So amongst my interests are Parapsychology, Esoteric sciences, Hypnosis, NLP, and during decades of study, research and practice I have come across many things of interest and curiosity. Amongst them is remote viewing which some of you may or may not be familiar with, one particular interview I came across really raised an eyebrow and I have done a fair bit of research on this guy, and assure you he is the real deal, his name is Stephen Schwartz.

In 1978 he conducted a Parapsychology experiment about remote viewing the future. the results are astonishing he asked the participants to tell them what they could view about 2050, and consequently got answers that related to events much closer one happened 3 years after the experiment.

Without giving the whole plot of the interview away if you live near the coast, in a big city or near the Equator you really want to watch this if you still plan on being around 10-20 years from now.

Please share you views on what he says, I am very interested in what other people think about this.

Views: 275

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


It speaks to the incredible stupidity and gullibility that comes with popular opinion. Many people are brainwashed by teachers and professors, and have been conditioned to believe such nonsense from the time they are ready to leave adolescence. People highly respect the opinions of their teachers and politicians, as well as the media. This is a big mistake. It's a fools paradise. But it's the way nature plays with the mind, to be subject and passive toward authoritative influences.

The word "truth" has been skewed to the point where it has no meaning or relevance. In fact, what is true, has become relative dogma. It no longer has to do with fact or fiction, objectivity or even subjectivity. It is true in a sense that some particular popularized demagogue spoke it. The more outreach they have, the more truth they convey, ha ha ha.

Someone in a postion of authority or knowledge, is by nature, percieved to be truthful, when they have the propensity to systematically and institutionally lie and mislead others according to their own prejuduces, or sinister agenda, whether it be political, social, or religious. Everywhere you look, global warming dogma is present. 98% theory, and dogma, with no supporting evidence. Rarely even a named source. "Consensus" is the new buzzword. .

I would submit that the "consensus" is with the media and the politicians, because the politician read it in someone's book. Because the media is the boobtube in front of you, or internet. There is no critical thinking... Because someone writes a book, or they get on the boobtube, they are an unwavering authority.... BULLSHIT!

This is absolute insanity becoming a contagion..

"If the Earth had not warmed, places like New York City would still be under ice."

These assholes think they are dealing with a thermometer control attached to a wall somewhere.This is something that is beyond funny. Think of it this way; If a TOTAL of 10-12% of the earth is covered by glacial ice, people are being led to believe that the ice stopped melting hundreds of years ago, and for the ice to continue to melt, is a crime against humanity. ICE by it's very nature, MELTS, when it becomes in contact with warmer temperatures that permeate 90% of the rest of the planet. It is not a static substance. It never was! The fact that humans were stupid enough to do rampant development along coastal areas, is now supposed to be compensated by global warming scaremongering.

Social justice, class warfare of the proletariate. This is the politics that drives the movement. Make any excuse for rampant migration that you can.

Post image

"Just because we found a story in our past, it does not mean that it originated there. The wisest and cleverest of our magicians know that time is not absolute that it is possible to hear stories from the future."(1. @17:50)

—Elder of the Speakers

  1. Castlevania: Season One: Episode Two: Necropolis. Frederator Studios, 2018.

The mainstream thinkers that want the Truth and only the truth, problem is they live in an environment of half Truths, so which half Truth or degree in-between should they choose.
The Truth maybe that there are three absolutes, Mind, Vibration, Correspondence, and everything else is a variable extending from these absolutes.
Politics really is the realm of the antagonist, they just Love a debate, whereas others really just want to get on.
The mainstream global warming can be measured by 1 degree a year is typical linier thinkers, As areas of Africa are experiencing over the last few years reginal tidal rises of 4-5 Metres.
So the idea that large Amounts af people are going to be moving away from the coast strikes me as entirely plausible.

Sea levels have been rising for the past 20,000 years.

