Thanks for sharing this! As someone who bears the title Registered Nurse, I highly recommend developing and practicing the habit of "doing shadow work".
This one was even more awesome than usual. Thank you!
And you nailed it with "It puts words to what we “feel” to be true."
I'm now on my fifth Swedenborg book, and he foretold the unfolding such deviant belief systems. How misunderstanding of The Word and the choice of self-focus over divine-focus would lead to all forms of heresies.
His work is so amazing. If anyone is interested in video introductions to his work, there are a great many on the "Off the Left Eye" youtube channel.
James Tyler Kent, the most famous homeopath after Samuel Hahnemann, was a follower of Swedenborg which influenced his philosophical writings about health and disease.
Wow, thanks for Off the Left Eye. I watched the Innocence Has Power Over Evil video. It was epic. I had never heard of Swedenborg. I’ll check that out, too. I really love learning new things, especially since I am having to unlearn and relearn so much so I truly appreciate recommendations.
One of the best college classes I took was called MENTAL HYGEINE. The professor claimed that people treated by Shamans and witch doctors were about as healthy as those swallowing allopathic medicine (and certainly better than those poor souls who seem to live on mRNA Boosters). Health = Faith
Great article. I love those who create such an astute analysis/commonality between conditions. Makes you think. I can virtually see the comparisons between religion and medicine. Both sides of the same coin. That said, how does Clerc rationalize that medicine today is a Jewish construct, polar opposite to Christianity, regardless of Pasteur's so-called religious convictions. Falsifying data, poisoning animals to prove his theory as Louie did, while competing with Beauchamp who was right all along, shows a sin of pride/jealousy which is anathema to his most cherished beliefs.
Which brings me to Charity churches, the church arm to Allopathy started by guess who. This crusade and inquisition against homeopathy, aka quackery, was developed to promote petroleum based drugs which caused such severe health risks that this gentleman had to elect himself as head of the American Cancer Society whereby he could control and disseminate right think and dispel all doubts. If Pasteur could lie thru his teeth and be believed why not he? That was John D Rockefeller in 1913. What has transpired from 1913 to today dispels any Catholic correlation between religion and medicine, in my opinion.
"Question 31: What comparison does Clerc make between the fall of the archangel Lucifer in Christian mythology and the pride of modern medicine?
Clerc draws a parallel between the archangel Lucifer's hubristic belief in his own supremacy leading to his fall from grace, and modern medicine's presumptuous aspiration to achieve mastery over life itself while denying its spiritual dimension. Both reflect an overweening pride that is blind to higher metaphysical realities."
Which also goes back to the ideal earlier of the individual taking control, and also of the imagined " nudge" that doing shadow work and becoming an aware prime mover in one's own life will effect upon a medical religion. And also, the revealing list of suggested influences, which are all about self creation, I could posit.
My question: why does Clerc limit leveling the hubris, pride, and blindness charge against a medical establishment, and yet the individual is positively urged to be in control and basically create their own spirituality and health without authority above them?
Prometheus and stealing fire. Lucifer. Aracne and her pride. The cautionary myths and parables abound.
As someone who does put my weight into being my own agent and mover, and a lover of endless pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, I get it. How not to strive to make one's own life a handy domain to effect one's aims?
And why no mention of the concept of evil, or at least evil actions? The medical system personified, or the active functionary persons of medicine (doctors, technical and beaurocratical and priestly medical persons...) would probably have been typified by Georgi Markov (writer of communist Bulgaria) as the kinds of dupes who believe truly in the revolution and the party, in the religious aspects of medicine. Others go along to get along, and we see a great many too. But then there are the savvy and ambitious and sadistic, who have no faith in the religion given to the rest; they are the ones effecting the system which will laud the faithful one day and persecute them the next, as convenient. Is there no concept nor mention that obviously there are those who understand full well the harm of vaccination and other normal ritual medicine and that is apt to their aims, whatever they may be?
I think the whole self-actualization spirituality is so very attractive, but it is missing a piece. I don't think there is any person, not even my highly esteemed self, who will attain the illusive, illusionary, enlightenment, or be the great creator and prime mover of even their own domain (be it a "life", a "death", a child, a sculpted creation of mud without breath to it).
When you deal in paradigms, the attachment of faith, story-telling, just one subtle distinction can make the structure entire dissolve, and make of all that you know distinct from its former concept. The baby you thought you were carrying, is not the baby that is to be born. And in relation to that expectation, your self-control and control of health and control of whatall will be not what bears the truth of it.
