Want to Erode the Depressing, Oppressive Materialistic Science

It’s common knowledge, if not common sense (that one’s an oxymoron, of course) that if one wishes to deepen one’s religious faith he should study works that both support and criticise his religious beliefs.

The materialistic science paradigm used to bother and depress me and it was a long time after I went to college that I found out how long the Darwinian and Newtonian paradigms that are still cherished dogma in universities had long ago been superceded by more enlightening findings. Genetic reearch made it obvious that Darwin’s touted claims were infantile, for instance, and particle physics, in which a lot of hyperdimensional activity was detected in the early to mid 1900s, clearly showed that Newton’s mechanistic paradigm was incomplete, at best.

Tesla and others developed free-energy engines before that, but of course none of them were allowed into universities.

Reich was blackballed by Einstein, though of course Reich made all the fake scientists as anxous and fearful as Einstein was with the implications of orgone’s discovery.

When Doc von Peters returned from his latest teaching trip in Russia awhile ago he told me he met a fellow on the plane who told him that the Russians had discovered that the earth manufactures petroleum continuously and that they think it’s really funny that people over here are talking about humanity running out of oil. The fellow also told the Doc about this book: THE ELECTRIC COSMOS, by by Donald Scott, a retired professor of electrical engineering in the US.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/

Scott observes that there are three sciences which have been exempt from producing usable results: astrophysics, geology and archaeology. A fellow’s worth in these fields is entirely determined by ‘peer review.’ That would be like saying that orgonite’s worth can only be determined by the folks who hold Dr Reich’s research papers and facilities.

I suspect that Scott’s use of the term, ‘plasma’ can be interchanged with ‘orgone,’ but what do you think?

At any rate, he puts to rest the notion that we should consider the word of people like Einstein and Hawking to be authoritative and of course these three sciences should be held to teh same practical, result-oriented standards as chemistry, biology, physics, etc. are. It’s pretty bizarre–even a little schizoid, you may agree–that ‘theory’ has come to be held in higher esteem by academics than ‘practical application.’ See how clergy-like the biggest names in science are?

The next chink in the world odor’s stultifying, even Ahrimanic academic armor that has come to my attention is this one from a European friend, who probably doesnt’ want me to drop his name for now:
http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html&nbsp

If you’ll look objectively at these online video presentations you’re in for a distinct and hopefully pleasant surprise, especially if you’ve been as offended as I have by the arrogance and quasi-rational assumptions of ‘peer-reviewed’ geologists and paleontologists. I"m convinced that the earth is steadily growing larger after seeing some of this very rational approach. I think it’s a real kick in the academics’ collective pants that the fellow who came up with this is a cartoonist. I have the advantage of having watched freestanding crystals grow offshoots ‘from thin air,’ in a few days so it’s not hard for me to consider how matter can be continuously generated from the cosmos’ etheric matrix.

When I was younger and hadn’t discovered how to participate in this (then-crazy, schizophrenic) world I felt distinct longing for the ‘old days,’ when anyone could make a mark, regardless of educational status, in new fields of endeavor. This enormous scientific field that you and I are exploring (but which Dr Reich initiated, of course) is so far removed from the current academic paradigm that those ‘old days’ are back again, and with a genuine vengeance, I’m happy to report. YOu may have noticed that under these circumstances a lot of science training can be a hindrance to achieving dramatic results. Anyone who starts examining the new dynamics represented by orgonite has to re-educate him/herself in order to make the good stuff happen, or even to notice it when it’s happening.

The more people know aboutt these new findings, the harder it’s goign to be for the What To Think Network and their academic cronies to keep humanity in the receding dark age.

~Don

These videos are extreemly interesting! This “growth” theory has many, many implications. The video on the moon, in my opinion, disproves the theory that the moon is an artificial satelite, as it also displays the same growth caracteristics as the earth, mars and all planets and natural satelites, apparently. I don’t think an artificial satelite would behave in the same way, even if its massive.

Orgones footer logo
About - Guidelines - FAQ - Privacy - Terms