What I have noticed in as many as two places along the coastal areas, is a noticeable rise in sea levels, compared to two decades ago. What it amounts to is moving 15 - 30 feet back from the water at the beach, or rocks covered in water that were once exposed, compared to what would have been the high tide level 25 years ago. As if nothing else could affect tide levels. Look , hardly a panic of mass migration from coastal areas. Let's get real about this. I have no doubt ice will continue to melt, just as the Sun will continue to rise. Just as the Moon moves ever so slowly toward the Earth, increasing the gravitational pull between both large objects of mass. I'm still waiting for further movement of the goal posts. The prediction of 2 degrees in temperature rise per year. The final apocalypse. In the early days of the hysteria, co2 was misnomered as a pollutant. When the public figure that out as a hoax, they took to a new angle of propaganda. After numerous bans of chemical substances such as Freon, the problem not only persists, but has become worse, so they say. So far, no good!

More disinformation, based on prognostication needed:

What Schwartz is clamoring about is a mass apocolypse. Scare mongering to fit the narrative of his agenda, Apparently to gain notoriety or financial gain for himself and his cronies, before he dies. To have his name staked along the beaches somewhere, in memorial. There are the "thick file patients". One week, they think they have mononucleosis. The next, perhaps after reading a newspaper article, they are just as convinced they have a brain tumor. Or breathing problems. Often, if one doctor tells them the good news -- that nothing is wrong -- they will go to another doctor, and another, searching for a physician who can find the problem. There is a name for what ails them. There is a new hybrid casualty of climate change known as the "hypocondriac". The World Health Organization is a UN lapdog, similar to the Union of Concerned Scientists. It's like a global cabal of disinformation. The WHO typically finds any healh problem that is common, and immedtiately attributes it to climate change, with their advocates in the media fanning the hype. When they can't find "consensus" amongst scientists, that simply is minimal at it's very best, they look to other like minded surrogates such as the WHO. Of course, they the WHO, know absolutely nothing about climate science, so they use another angle. The media is always the work horse slave for this. If that's not enough they look for advocates in the military who align themselves with the politics of climate change. If that isn't enough, they go to astronomers, who are not climate scientists. If not there yet, they go to the churches, and the Pope, the usual proponents of social slime. They can always find an ally somewhere who aligns with their politics. An academic contagion of group think, or herd mentality, politically motivated. The term "global" always comes up in this discussion. (hint; global warming)..

Well I don't see this as any apocalypse, just Change, the one word that seems to scare the crap out of people, Change or the suggestion that things may Change. One of Humanity's flaws is resistance to Change, 

People resist any change which is forced upon them and which they have no say in. If people are consulted about the change before it happens, and made to think that their opinion matters somehow, they will be less resistant when that change is forced upon them.

If you truly understood the motives of these people, the word change is an under statement, and you would begin to understand the resistance to it, in a sense that it is much bigger than that.

What they advocate is the radical and total reinvention of the industrial revolution, based on half baked or false premise, tearing it all apart, and redoing it. So there fore they must belittle and ridicule their scientific opposition, as their majority consensus is invalid. They need mass media and mass public opinion in order to be forceful about it.

That means changing everything short of anyone who already is practicing an agrarian lifestyle, without a "carbon footprint". The Amish, maybe, or the Aborigines.

And they are in no position to do anything about it themselves, they simply think they can force their will onto whomever their target may be.

Mr. Firehorse described people's resistance to change as a "flaw in humanity". My point is that no one likes any change which is forced upon them and I do not consider it a "flaw".

Absolutely, causing fear and confusing the crap out of people is one way to get it done... Clearly, they have a lot of people scared. Fear is an easy emotion to prey upon...

There are many things to fear, if anybody wants to go down that road. Then it becomes paranoia. Most people who openly express fear do it in a future tense, like the fearing for future generations.

People resist change because, it reflects directly on their self-identity,( the way they see themselves) often though people avoid change for much simpler reasons, like not being embarrassed, how many people were going to go for a promotion, or start a business up, they didn't in case their friends or work colleges ribbed them about it, that's where it's a flaw, of course everyone resists something being forced on them. I'm talking about people automatically resisting change that would benefit them, but their belief systems pretty much hold them in cheque, so as long as it fit's in to a belief system most people aren't aware they have let alone how to change it, it strikes me that it may be a bit of a flaw. 


© 2019       Powered by

Badges | Privacy Policy  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service