It appears, from this secondhand encounter with Clerc, that he is committed to the secular and to characterizing all faith as farce. (I may be greatly wrong, but I argue with passion out of care and commitment to my own engagement in this). There is mention of Illich, and I really really must encourage anyone to take up Illich on this point, because there is potential to acess a beautiful and distinct perspective on the concept of medicine as a pattern religion that does not lead to making oneself responsible for toppling gods and filling the space with a control of which you now are the head.
I think allopathic Big-Pharma medicine has swung to such an extreme, it needs someone like Clerc's reframing it in religious terms to get people to question that the sea (belief-system of dependency on authority figures) in which they currently swim, is not all the only way to run one's life.
One has to 'drop out' The System before on can 'drop back in' in a meaningful way. Of course one can no more 'control life' individually, than collectively. But one can at least eat a better diet, exercise, and psychologically process trauma, the combination of which will, in my opinion, will heal 90% of ailments.
As responsible individuals, we try and align ourselves with some kind of 'soul-purpose' whilst on boot-camp planet Earth, but this need not lead to trying to dominate circumstances around us.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Eph 6:12) -- and certainly Big-Pharma Allopathic medicine is a 'principality and power' against which we have some obligation to 'wrestle'.
Excellent blog. The glass is always half empty when it comes to mainstream medicine. They are masters at playing on peoples' fears.
THE VIRUS IS MY GOD. The “virus” is claimed to have invaded a town in the old west and soon worshiped as a new idol among the populace: Watch the music video here: https://turfseer.substack.com/p/the-virus-is-my-god.
Another great Interview, thank you. Technology-as-Saviour, this time as in medical-technology, must be the most far-reaching area in which people sign up to external materialism to 'save them' from the hard work of taking personal responsibility for their own transformation via self-knowledge. "Pop a pill for every ill" runs oh so deep in our culture. Blind faith in the smart-talking fear-mongering gate-keepers rolls on apace.
I think it is incredibly worthwhile to try a little experiment game (with some weight to it potentially). What would things look like if you changed some of the following premises and structures? :
"the three levels Clerc identifies within each individual that influence their beliefs, thoughts and actions?
Clerc outlines three nested levels:
1) A core of primitive existential fears
2) A layer of beliefs to protect against these fears
3) An intellectual facade to rationally justify the beliefs.
The beliefs limit thoughts, which remain enslaved to irrational fears at the deepest level.
Question 17: How does Clerc describe the limitations imposed by beliefs on the freedom of thought?
Clerc uses the metaphor of beliefs forming an invisible "magnetic field" or "wall" that limits the range of thoughts and the exploration of unknown territories. Thoughts remain enslaved to the fears underlying the beliefs, far below their true potential."
For example, the idea of beliefs as the protective walls around fear which enslave thoughts. What if beliefs were something other than protection from fear? What could it be? What are the implications? What is this concept of thought potential? Belief as the enslavement of thought to fears, what a construct that is! What if fears were not only in the negative characterizion? What is fear about? Are there other perspectives, functions, dynamics? Could belief be anything other than against thought? What would a different relationship look like and mean?
I just get a massive case of Whatifs and the itch to see what happens if you were to change the axioms or ideological bricks in the foundation. It is as though Clerc notices some important things that are also very very noticeable to me, and then makes of them something fundamentally different than what I would, which makes me want to cut my teeth on it to find the substance.
Does not anyone wonder how different things might show themselves were these premises other than what they are? :
"Clerc believes the solution lies in individuals taking responsibility for their own health and inner transformation, confronting their fears, outgrowing the need for medical and religious authority figures, and relating to health practitioners as partners in their healing rather than all-powerful saviors. Changing internal dynamics rather than external systems is key."
Outgrowing. Solution. Need for authority figures. Saviour VS partner choice. Internal change VS external. Lots of frames.
Thanks for sharing this! As someone who bears the title Registered Nurse, I highly recommend developing and practicing the habit of "doing shadow work".
Excellent interview! I couldn't agree more. Thank you 💕🙏
I should think this would have been pretty obvious post 2020 when they all said 'believe the science.'
But people still cannot see it.
Even after the votive candles with Fauci's visage.
They still cannot see it.
Anyway, I would argue it's not really a 'new religion' per se but Satanic worship. But that's just me.
