Ruling Timetraveller Theory
5 2016-09-09 by AccurateLinguist
Way back, pre-deluge, a class of people had timetravel. They weren't particularly offensive people. But not everybody had timetravel, and the manifestation of this ability, over time, put these people in an advantageous position. It wasn't mal-intent, but simply the application of foreknowledge.
Eventually the people who didn't have this knowledge saw this class of people always landing on their feet. Like cats. And they became upset, and began to promulgate theories that blamed this class of people for mistakes that the non-time-travely class of people made. It's easy to point fingers when you have cohort willing to believe lies that excuse their own responsibilities. Much like today. Let's call this group The Haters.
This class of people eventually grew. Because they were more populous than the timetravellers, they were quickly able to gain physical domination over large areas of the planet. And became enemies of the timetravellers. They even enslaved them, and tried to put them under their rule.
Now, this is where the tricky part happens. The timetravellers were actually very enlightened, and they understood that murder and that sorta thing, was bad. There was a karmic energy deal thing that happens - a hermetic balance - that prevented them from really changing the free will of this Hater class. Even though they could go back in time and change outcomes, they did not. It was against their internal morality and design.
But what they could do was engineer a collapse, or, more accurately, by not doing things, by not helping, the collapse would happen on its own. And because they were time travellers, even though they were a prosecuted class, they had sufficient foresight to deal and thrive. Which is very angering to Haters, who demonized them for this.
Eventually, over time (on the scale of thousands of years), the design the Haters put forth began to crumble. Not because of the timetravellers, but because the Haters were really not very good at seeking truth, and their designs sucked. Rather they preferred to seek pleasure now that they were in control and had people to boss around. They actually needed the timetravellers to do their work for them. They needed engineers.
Anyway, the Haters had a particular talent for manipulating the ignorant that they actually had domain experience in. So even when their rule collapsed, they'd just move along and restart it somewhere else. Same design problems though. Same hierarchical designs. Same brittle designs.
Move forward a few more years, and we're at today, watching another collapse play out again.
Thoughts?
Edit: And, oh yeah - the timetravellers could be described as follows. Having a strong sense of morality, duty and responsibility. Community oriented. Understand that people have to learn at their own rate, and, particularly if they have fucked up ideas, it's better to let people experience the karmic reality of their choices so that they can make less excuses to themselves about things that they've created. This could be interpreted as a passive aggressive way of teaching.
33 comments
3 ifltrdby 2016-09-09
Now imagine your time travelers started the secret societies, because if we don't have to work hard at knowing things we won't appreciate the lessons. Passive aggressive indeed.
-1 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
insightful, thanks
3 ifltrdby 2016-09-09
Now imagine a paradox intentionally created by the travelers in time, leaving occulted clues to their gnosis through time. You and I seem to interact well in time travel threads. See CST. There is post there too.
-1 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
Unless there's evidence to back these claims, I'm going to dismiss it as ridiculous
2 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
cool! as with all theories, a way to test them is to build a model and see how it reacts. if it resonates with reality, perhaps there's something to it.
whatever evidence you need, i doubt i could supply it. given the dynamic nature of reality, capturing evidence is difficult. as to evidence of time travel, i guess you could look at ooparts, or that egyptian engraving of helicopters, or the bust that looks identical to michael jackson, or the ahkenaton images that look like obama. but then we're getting into weird. so please dismiss it, if you're not capable of such leaps.
-4 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
So no evidence?
Cool.
2 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
well i told you the evidence. nothing's conclusive on its own. it's all just pieces of data. there's more. there is a historical masons vs romans narrative. there's a saturnian cult (saturn aka Cronus) narrative. aka Satan, enemy of the church. there are design motifs, pre deluge that are very saturnian, all over the planet. Saturn is known by the gnostics as the Demiurge. ie. it's a dualistic design. a machine design. This character also demonstrates time travel. The phoneme Cronus is also Chronus the greek personification of time. Yadda yadda yadda. There are lots of pieces to this jigsaw that are consistent with the theory that I have just posited.
-1 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
Learn what evidence is. A sculpture that looks like multiple people is not evidence
2 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
well data is evidence of course. and a sculpture is data. thus a sculpture could be evidence depending upon how that data was used. a theory is a suggestion of a model that could or could not be true. i'm positing a theory and providing data that is consistent with that theory. therefore providing that sculpture data as possible evidence.
but regardless of all this. the fact that you've spent more time trying to act as arbiter of legitimacy rather than spitballing ideas as is the raison d'etre for this subreddit, tells the whole story. thanks for coming out, buddy! hope to see you around! hahahahaha
2 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
Lol ridiculous. So I'm a shill because you haven't provided evidence? Ok lol
2 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
i didn't call you a shill. once again you're inaccurate with your language so you can build up a strawman to shame. good luck with that! i imagine it will be a fun activity for both of us.
2 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
Bonus points for getting you to introduce the notion that you're a shill.
