of reality, then there wouldn't necessarily be a partition between "real" and "imaginary". For example, if an over-mind (or maybe *any* mind) could recreate the touch-sensation of a dagger being driven into my heart, I would still be mortally wounded and die from the so-called "imaginary" contact, would I not? Artists have explored this very idea (e.g. Dreamscape, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Neuromancer), so I don't think we're necessarily in novel terrain, even if we're speaking of a participatory hallucination.
2) "Our world is one vast living thing. We are part of a biome in its innards. It may not even be 'talking' to us so much as reacting to our presence in what would be, for us, an subconscious way."
Again, for me this begs the question of category. There is of course a strain of thought that regards consciousness as being an inherent property of every "body" (i.e. including rocks, water, sand, etc). But common sense seems to direct us towards at least a hierarchy of consciousness, that is at least somewhat reliant on structure. A "living" body suggests to me an energetic pattern that sustains its form and functions metabolically, using available resources to maintain coherence over time. That would be a category difference compared to a boulder that does not actively maintain coherence (i.e. if you "wound" a boulder with a hammer, the pattern doesn't attempt to restore the structure).
With these two questions in mind, it seems to me that we might even be wandering into the question of semantics. If a bunch of people observe the same UAP phenomena within the same window of linear spacetime, and describe it the same way, would the ontological question of how "real" it was even matter?
The same goes for UAPs and "non-human" biologics that are supposedly languishing in secret government labs. If those researchers can see, touch, and otherwise sense those objects, by what metric do we determine they are the product of imagination? Moreover, by what metric do we determine that *we* *aren't* the product of imagination?
Good questions. Categories are how we sort things. What are we sorting? A non-testable, repeating phenomenon that takes many apparent forms, leaves little to no evidence, and deeply impacts the emotions of those who encounter this phenomenon.
Where do we put that? The actual physical evidence is scant: a tiny number of photos, records of radar signatures, marks on the ground or dead plants…there’s not much there to analyze.
I suggest the bulk of these encounters exist in the minds of the persons who have the encounter. This is not to say there will be no physical evidence. The primary thrust of this phenomenon is psychic. Physical evidence may take too much energy to create, so the times when physical evidence are rarer. The overmind can make physical alterations to ‘reality’ just as we can. (see the physicist Dr. Dean Radin’s books on the topic of psychic powers.)
I think it’s easier for the overmind to make impressions on video recorders or photographic film than to fully manifest a full disc with occupants. As far as the form of the occupants, WE give them that form, whether they are little greys or sasquatch or ghosts. The forms are dictated from our physical design, from the very ‘machinery’ of our mind.
Also, consider the boulder…in the lifetime and mind of a man, it does not heal, yet the Earth regularly recreates its crust over the longest of long hauls. That boulder, smacked with a hammer, will one day be subsumed back into the crust to be renewed and ‘healed.’
As far as bodies in labs…until we can poke ‘em with a stick, that’s just rumor.
Genuinely one of the hardest pieces ever published on the entirety of this site, in my opinion. I still think about it all time and I've probably sent it to two dozen people since it was first published.
Hardest? Do you mean in this sense?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JovA1T98IdU
Yeeesssssss!
When do we get the next one?
I'm working on it, whenever I can get a chance.
Eustace Mullins wrote a book on the biology of parasites ("The Biological X"), noting that many species of plants and animals have a parasitic sub-species that prey upon the non-parasite versions of their species. Across multiple species, these parasite versions diverge in similar physical and behavioral ways. (Physiognomy is real.) What you see as demonic is simply how we the host-variant view the alien behavior of the parasite-variant.
Mullins indicates that there is one noticeable sub-group that seems to be parasitical as the norm, but I would add that all human races seem to have varying rates of individuals that fit in with this sub-groups behavior.
"They are demons" is still a useful heuristic.
"What you see as demonic is simply how we the host-variant view the alien behavior of the parasite-variant."
What you see as the alien behavior of the parasite-variant is simply demonic.
Hey look, I can do it too! ;)
But seriously: I don't entirely discount the parasitical model. But it is only a language model; and necessarily an incomplete one, because it doesn't take into account the hard problem of consciousness. That's not to denigrate the model; no reductive scientific model can account for that territory. The best it can do is evaluate and (however imperfectly) predict downstream effects, and there are better and worse methodologies for doing so. The same could be said of the demonic model; both have their strengths and weaknesses, when it comes to describing the phenomena usefully.
My buddy Harrison Koehli at Political Ponerology had a very good post that attempts to integrate both models, if you're curious:
https://ponerology.substack.com/p/supernatural-evil-and-ponerology
My theory: the earth is a living organism and aliens are thought-constructs from a mind so powerful, it manifests them as 'reality.' They exist only in our minds, however, which is why they seem to defy physics. They are imaginings thrust into our minds from our global over-mind.
Consider: thunderheads in a squall line will fire off lightning with the exact pattern our neurons fire. May of the patterns of our own biology, quite sensibly, mimic large scale biological processes of the world around us. What is our living environment comprises one vast organism. What if it 'thinks' and is 'aware?' What would such a mind make of us, living in its guts, and re-ordering the natural world on the scale we have?