Regarding Satanic worship, see question 19.
"Collective fears find expression through the demonization of others."
Yes, ironically I am the target of much of that from the self-declared 'awake.' They seem to hate me a lot more than the authorities.
This one was even more awesome than usual. Thank you!
And you nailed it with "It puts words to what we “feel” to be true."
I'm now on my fifth Swedenborg book, and he foretold the unfolding such deviant belief systems. How misunderstanding of The Word and the choice of self-focus over divine-focus would lead to all forms of heresies.
His work is so amazing. If anyone is interested in video introductions to his work, there are a great many on the "Off the Left Eye" youtube channel.
Thanks Kelli, I don't know Swedenborg so will check him out.
James Tyler Kent, the most famous homeopath after Samuel Hahnemann, was a follower of Swedenborg which influenced his philosophical writings about health and disease.
That's fascinating... thanks!
Wow, thanks for Off the Left Eye. I watched the Innocence Has Power Over Evil video. It was epic. I had never heard of Swedenborg. I’ll check that out, too. I really love learning new things, especially since I am having to unlearn and relearn so much so I truly appreciate recommendations.
Thanks so much for the recommendation! I will check it out. This article was thought provoking. I love that.
Excellent article highlighting the parallels between religion and medicine. Thank you!
One of the best college classes I took was called MENTAL HYGEINE. The professor claimed that people treated by Shamans and witch doctors were about as healthy as those swallowing allopathic medicine (and certainly better than those poor souls who seem to live on mRNA Boosters). Health = Faith
Great article. I love those who create such an astute analysis/commonality between conditions. Makes you think. I can virtually see the comparisons between religion and medicine. Both sides of the same coin. That said, how does Clerc rationalize that medicine today is a Jewish construct, polar opposite to Christianity, regardless of Pasteur's so-called religious convictions. Falsifying data, poisoning animals to prove his theory as Louie did, while competing with Beauchamp who was right all along, shows a sin of pride/jealousy which is anathema to his most cherished beliefs.
Which brings me to Charity churches, the church arm to Allopathy started by guess who. This crusade and inquisition against homeopathy, aka quackery, was developed to promote petroleum based drugs which caused such severe health risks that this gentleman had to elect himself as head of the American Cancer Society whereby he could control and disseminate right think and dispel all doubts. If Pasteur could lie thru his teeth and be believed why not he? That was John D Rockefeller in 1913. What has transpired from 1913 to today dispels any Catholic correlation between religion and medicine, in my opinion.
I find a fruitful point of discussion here:
"Question 31: What comparison does Clerc make between the fall of the archangel Lucifer in Christian mythology and the pride of modern medicine?
Clerc draws a parallel between the archangel Lucifer's hubristic belief in his own supremacy leading to his fall from grace, and modern medicine's presumptuous aspiration to achieve mastery over life itself while denying its spiritual dimension. Both reflect an overweening pride that is blind to higher metaphysical realities."
Which also goes back to the ideal earlier of the individual taking control, and also of the imagined " nudge" that doing shadow work and becoming an aware prime mover in one's own life will effect upon a medical religion. And also, the revealing list of suggested influences, which are all about self creation, I could posit.
My question: why does Clerc limit leveling the hubris, pride, and blindness charge against a medical establishment, and yet the individual is positively urged to be in control and basically create their own spirituality and health without authority above them?
Prometheus and stealing fire. Lucifer. Aracne and her pride. The cautionary myths and parables abound.
As someone who does put my weight into being my own agent and mover, and a lover of endless pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, I get it. How not to strive to make one's own life a handy domain to effect one's aims?
And why no mention of the concept of evil, or at least evil actions? The medical system personified, or the active functionary persons of medicine (doctors, technical and beaurocratical and priestly medical persons...) would probably have been typified by Georgi Markov (writer of communist Bulgaria) as the kinds of dupes who believe truly in the revolution and the party, in the religious aspects of medicine. Others go along to get along, and we see a great many too. But then there are the savvy and ambitious and sadistic, who have no faith in the religion given to the rest; they are the ones effecting the system which will laud the faithful one day and persecute them the next, as convenient. Is there no concept nor mention that obviously there are those who understand full well the harm of vaccination and other normal ritual medicine and that is apt to their aims, whatever they may be?
