This is the 23rd e-mail message I received from Brian Harner, and the 40th message in our conversation. It was sent on September 11 2020 at 2:00AM.
"What could be used to draw people away from it?"
This question is essentially what my entire mission is based on. Free will is at play, so it must be decided by each individual. How to do that? If you figure this out, please let me know. When this question is answered, I will be effective, but until we reach that point... we are stuck with the derelict decision making.
"Prior to your realization, did you believe we were created?"
At my base intention, personality wise, I had my inclinations going in either direction at several different junctures of my upbringing, but I never capitulated to my opinionated stance at the time. Let's say creationism is white, and the opposite of creationism is black, for argument's sake. Before my realization I was constantly in a state of gray. Within the structure of my thought processes, making a definitive stance and acting upon that stance was impossible to me because I could not definitively prove to myself one way or another that the black or white spectrum was conclusive. Before any opinionated clause could be implemented into my own thought process, I had to prove things to myself. I'm pragmatic and practical in just about everything I do now, and have ever done for that matter. To make a long story short, creationism was a waste of time to me. It served no purpose to fixing the dilemma I saddled myself with at such an early age. As a result, my arguments towards people that did make a definitive decision on this subject was harsh and direct. Both sides of the argument would usually be identical in scope. I wasn't trying to prove or disprove their opinions, but rather, I was trying to get them to see that the shit they were spouting was an opinion. This methodology took several turns over the years, and as a result, people just assumed I was arguing for arguments sake, but that was also inaccurate... as most people are about everything if they're willing to accept opinion as fact.
This same ideal is still happening, and a few times now, you have been in the crosshairs. It seems as though you've done a magnificent job at understanding this, as your most recent reply illustrates. Doing accurate research is very difficult in hell, especially with so many sources of distraction pulling your attention in different directions. When your attention is pulled in one of these varying directions, the first thing you must research internally, is why. Why does anyone want you to pay attention to what they are saying? That should be the first thing you investigate for ANYONE making a claim, myself included. The motive to grab your attention is what is important during an investigation, not the information being given. Before that motive is established within the source of information you are seeking, you will be subject to their ego, your ego, and the general populace's zeitgeist for whatever era you are researching. When those stipulations eclipse the motive within the intentions of the subject at hand, everything you research becomes subject to those parameters. Take Veganism as an example. It's clear to me that you have dedicated a significant amount of time to this subject. If I'm guessing correctly, you are a Vegan now, or were well on your way to becoming one before we started this interaction. As a result, I must now instruct you based on every opinionated stance anyone who has ever taught you anything about Veganism had. Meaning, I have to tear down a significant portion of this structured methodology that was built up within your teacher's ego... and your own. Therefore, my arguments do not center in on the subject of Veganism at all, but rather, my methodology is centered in on why you allowed yourself to be manipulated to such an extent... when the entire argument was always just an opinion. That is why I likened this material to that of modern religious philosophy. There is no all encompassing stance to Veganism, just like religion, meaning neither are solutions to any practical problems... they are emotionally charged opinions.
The real shitty part about discussions of this nature is that I see what you were trying to do. I understand that you gauged a situation, recognized a problem inherent to a system of control, and tried to implement a real strategy for rectifying a significant problem. Your desire was righteous. I am in no way arguing that. What came as a result, however, was not. There is no real way for me to explain this to you without my words being taken as offensive. Therefore, I have to bombard your conscience with real facts, then allow you to make a decision on your own. Sometimes I do stray into the offensive, and sometimes my words are only perceived as such, but the real kicker here is that whatever arguments you may have towards my arguments, are unfounded in reality outside of what you've decided to accept as righteous to your cause. Notice how I said that? YOUR cause. When debating certain topics with me, you have to always keep in mind that NONE of this is coming directly from ME. As in, what you consider you, and how you would mentally project that association to self onto me. Everything I do, I do for my maker... and my maker is not necessarily YOUR maker, meaning that our motives do vary. While I am willing to accept any number of degenerative motives so that humanity can survive the inevitable collapse, there are several subjects that you don't seem to be able to budge on. It's those seemingly miniscule semantics notions that make us vary in scope and breadth.
"1" of the most poignant events of my realization period was having to come to terms with these types of things on my own. I had to admit not only to myself, but the entire hierarchy of this universe, that I am just a stupid human. NOTHING I have ever done... was the result of my dedication, my strategy, nor my ability. Everything I have ever experienced was a gift from someone else. Therefore, there is no reason for an ego to even exist. It was at that point where the information became less constricted while flowing to me. I hadn't realized until that point that it was ME causing this to happen. Nobody else was responsible for my decision making. I was fucking up all on my own. While most people reach to the sky and spite the members of The Hierarchy for not having the necessary means to solve personal problems, their real problem is in who they are directing that energy to. It should be directed inward... not outward. When I figured this out, my first action was to apologize for making things difficult on my maker in the first place. He was just trying to help, and I took the strategy of MY goals are important, as opposed to just letting my superiors do what they needed to do to fix "me." That was the moment I experienced true ego death. The first step was admitting that I was wrong about so many things. However, I did not experience true ego death until I could unravel WHY I had put myself in the position to be wrong in the first place. And that... is why so many people have a difficult time maintaining a righteous AND Divine path. It's one thing to admit you were wrong, but it's a very in depth introspection to decode why you chose to be wrong. I hope that makes sense...
