This is the best description of a theory I have been pondering for a while. Based on my own observations, there clearly is a difference between humans, irrespective of general benign differences. For lack of being able to put my finger on it, I theorized that there must be beings on this planet that look and behave like humans, but dramatically diverge when it comes to matters of morality (for lack of a better word). For example, in the extreme, the act of taking someone's life. I watched an interrogation video where the suspect was being questioned as to why he dismembered his girlfriend. He was caught with some of her body parts in his car, so no doubt about his guilt. He described how he dismembered her and distributed her parts all over town. Within the same breath that he described this horrible crime, he insisted that "in no way did his crime take away from the fact that he was still a good person". There was no presence of mental health issues, so you have to wonder what kind of human is this? All this to say, I think you description of the "disconnect" is the best to describe how we may all look similar, but there is a clear difference in how we process and act on information.
Hey, I'm glad you found the info useful, and thanks very much for your thoughtful reply!
Since you're interested in the subject, let me put a few more pieces on the table and tell you how I've got them arranged. There's a lot of evidence to support those pieces, but rather than detail all that (which I am more than willing to offer if you're interested), I think it's much more constructive if you have the "framework" in mind as you encounter evidence organically in your own studies. Then you see whether it fit or does not. Anyway...
As far as I can tell, there is only one type of human. Well, there may be an exception to that when it comes to "Illuminati bloodlines", but that doesn't play a big part in the analysis of our situation. If They did what They do for love or money or because They're half-alien, there's not much functional difference. Nor is there much evidence in any case, aside from that They clearly like to "keep it in the family".
So the framework seems to be that humans develop naturally through three levels, and the fundamental difference between them is the upper limit. I have no idea how the limit is determined. It does not seem to be hereditary, as one would imagine.
There are very scant indications that development to the highest level can be artificially stimulated, but the technique is baffling because the underlying mechanism in unknown. Development can certainly be halted. For example, Satanists are aware they need to traumatize children before age 7 to arrest them at the lowest level.
All this leads into the subject or morality and moral behavior. I have found that these three levels of consciousness are identical with three type of "morality". That is, a particular faculty of moral reasoning is set by the level of consciousness. So you see why the Satanists are so concerned.
NPCs, at the lowest level, have no in-built moral sense. They are guided simply by external systems of reward and punishment. Don't wan't to go to jail? Don't break the law. Or, don't get caught doing it, see? Want to go to Heaven? Go to church on Sunday and don't cheat on your wife. Oh, and kill the pagans if you're instructed to, the more pagans the better. So morality ends up coming from external authorities.
In the middle state, morality comes from deliberate moral reasoning, comparing facts and circumstances to a moral code adopted along the way. Such reasoning can be very tricky, and the biggest problem is that humans can "rationalize" just about anything. In this scenario, the reasoning most often comes out to be the personally convenient course. Whaddaya know? But it's why, for example, you see Bill Maher say some surprising things from time to time.
At the highest level, a moral sense is in-built, as reliable yet undefinable as knowing up from down. (Okay, yeah, I know it's your inner ear, but if no one had told you that you'd have no idea where to point when asked where that sense resided.) For such people, if Jesus Himself told them murder was okay, it would still not be okay.
Final note on how NPCs connect the murderer in your example to people supporting the Israeli genocide: they all think of themselves as "good" people. You see, for them that's the axiom rather than the conclusion. Their moral reasoning is completely inverted, or more accurately one would say it is moral rationalization.
"Good" people are pro-Israel and send bombs to Israel to slaughter "bad" people, and how could it be otherwise? The key observation here is that slaughter--for any reason--does not seem to bother any of them in the slightest. You can't find a single one of them praying, "Jesus, Lord, have mercy, let it end." At least I haven't heard one yet.
So much to take in.
I believe I agree with your premise. I have always had an intuition that there is something different deep down between humans that is solely related to nature. One might be able to argue it could have to do with the specific hominid (Neanderthal, Denisovan, or Naledi) that Homo Sapiens Sapiens bonded with to produce modern man. I am sure one could make anecdotal cases for variants, to which I would call that an outlier. This intuition has become a near surety since Covid. The division between NPC, middle class and highest level has become obviously naked to any casual observer.
Risking the perception that I am put myself at the highest level, as most would naturally do, I think it best describes me. For instance, I tried to take a boxing class. However, when it came to the act of raising my hand to strike another person in the face, I found it offensive. The idea of reaching out and striking someone, even in friendly competition, somehow felt beneath my ideals. If Jesus, showed up and said, "it's okay to kill", I would likely say "No thanks".
We have used the word morality in this discussion, but I have some trouble with the word's meaning. We are conditioned to think that being moral or having morals is "taking the high road or being good", however, I understand the word to mean "whatever society determines is good". That is a slippery slope, some societies consider eating dogs as perfectly fine, they have no compunction with it. Does that make eating dogs moral? Not in my book, but I wasn't raised in that society. See how morality can mean different things to different people.