I think the whole self-actualization spirituality is so very attractive, but it is missing a piece. I don't think there is any person, not even my highly esteemed self, who will attain the illusive, illusionary, enlightenment, or be the great creator and prime mover of even their own domain (be it a "life", a "death", a child, a sculpted creation of mud without breath to it).
When you deal in paradigms, the attachment of faith, story-telling, just one subtle distinction can make the structure entire dissolve, and make of all that you know distinct from its former concept. The baby you thought you were carrying, is not the baby that is to be born. And in relation to that expectation, your self-control and control of health and control of whatall will be not what bears the truth of it.
It appears, from this secondhand encounter with Clerc, that he is committed to the secular and to characterizing all faith as farce. (I may be greatly wrong, but I argue with passion out of care and commitment to my own engagement in this). There is mention of Illich, and I really really must encourage anyone to take up Illich on this point, because there is potential to acess a beautiful and distinct perspective on the concept of medicine as a pattern religion that does not lead to making oneself responsible for toppling gods and filling the space with a control of which you now are the head.
I think allopathic Big-Pharma medicine has swung to such an extreme, it needs someone like Clerc's reframing it in religious terms to get people to question that the sea (belief-system of dependency on authority figures) in which they currently swim, is not all the only way to run one's life.
One has to 'drop out' The System before on can 'drop back in' in a meaningful way. Of course one can no more 'control life' individually, than collectively. But one can at least eat a better diet, exercise, and psychologically process trauma, the combination of which will, in my opinion, will heal 90% of ailments.
As responsible individuals, we try and align ourselves with some kind of 'soul-purpose' whilst on boot-camp planet Earth, but this need not lead to trying to dominate circumstances around us.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Eph 6:12) -- and certainly Big-Pharma Allopathic medicine is a 'principality and power' against which we have some obligation to 'wrestle'.
That's a great addition, thank you!
Excellent blog. The glass is always half empty when it comes to mainstream medicine. They are masters at playing on peoples' fears.
THE VIRUS IS MY GOD. The “virus” is claimed to have invaded a town in the old west and soon worshiped as a new idol among the populace: Watch the music video here: https://turfseer.substack.com/p/the-virus-is-my-god.
Another great Interview, thank you. Technology-as-Saviour, this time as in medical-technology, must be the most far-reaching area in which people sign up to external materialism to 'save them' from the hard work of taking personal responsibility for their own transformation via self-knowledge. "Pop a pill for every ill" runs oh so deep in our culture. Blind faith in the smart-talking fear-mongering gate-keepers rolls on apace.
I think it is incredibly worthwhile to try a little experiment game (with some weight to it potentially). What would things look like if you changed some of the following premises and structures? :
"the three levels Clerc identifies within each individual that influence their beliefs, thoughts and actions?
Clerc outlines three nested levels:
1) A core of primitive existential fears
2) A layer of beliefs to protect against these fears
3) An intellectual facade to rationally justify the beliefs.
The beliefs limit thoughts, which remain enslaved to irrational fears at the deepest level.
Question 17: How does Clerc describe the limitations imposed by beliefs on the freedom of thought?
Clerc uses the metaphor of beliefs forming an invisible "magnetic field" or "wall" that limits the range of thoughts and the exploration of unknown territories. Thoughts remain enslaved to the fears underlying the beliefs, far below their true potential."
For example, the idea of beliefs as the protective walls around fear which enslave thoughts. What if beliefs were something other than protection from fear? What could it be? What are the implications? What is this concept of thought potential? Belief as the enslavement of thought to fears, what a construct that is! What if fears were not only in the negative characterizion? What is fear about? Are there other perspectives, functions, dynamics? Could belief be anything other than against thought? What would a different relationship look like and mean?
I just get a massive case of Whatifs and the itch to see what happens if you were to change the axioms or ideological bricks in the foundation. It is as though Clerc notices some important things that are also very very noticeable to me, and then makes of them something fundamentally different than what I would, which makes me want to cut my teeth on it to find the substance.
Thank you
Does not anyone wonder how different things might show themselves were these premises other than what they are? :
"Clerc believes the solution lies in individuals taking responsibility for their own health and inner transformation, confronting their fears, outgrowing the need for medical and religious authority figures, and relating to health practitioners as partners in their healing rather than all-powerful saviors. Changing internal dynamics rather than external systems is key."
Outgrowing. Solution. Need for authority figures. Saviour VS partner choice. Internal change VS external. Lots of frames.