Jacob011 I got a little jammed up, too. Powerful!

Not just me then!

Same.

I'm not sure precisely why, but he's had that affect on me, also--especially as St. Christopher emerged. The synchronicity (serendipity) is intense.

Me too, how can the fact that she barks and hears a baby cry be the exact same idea of the dog headed saint christopher and christ? I can't comprehend it, it is amazing and really confusing at the same time.

Tim M Absolutely!

The problem with this idea is that _symbolic_ monsters do not performs laser precision surgery on farm cows, suck out all of their blood and organs and then leave them dumped on top of trees without making any mess, leaving any tire marks and without waking up sleeping dogs or farmers nearby. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nsecfbVjkqzZiYE.html

The problem with that idea is that symbolic monsters have been doing that for centuries, long before the UFO phenomenon became popularized. People just used to call those monsters "vampires" before they became extraterrestrials. Even today, those monsters are sometimes called "chupacabra" instead of ETs. These are the same projections and rationalizations people have been making for a long time.

"..The problem with that idea is that symbolic monsters have been doing that for centuries.." By definition, symbolic monsters cannot act in the physical realm. Thousands of dead, 'mutilated' bodies each year all over the world (including humans) testify to the very real nature of these monsters. There is nothing symbolic about them. The medical procedures are way beyond what we can do even with our most advanced equipment ... much less in the dead of night in the driving rains miles from anywhere... and without so much as single footprint or tire track left behind. I agree these kinds of phenomena tend to be interpreted according to the level of technology we currently have, or can conceive of. However, that still does not make any of it symbolic. God knows what fishes in the ocean make of marine biologists arriving overhead in their strange whirring 'motherships', then 'abducting' fishes with nets or lines, tagging them with alien implants, going away, coming back a month later, 'abducting' them again, performing autopsies on them and throwing the mutilated corpses back into the ocean when they are done with no apparent concern for the trauma, outrage and confusion this induces in the fishes who stumble across their strangely mutilated corpses. But there is nothing symbolic about any of that either... regardless of whether you are a fish skeptic who insists it must be natural predation, or a fish believer who is full of crazy alien conspiracy theories about aliens conducting biological research on them.

theawecabinet you know what else there is nothing about these monsters? Nothing physical... It's like scientists saying that gravity rotation curves are proof that there's some "dark" influence in galaxies, and of course use that as justification to get millions of dollars from the government. Even though, like vampires and UFOs, the actual culprit never ever shows up. To bring more Jung into this, the insistence that it must be some highly advanced medical technology doing these mutilation is, in my opinion, a reflection of modern society's almost exclusive identification with the Great Father (society) along with almost complete denial of the Great Mother (nature). We want to use technology to explain everything, and government to explain everything else. What do people who insist that UFOs are an actual phenomenon do when no one believes them? Start to think that there's a government conspiracy to cover up the supposed "truth"... I'm sure farmers could figure out what's happening to their cows if they really wanted to. But thousands of cows affected out of many many millions over the years (working out to much much less than 1% of cows) just doesn't justify the cost when farmers have much more pressing issues to worry about, like droughts. The amateur "ufo hunter" enthusiasts haven't found anything either, but maybe that's because they are so married to their predetermined conclusion, that only highly advanced technology could possibly be the cause and not something more natural, that they can't see what is actually happening. Until they do, people will just continue projecting monsters into the unknown, like they have since time immemorial.

Jung was embracing the world up to the end. His example enabled me and showed me how I could welcome the God figure into my heart. He, is a good friend of mine, probably the best I ever had.

There is a relationship between Sirius and St-Christopher for sure. Check out Myths of the Dog Man by David Gordon White, who has some interesting info. His analysis is sadly a bit one-dimensional, but the info is useful.

I definitely will, thank you so much! :-) Your content (as well as that of Matthieu, Jordan Peterson, Scott Onstott, etc.) has truly been an Anchor in times like these. Finding these online resources - in my experience - has felt like "Kowalski catching Ryan in the void". And I'm hearing similar stories from an increasing number of people. My "heroes" are those who restore Meaning! So again: thank you! :-)

I would like to add: in the lake we have the symbolism of the frog (the capacity of going into the void and raise from it) that you and JP so nicely clarified.