That being said, I am against all violence (right, everyone says that, but do they really mean it), being a fan of history, the amount of loss that has taken place over time due to fighting wars is unimaginable. Especially, that wars are fought by the little guy for the sake of the big guy. That I cannot abide. It is my opinion, based on a study of history, Israel has been at the heart of aggressing this conflict in this region.
As regarding what "morality" really is, as far as I can tell it could be defined as, "conducting one's life in accordance with natural law". Of course, that just brings up the question, "What is natural law?"
Mark Passio has done a very long, extremely thorough presentation on natural law. I would consider it required viewing. Among many other things, you find that the concept supersedes any legislation or norms or moral codes as being corrupt or imperfect. Living in accordance with natural law is what we should all be shooting for.
I would here interject an idea to keep in mind as you watch the presentation, something that Mark hasn't integrated into his worldview. That is, NPCs--comprising perhaps 80% of the population--can't simply be told about natural law, whereafter they will "get it" and start behaving that way. That's not how NPCs function.
NPCs require a relatively clear external system of rewards and (regrettably) punishments. To be blunt, you would never expect a 5yo to act correctly just by going over the behavioral norms with him. This is why organized religion has played such an important role in human history by providing this framework. It's also why the Elites--to the extent They cannot control it--wish to destroy it.
As for the origin of man and it's implications, well, therein lies a book-length tale. If you're not already familiar, this next will sound kookoo bananas but stay around until the end for a surprising new take on an old tale.
First, Zechariah Sitchin was correct, and we were first created by a race of aliens about 270k years ago engineered as a slave species from (probably) homo erectus and their own DNA. Few or no humans at that time were conscious, no more than farm animals are, which is what we were.
Later, perhaps 35k years ago, an improved species was introduced, still not conscious but apparently capable of such. The Garden of Eden story recounts that event, very ancient and very imperfectly perceived that the time but with surprising remnants of the history still intact.
Referring to Adam and Eve, two examples of the improved species, I paraphrase Yahweh when he said, "If they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, their eyes will be opened and they will become like us, knowing good and evil." As far as I can tell, everything ever said about this passage has been wrong.
Rather, this "fruit" was apparently some technology to elevate human consciousness from NPC to fully awake. What is the absolutely fundamental sign that a person is conscious? That his or her eyes are open, correct? And what is it to know good from evil? It is precisely to possess a moral sense, is it not?
So at one and the same time, Adam and Eve gained both consciousness and a moral sense, which I think you would agree wraps back around to exactly what we've been discussing.
I would just add that as good as my creativity is, I could not possibly make this up... lol
This is the best description of a theory I have been pondering for a while. Based on my own observations, there clearly is a difference between humans, irrespective of general benign differences. For lack of being able to put my finger on it, I theorized that there must be beings on this planet that look and behave like humans, but dramatically diverge when it comes to matters of morality (for lack of a better word). For example, in the extreme, the act of taking someone's life. I watched an interrogation video where the suspect was being questioned as to why he dismembered his girlfriend. He was caught with some of her body parts in his car, so no doubt about his guilt. He described how he dismembered her and distributed her parts all over town. Within the same breath that he described this horrible crime, he insisted that "in no way did his crime take away from the fact that he was still a good person". There was no presence of mental health issues, so you have to wonder what kind of human is this? All this to say, I think you description of the "disconnect" is the best to describe how we may all look similar, but there is a clear difference in how we process and act on information.
Hey, I'm glad you found the info useful, and thanks very much for your thoughtful reply!
Since you're interested in the subject, let me put a few more pieces on the table and tell you how I've got them arranged. There's a lot of evidence to support those pieces, but rather than detail all that (which I am more than willing to offer if you're interested), I think it's much more constructive if you have the "framework" in mind as you encounter evidence organically in your own studies. Then you see whether it fit or does not. Anyway...
As far as I can tell, there is only one type of human. Well, there may be an exception to that when it comes to "Illuminati bloodlines", but that doesn't play a big part in the analysis of our situation. If They did what They do for love or money or because They're half-alien, there's not much functional difference. Nor is there much evidence in any case, aside from that They clearly like to "keep it in the family".
So the framework seems to be that humans develop naturally through three levels, and the fundamental difference between them is the upper limit. I have no idea how the limit is determined. It does not seem to be hereditary, as one would imagine.
There are very scant indications that development to the highest level can be artificially stimulated, but the technique is baffling because the underlying mechanism in unknown. Development can certainly be halted. For example, Satanists are aware they need to traumatize children before age 7 to arrest them at the lowest level.
All this leads into the subject or morality and moral behavior. I have found that these three levels of consciousness are identical with three type of "morality". That is, a particular faculty of moral reasoning is set by the level of consciousness. So you see why the Satanists are so concerned.
NPCs, at the lowest level, have no in-built moral sense. They are guided simply by external systems of reward and punishment. Don't wan't to go to jail? Don't break the law. Or, don't get caught doing it, see? Want to go to Heaven? Go to church on Sunday and don't cheat on your wife. Oh, and kill the pagans if you're instructed to, the more pagans the better. So morality ends up coming from external authorities.