2 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
Also, you market the claim therefore the burden of proof is on you. Need evidence otherwise ask you have is a story. No more legitimate than Harry Potter or the bible
2 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
there's no claim - it's a theory.
1 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
A theory is also backed by evidence.
Hypothesis, sure. Theory, no.
If no one watches for the BS on here such as "Zika causes super AIDS!" when it's backed by 0 evidence, then the BS tends to spread because of a lack of critical thinking.
It's sad when critical thinking, what this sub is supposed to be about, is mistaken for shillery (not to be confused with shillary)
2 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
now you're being selective in your language as if this will somehow allow you to save face. sorry, nope. a hypothesis is a hypothetical thesis, yes. i've clearly stated it's a hypothesis.
aaaand even more shame smells built upon the failed strawman you attempted to construct. good one!
1 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
Lol wow, save face? I don't care about how I look to everyone on here. I'm here to have discussion about esoteric subjects with other like minded people. Sometimes the shit needs to be filtered out.
Theory and hypothesis are interchangeable? Guess again.
And I could just ask...What's the conspiracy? Before you answer, look at the sidebar and then tell me.
2 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
Well given that I have explicitly stated I'm not making a claim - that indeed it's a hypothesis, and you keep trying to use wordplay to say that I said otherwise (this is a funny thing when people try to convert someone who said A into someone who said B and very informative too) it would seem you are not really that interested in having a discussion on esoteric subjects. In fact your opening statement would be consistent with this assumption.
Your interest in discussion on esoteric topics is furthermore demonstrated when I list datapoints consistent with the hypothesis and you dismiss without any discussion and revert to wordplay.
Seems like even you don't know why you're here. But I'm sure you know exactly why you're here.
1 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
Lol 7 months on here vs my almost 4 years. I think I know what this sub is supposed to be about better than you do.
Still haven't seen any evidence. Call me whatever you want. Run away from it all you want. Say I'm saying one thing when I obviously mean another. Idc.
Show me evidence. And again. A statue that may look like multiple people is not evidence.
You make the claim. The burden of proof is on you. Let me put it this way. Why should I bother reading what you've said? How can I differentiate just some random babble bullshit and a substantial claim?.....gasp evidence!
2 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
Authority fallacy. It seems in 4 years you haven't learned much.
1 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
Lol for someone who likes to call out as many logical fallacies as you do, you use a lot of them. Keep that ad hominem arm strong.
Aaaaaand still no evidence I see
2 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
so which ones have i used? examples please.
1 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
I'm more worried about this evidence you've still failed to provide after I asked, what, 6 or 7 comments ago?
2 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
so you're making a claim you can't back up, and to justify it, using criticism (supposed, anyway) of the same behaviour? hahahahahahaha! this thread is a school lesson, yo. thx!
1 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
sigh
Not to mention the insinuation that I'm a shill. Or that I "admitted it" as you said. Go thru my post history on this sub all the way back to when my account was created, then call me a shill.
So can I have that evidence yet? Or are you going to deflect and change the topic more?
Edit: its really sad this sub has become a place where you're accused of shillery for asking for proof of a claim
2 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
you're selective with your interpretation. in other words you pick singular meaning when multiple are available. for instance you use an authority fallacy - "I've been here blah blah blah long. I know better". well had you really learned anything in that time you'd know that faith in authority is Bad Design. anyway you decided this was an ad hom, when it was a logic critique. but hey, disregarding that immediate fatal logic error, you know nothing about me. so you're making claims out of your ass in the best circumstances.
i already listed some data points. people who are familiar with the material, as many nutters are, will be able to connect the dots. i'm throwing an idea out there, a thesis, not a scientific paper for peer review. but somehow this is not sufficient for you, as i stated immediately from the start. again, somehow even that observation was not sufficient to keep you from carrying on.
so please, carry on. I continue this thread as an educational device for further readers, only.
as to the shill thing. you brought it up. don't blame me for your work.
1 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
Ridiiiculous. I'm done. You're so close minded and determined to hold your belief (or troll) that you think you can do no wrong while any opposing viewpoints, even though I haven't had one, are disregarded.
All I've done is ask for evidence which you have not provided.
I'm done. When you want to provide evidence I'll respond, otherwise call me what you want, say what you want, idc. Evidence or no further responses from me.
1 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
you've not presented an opposing viewpoint. you've presented nothing. you didn't care to understand or parse the info from the start.
1 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
Read what I said then read what you just replied with.
1 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
How about saying exactly what you mean, so it's clear to everyone, instead of the intimations of authority and shame that come with every post you've made on this thread.
1 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
Lol yup, I'm done. When you put words in my mouth I'm definitely done.
Good day sir
1 AccurateLinguist 2016-09-09
But it's perfectly fine when you do it.
and to you
1 whyd_you_kill_doakes 2016-09-09
9i0yyk (h jk huujuhyhh