What if our global-over mind is trying to talk to us? Trying to reach the part of itself that is changing things?
UFOs, sasquatch, sea monsters, goblins/elves/dwarves, vampires, ghosts, Leonard Nimoy....all manifestations of its imperfect efforts at communication. All touch on our internal myth/archetype wiring. All are untraceable and impossible by our knowledge of physical law. It also touches on why they are so strange: they are a combination of our subconscious being influenced by the over-mind. These encounters carry in them both dread and awe, touch on primal fears and desires, and are as much a reflection of the mind of the one encountering the mind-intrusion anything the mind-intrusions are or do.
Consider if you tried to talk to the biome in your gut...how difficult would that be? How does one talk to a microbe? Try a much higher order of creature...and ant, say. How does one talk to an ant? Magnifying glasses on sunny days are perhaps not the best means to communicate with an ant colony. How would one talk to a tree?
We can barely communicate with cats and dogs, and we are much closer to them than ants or trees.
Our world is one vast living thing. We are part of a biome in its innards. It may not even be 'talking' to us so much as reacting to our presence in what would be, for us, an subconscious way.
It's as good a theory as any, I suppose. How to support it with evidence?
Aye, there's the rub...
An interesting idea. Reminds me of Sheldrake's morphic fields (which I'm referencing also here, in some indirect ways). I have a few questions.
1) "...thought-constructs from a mind so powerful, it manifests them as 'reality.' They exist only in our minds, however, which is why they seem to defy physics. They are imaginings thrust into our minds from our global over-mind."
If that's the case, what phenomena actually counts as "real", so to speak? In other words, one way to look at reality is as a compilation of sensory data that is persistently synthesized by the observer-mind. That synthesis includes everything I can see, hear, smell and touch. If that is the "right way" to conceive of reality, then there wouldn't necessarily be a partition between "real" and "imaginary". For example, if an over-mind (or maybe *any* mind) could recreate the touch-sensation of a dagger being driven into my heart, I would still be mortally wounded and die from the so-called "imaginary" contact, would I not? Artists have explored this very idea (e.g. Dreamscape, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Neuromancer), so I don't think we're necessarily in novel terrain, even if we're speaking of a participatory hallucination.
2) "Our world is one vast living thing. We are part of a biome in its innards. It may not even be 'talking' to us so much as reacting to our presence in what would be, for us, an subconscious way."
Again, for me this begs the question of category. There is of course a strain of thought that regards consciousness as being an inherent property of every "body" (i.e. including rocks, water, sand, etc). But common sense seems to direct us towards at least a hierarchy of consciousness, that is at least somewhat reliant on structure. A "living" body suggests to me an energetic pattern that sustains its form and functions metabolically, using available resources to maintain coherence over time. That would be a category difference compared to a boulder that does not actively maintain coherence (i.e. if you "wound" a boulder with a hammer, the pattern doesn't attempt to restore the structure).
With these two questions in mind, it seems to me that we might even be wandering into the question of semantics. If a bunch of people observe the same UAP phenomena within the same window of linear spacetime, and describe it the same way, would the ontological question of how "real" it was even matter?
The same goes for UAPs and "non-human" biologics that are supposedly languishing in secret government labs. If those researchers can see, touch, and otherwise sense those objects, by what metric do we determine they are the product of imagination? Moreover, by what metric do we determine that *we* *aren't* the product of imagination?
Good questions. Categories are how we sort things. What are we sorting? A non-testable, repeating phenomenon that takes many apparent forms, leaves little to no evidence, and deeply impacts the emotions of those who encounter this phenomenon.
Where do we put that? The actual physical evidence is scant: a tiny number of photos, records of radar signatures, marks on the ground or dead plants…there’s not much there to analyze.
I suggest the bulk of these encounters exist in the minds of the persons who have the encounter. This is not to say there will be no physical evidence. The primary thrust of this phenomenon is psychic. Physical evidence may take too much energy to create, so the times when physical evidence are rarer. The overmind can make physical alterations to ‘reality’ just as we can. (see the physicist Dr. Dean Radin’s books on the topic of psychic powers.)
I think it’s easier for the overmind to make impressions on video recorders or photographic film than to fully manifest a full disc with occupants. As far as the form of the occupants, WE give them that form, whether they are little greys or sasquatch or ghosts. The forms are dictated from our physical design, from the very ‘machinery’ of our mind.
Also, consider the boulder…in the lifetime and mind of a man, it does not heal, yet the Earth regularly recreates its crust over the longest of long hauls. That boulder, smacked with a hammer, will one day be subsumed back into the crust to be renewed and ‘healed.’
As far as bodies in labs…until we can poke ‘em with a stick, that’s just rumor.
So much to ponder over here. Another article that will ruminate for days!
You might like the Belief Hole podcast. Thank you for these articles. They are always a pleasure to read and ponder.
Thanks, Angela. I will check it out.
Free Bird!
"...rhesus monkey and owl monkey all have large eyes with vertically-aligned slit pupils."
Large eyes yes, slit pupils, as far as I can tell, no.
“alien conquistadors”
ironic