By a warlord who married a 9 year old...

No, I wouldn't say that. JP's idea of belief, if applied to unconscious racism, would look more like the leftists who profess to be anti-racist, yet treat minorities as if they can't control their own behaviour. The far left's idea of racism is "racism in effect," where actions that cause racial disparity are deemed racist. What I've laid out preserves the idea of racism as a matter of belief, because the way that radical leftists treat minorities is often based on an unconscious assumption that those minorities are inferior. That's what Jordan means when he's talking about belief as that which you act out. He's pointing to those beliefs which underlie your higher level beliefs, and not the things which you say you believe, because you can _say_ you believe anything. And you might even believe that you believe those things, but if your actions betray your words, then JP sides with the actions.

"microaggressions" are by definition only perceived by the aggressed, therefore, they (the aggressed) are the driver of that narrative, and that being the case, the supposed microaggressors are subject to the aggressed's claims, whether they are true or not. The whole paradigm is ripe with corruption and trying to "flip the script" of giving the power to the "oppressed" to attack the "oppressor". It is all marxist BS, and anyone that treats it as a legitimate paradigm is not worthy of recognition as a serious human being. But rather should be ostracized as a mischievous influence at best, if not a subversive, destabilizing element of the worst sort.

Doubt Hmm, I think JP would go deeper than just what a given individual acts. Think of his argument that athiests are more Christian than they would like to admit. His point is that Christianity has shaped our society, our institutions, our values, and our very being to such a degree that its impossible for anyone to say they arnt Christian. Athiests like Sam Harris act more Christian and have more Christianity built into them then they would like to admit. So, I see a perfect parallel with the institutional and unconscious racism. The idea is that our white supremacy is built into our values, our institutions, our society ect, to a much larger degree than we would like to admit. We have racism built into us because of our long history with racism. If Christianity can be "built" into the system and have a nst positive effect, why wouldn't the same be true for racism? (The history of in group preferance is arguably even longer than Christianity's) Surely JP must also acknowledge the negative influences built into our system?

jkm I'm not an advocate of this way of looking at the world, but I do see its internal consistency and I think it warrents a much more sophisticated critique then it typically gets. Its quite a nasty, conflict provoking worldview anyhow. It is essentialy a competing story to the Petersonian worldview of the primacy of the individual. Either you can see the world as a battle ground between groups or as one of individuals. The question is, which one is more true or which one works better? I think that's a good point, its a completely subjective judgement. The microggressed is essentially the only one who has experience of the offence. Indeed, one has to ask in the spirit of the tree falls in the forest question: if a microgression is not perceived, is it still a microagression? I can't agree with your last statement. I think this is a worldview that has a lot of traction and it needs some serious critique. Its not self evident that this is the wrong way of looking at the world.

Then you are truly ignorant of the meta game being played. By admitting that the view that microagrressions are in any way legitimate is to ceed the battle space completely and therefore losing before beginning to fight. This is why they want to change the language, because language is how we think. if they can shape the language they can shape thought. The very argument that JBP is making, that everyone is christian in a fundamentally christian society, will become false, because christianity is leached out of the culture and the language, and then we get to see the real horror show begin. In the 50's and 60's when we had prayer and God in schools, we did not have school shootings, now we have taken god and prayer out of the schools and we have near weekly atrocities, you can make the argument that there may be other "violence arrestors" that can be culturally implemented besides religion, but you cannot argue that the removal of religion has not led to a more coarse and violent society. You sound like you have been thouroughly indoctrinated in some type of educational facility in the past 15 years, and that is pretty disturbing, because "microaggressions" and "marxist" theory generally, are substantially evil methodologies for subverting high functioning societies such that they become fertile ground for authoritarian socialists. period. Marxism has been utterly discredited, and that is why marxists shifted to cultural marxism.