The other side of the coin to admitting these aspects of my own inadequacies was recognizing that not only was I being a fucking idiot, but everyone alive was under the same spell I was. That was when I learned about forgiveness. Earlier in life, I was an absolute asshole to everyone that crossed my righteous inclinations. I often became very angry while simultaneously confused. In hindsight, the confusion was the answer... not the anger. My confusion was present because I didn't know myself, therefore, how could I pretend to know anyone else. Within this directive, I learned to forgive everyone of their misconceptions and wrongdoings... for they know not what they do... and what's worse, they don't know what caused it nor how to fix it. In regards to you, Nathan, Shane and a few others, I hold you guys to a higher standard. I approach these difficult to handle scenarios from what appears to be anger. I'm not angry at you when these things come up, but rather, I'm pressed for time right now and it makes me nervous that I am inadequate. While in prior timeline scales I would calmly and rationally take all of you through these kinds of arguments in a more friendly way, I don't have that kind of time any longer. I do apologize for the way in which this must be done now, and how that might be received by you as a result, but the way I do things is always in your best interest, even if you cannot see why in the moment. That's really where my intention differs from anyone else alive, and also... why it is so frustratingly difficult for anyone to see me for who I am, and what my actual intentions are. The task of trying to determine my motives based on anyone else's motives that are responsible for teaching you everything you've learned in life, is almost impossible. Anything I try to teach, and anyone I try to teach it to, must first go through everyone's internal "ego filter" before I can even make an impact. While for the last year and a half, I was patient and compassionate about every individual plight therein... now, we simply do not have enough time. Something could change, however, and that time could be extended, but I have to play this game based on what I see... as opposed to how I feel, and all signs are pointing towards my end coming sooner rather than later.
Another portion of this recent reply eluded to worrying about the perception you give off to others. With me, I simply don't give a fuck what people "think" about me. I don't mind being a punching bag here. What people think about me doesn't matter as much as what those people's actions produce. The dichotomy of men and women is no different from your perspective. The only way for a woman OR man to win TOGETHER... is to continuously try to best each other, while also allowing an unmitigated flow of information between the two. You might be responsible for 90% of any given workload, but can only be successful at your endeavors if 100% is accounted for. If the remaining 10% could only come from a man, the full 100% of your own 90% must be shared with him without reservation, lest he would not be able to complete the task. Whether you did 90% of the work, or he did, and either had to account for the remainder, the two "halves" are required for both genders to "win." Bragging about how much effort you personally put into a subject is irrelevant. The simple fact remains that without help, the entirety of the goal will be lost. One must first ask themselves a simple question; am I trying to gain glory, or will everyone gain glory from my sacrifice? Again, this comes down to selfishness, or selflessness... as do most things in hell. Take me as an example. I do not hold back anything from you because of your gender. You might be the only human alive that can bring a win on. Your gender has nothing to do with my motivation for speaking to you... My only goal is a win... for BOTH OF US. I will do anything and everything I can to make that win happen. Until that ideology is ubiquitous in all human endeavors, there will always be a loser. And in a time of survival being the primary objective, a loss is a loss that both genders must carry. When "1" loses, everyone does. In short... fuck what other people think while on a righteous path. Man, woman, tranny, child... doesn't matter. NONE OF THEM are your maker. HE is the one you're trying to capitulate to. Not some self centered idiot that bases their abilities on what dangles between their legs. It's a very difficult task to recognize me in hell. You did that, and have done very well since. While this might seem like an opportunity to brag or feel superior to the men in this society that have not been able to accomplish this mission, take this opportunity to shelf your ego. TRY... to help them reach your same stature. You never know who will be the next one to elevate BOTH of you beyond this precipice. In so doing, you'll both win. Otherwise it was all just wasted potential...
Marion King Hubbert's ideology; peak oil, was based on the ability to find new reserves, not oil production capability. It was about the ability to find new oil reserves, and how easily it would be to extract said oil. Oil production capability is what peak oil is confused with. There's no way to properly determine how much oil is in each reserve, the quality of said oil, or how much energy implemented it will take to recover it. Although everyone that uses the term peak oil THINKS that the production capacity is THEE aspect to determining what peak oil refers to without properly researching it, that is simply not the case. Peak oil, from Hubbert's perspective, was the timeframe in which humanity would reach a point where the ability to find recoverable reserves diminished significantly. One does not need to interject false equivalents into that algorithm. With the land masses of Earth being well researched geologically, finding new light sweet crude reservoirs that are easily accessible is close to impossible after such a long dedicated focus on that mission. That tells us that the only recoverable reserves of any value, inherently have a diminished value just due to their location alone. In other words, there could be enormous amounts of light sweet crude reservoirs at the bottom of the Pacific ocean, but extracting that oil will bring an immediate downturn in EROEI, simply due to the engineering difficulties, and proximity to refinement facilities. THAT... is the basis for Hubbert's view of peak oil. It's not about how much oil is in the Earth, but more so how accessible it is, when compared to the discoveries of his era of research. When Hubbert did his research, Pennsylvania was dried up, the Permian Basin was dropping in production, and Ghawar was just coming on line. All 3 of those examples were on land, and the proximity to the refinement facilities AND where the product would be consumed were fairly close.