In the middle state, morality comes from deliberate moral reasoning, comparing facts and circumstances to a moral code adopted along the way. Such reasoning can be very tricky, and the biggest problem is that humans can "rationalize" just about anything. In this scenario, the reasoning most often comes out to be the personally convenient course. Whaddaya know? But it's why, for example, you see Bill Maher say some surprising things from time to time.
At the highest level, a moral sense is in-built, as reliable yet undefinable as knowing up from down. (Okay, yeah, I know it's your inner ear, but if no one had told you that you'd have no idea where to point when asked where that sense resided.) For such people, if Jesus Himself told them murder was okay, it would still not be okay.
Final note on how NPCs connect the murderer in your example to people supporting the Israeli genocide: they all think of themselves as "good" people. You see, for them that's the axiom rather than the conclusion. Their moral reasoning is completely inverted, or more accurately one would say it is moral rationalization.
"Good" people are pro-Israel and send bombs to Israel to slaughter "bad" people, and how could it be otherwise? The key observation here is that slaughter--for any reason--does not seem to bother any of them in the slightest. You can't find a single one of them praying, "Jesus, Lord, have mercy, let it end." At least I haven't heard one yet.
So much to take in. I believe I agree with your premise. I have always had an intuition that there is something different deep down between humans that is solely related to nature. One might be able to argue it could have to do with the specific hominid (Neanderthal, Denisovan, or Naledi) that Homo Sapiens Sapiens bonded with to produce modern man. I am sure one could make anecdotal cases for variants, to which I would call that an outlier. This intuition has become a near surety since Covid. The division between NPC, middle class and highest level has become obviously naked to any casual observer.
Risking the perception that I am put myself at the highest level, as most would naturally do, I think it best describes me. For instance, I tried to take a boxing class. However, when it came to the act of raising my hand to strike another person in the face, I found it offensive. The idea of reaching out and striking someone, even in friendly competition, somehow felt beneath my ideals. If Jesus, showed up and said, "it's okay to kill", I would likely say "No thanks".
We have used the word morality in this discussion, but I have some trouble with the word's meaning. We are conditioned to think that being moral or having morals is "taking the high road or being good", however, I understand the word to mean "whatever society determines is good". That is a slippery slope, some societies consider eating dogs as perfectly fine, they have no compunction with it. Does that make eating dogs moral? Not in my book, but I wasn't raised in that society. See how morality can mean different things to different people.
That being said, I am against all violence (right, everyone says that, but do they really mean it), being a fan of history, the amount of loss that has taken place over time due to fighting wars is unimaginable. Especially, that wars are fought by the little guy for the sake of the big guy. That I cannot abide. It is my opinion, based on a study of history, Israel has been at the heart of aggressing this conflict in this region.
As regarding what "morality" really is, as far as I can tell it could be defined as, "conducting one's life in accordance with natural law". Of course, that just brings up the question, "What is natural law?"
Mark Passio has done a very long, extremely thorough presentation on natural law. I would consider it required viewing. Among many other things, you find that the concept supersedes any legislation or norms or moral codes as being corrupt or imperfect. Living in accordance with natural law is what we should all be shooting for.
I would here interject an idea to keep in mind as you watch the presentation, something that Mark hasn't integrated into his worldview. That is, NPCs--comprising perhaps 80% of the population--can't simply be told about natural law, whereafter they will "get it" and start behaving that way. That's not how NPCs function.
NPCs require a relatively clear external system of rewards and (regrettably) punishments. To be blunt, you would never expect a 5yo to act correctly just by going over the behavioral norms with him. This is why organized religion has played such an important role in human history by providing this framework. It's also why the Elites--to the extent They cannot control it--wish to destroy it.
As for the origin of man and it's implications, well, therein lies a book-length tale. If you're not already familiar, this next will sound kookoo bananas but stay around until the end for a surprising new take on an old tale.
First, Zechariah Sitchin was correct, and we were first created by a race of aliens about 270k years ago engineered as a slave species from (probably) homo erectus and their own DNA. Few or no humans at that time were conscious, no more than farm animals are, which is what we were.
Later, perhaps 35k years ago, an improved species was introduced, still not conscious but apparently capable of such. The Garden of Eden story recounts that event, very ancient and very imperfectly perceived that the time but with surprising remnants of the history still intact.
Referring to Adam and Eve, two examples of the improved species, I paraphrase Yahweh when he said, "If they eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, their eyes will be opened and they will become like us, knowing good and evil." As far as I can tell, everything ever said about this passage has been wrong.
Rather, this "fruit" was apparently some technology to elevate human consciousness from NPC to fully awake. What is the absolutely fundamental sign that a person is conscious? That his or her eyes are open, correct? And what is it to know good from evil? It is precisely to possess a moral sense, is it not?
So at one and the same time, Adam and Eve gained both consciousness and a moral sense, which I think you would agree wraps back around to exactly what we've been discussing.
I would just add that as good as my creativity is, I could not possibly make this up... lol