The first bumps in that road were felt when the USA had to import Ghawar crude oil. The oil itself immediately became worth less, just because of the voyage it had to take to get to the consumer base. Ever since that first bump in the road was felt, Hubbert's peak oil equation could be seen as empirical. All of that said... IF!!! another reserve of light sweet crude would have been discovered after the initial estimations were made on timing peak oil's arrival, the estimation would have been inaccurate, but that does not mean the entirety of the research would be inaccurate. It would simply mean that peak oil would be further into the future. ANWR kind of did that, but when the scope of how large Ghawar and the Permian Basin's reserves are were entered into the equation, ANWR is a drop in the bucket. Same with everything in reality. Yes... many more reserves can and have been found... But none of them... NONE OF THEM... are even close to the size and quality of what Ghawar and the Permian Basin produce. The EROEI is backwards on just about every other reserve found since Ghawar came online. There's lots of oil... but when it takes more energy to recover it and refine it for usage in the society Permian and Ghawar built... the equation will never balance itself. There will always be a negative summation to that of the effort inherent in recovery. I know how difficult it is to understand all of these complexities because I've studied them extensively. I do an okay job of getting my point across, but that's why I always recommend studying the source of this knowledge. EVERYONE alive has an opinion on "peak oil," and almost ALL OF THEM are wrong. Most of those sources of knowledge bleed into many different subjects with many different instructors teaching things based on incorrect assumptions. I've dealt with this problem for 25+ years now. I see some of those false dichotomies in some of the things you profess, which is why I recommend studying the source for yourself. I have no idea how often those ideals have infected otherwise seemingly righteous ideals people have taught you, that you hold sacred. You're the only one who could know that. Unraveling the incorrect teachings you've received on that subject matter can only be done in a certain way. Study the source. FUCK THE OPINIONS! THEN... and only then... will you be able to determine who is full of shit on the subject, and why they're trying to get you to capitulate to their motives. Until then, everything becomes a shit slinging contest of opinionated garbage flying in everyone's direction, which is why it is so easy to incorrectly extrapolate summaries. The feeling becomes based on who agrees with YOUR opinion... not the actual truth itself.
"Will "atheists" be able to find all that they need to achieve equilibrium, or are they doomed to fail without deliberately connecting to their maker?"
Atheists are an interesting group. They are no less religious than any other religions on Earth right now. That said, their "God" is the Earth itself, which they are not wrong in assuming. They base this notion on reason and logic, but the overall scope is lost. Even pushing the idea that random inception is the cause of all existence within the universe's boundaries contradicts the reasoning in their synopsis. A system as complex and grandiose as this universe is, must have reason and logic for existing in the first place, lest it would be an unconscionable waste of energy. So... on a small scale their intuitions are accurate, but extrapolated outwards, they fall demonstrably short. Achieving full equilibrium under such circumstances is impossible, however, given the current situation on Earth, atheists have the most promise. That may sound contradictory to what I stand for, but as I said earlier, this is a game based on survival. Atheists, for all their derelictions and flaws, still view the Earth as an integral portion of their existence. In so doing, they are serving their maker indirectly. I cannot say the same thing for most religious personalities. Most of them view the Earth as a toy to be played with devoid of personal sacrifice. In their eyes, Earth itself is separate from them, and that is a very costly mistake to make to themselves, AND their maker. At least the atheists see the Earth as a part of them. So... CAN they reach equilibrium? Yes. Will they? I don't know. Both sides of the religious dogma shitcoin have their problems, and it's difficult to assume ANYONE can see the light of truth. I pray for both equally regardless. It's my hope that EVERYONE will transcend, but there's no accurate way for me to tell you definitively which side is closer to achieving that end.
Great questions, and I hope that the stern nature of the way I teach won't scare you away. Remember... I said that you should expect 100% transparency, even if you don't like it. I'm not in this to make friends, although I am not opposed to the possibility. I do consider us friends... which is exactly why I will not hold back anything from you. A real friend is honest at every event in a friendship, and that is the only thing I can really offer you: honesty. I hope this helps.
Thank you for everything young lady (<-- I mean that). You've graduated the ranks of "girl" and "woman." You're "1" of us now. Being a gentleman or a lady is an honor. You've earned it. Keep up the good work,