- Joined
- Oct 9, 2026
- Messages
- 1
- Reaction score
- 0
The occult, it is a term that has its roots in India, where it can simply be translated to "taboo".
An occultist, in this sense, has absolutely nothing to do with supernatural or otherworldly elements. It is - literally translated - someone who goes against traditions of authority.
The term traditions here is not to be misunderstood with natural traditions that humans would naturally be inclined to uphold, such as going out into a forest to hunt, which is also mandated by an authority of sorts (natural law). State authority is different entirely, arguably it is in total opposition to nature, even though it is still itself subject to natural law. For example, the state can not change reality, it can't change that humans require sleep or food to get by, so even state authority is subject to the authority of nature. But since nature is very lax on its rules, giving only a very rough framework of natural laws, the state uses that opportunity to fill in the blanks and give all sorts of rules on matters that nature does not.
For the most part, the imposed state rules are therefore not in direct conflict with natural law, since - as mentioned - it can not change those laws. But what the state can do a lot is to confuse people and get them to forget about what is natural, most effectively so by making people rely on consumable information, delve into worlds of fantasy and belief - away from using and relying on one's personal senses to make sense of the world.
When you have questions, you can rarely use your senses to answer most of them that easily. It takes a lot of time to observe, experience things and actually witness things in the real world, to do experiments that show what is and what is not.
In stark contrast to this, information as something you can transfer via cultural (or what you would call witchcraft if you need to put it into another context of "occult") instruments (such as speech, symbols and letters) is highly unreliable because it is based on nothing but trust and belief. It is something that can easily be centrally controlled and enforced (e.g. through surveillance, coercing people to say certain things and not say other things) and most importantly it is cheap. Anyone can utter and mumble something once they learned the basics of how to convey some pieces of information. All of this makes it clear that this kind of information is perfectly suited to spin narratives, for good or bad. You can easily use it to create entertaining stories or entire fantasy worlds for others to consume, but similarly you can alsouse it to sell people a false reality that movies like The Matrix could only be jealous of.
THE PRISON PLANET
You have heard this concept before, I'm sure, but has anyone actually seriously considered the ramifications of this? Whenever this concept is brought up, it is brought up in a spiritual, very abstract, metaphysical sense. But, much more importantly than that, in a very real and very physical sense, there is no denying that the world we live in is a prison.
In fact, our world undeniably consists of prison systems within prison systems.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Examples:
- Incarceration: Even when you get thrown into a prison, or a forensic institution, there are still prisons in those prisons, did you know that? There is always a way to make things even more inconvenient for the inmate.
- School: The state demands under threat of violence to have one's children visit this low security prison, or armed men show up to kidnap the children. This also extends beyond school, as the state can always threaten to kidnap one's children if it deems it justified for whichever arbitrary reason. I could elaborate on how it's also an indoctrination facility where obedience, learning from books and repeating what the books say is taught - the opposite to using one's own brain and senses to know and learn things in the real world for certain. Where you learn that even your body is not yours by not being allowed to speak, move or even so much as go to the toilet if you don't beg for and the authority allows it.
- Work: The industrialists work one to the bone, they decide how much your work is worth, the only control you are given to make any decision for yourself is to choose the slave master to serve under. Work is a rigged system that ties into other systems in society via money through the money sinks that society offers, to ensure you are either always just scraping by from paycheck to paycheck, or if you dare to try to save up money or build something up from it, the state puts a lot of effort into providing and advertising all kinds of investment options to rid you of your earnings. And if none of it works, they still have fines and other means to put the pressure on the slaves financially, to keep them in the loop, selling them false hope that any of their work could ever amount to anything. A scientist would claim that they do work for the good of humanity, but how many pieces of technology have we already had and the world is still the same? The world is still a prison and nothing of meaning has changed for the better, things have only gotten worse. The industrial revolutions, as well as the agricultural revolution before it have worsened living and working conditions everytime they came around with the next iteration and only the aristocrats and their loyal tech/industrialist, religious, health and entertainment institutions have benefitted from this. In other words, the systems have benefitted, but none of the people who work for those systems, including even those who own those systems, have benefited from it. Even the CEO in a large company is not rarely tied all day long in his office dedicated to nothing more than keeping the wheel spinning. Most of their lifetime is wasted at work, just like their employees'.
- Senior homes: I'm sure everyone has someone they know who works in some care facility, so I don't have to go into depth on how people there are treated for the most part as cattle, to put it mildly - because that's literally what the state treats their slaves in general. The actually horrifying part is rather the legal aspect, where similar to other institutions that lock you away into some prison can incarcerate you without your consent being required whatsoever, such as willing family members gaining legal ability from the state to do so.
- Monasteries: These are last resorts for people who are so far in debt that they wouldn't otherwise be able to be allowed to live a semi-decent life in society anymore by the state. Upon entry into the monastery they are spoken free from all their debt, at the cost of not being allowed to own anything, and under a lifelong promise of servitude, essentially slavery. Even though you mostly need a higher education to even be able to join a monastery, the conditions in monasteries are more than just ascetic. You are being worn and torn with almost no sleep in between work shifts, and horrible food.
And all of these have yet more ways than one to restrict your movement, impair you or otherwise make your life a hell once you are tangled up in them.
________________________________________________________________________
This is not supposed to be a story about how bad the state is or a blame game of whether corporations and their industrialists or some powerful families and their clergy or even technology, humanity or nature itself are the culprits for how the world is. That's philosophy, and I'll leave that part aside here.
I merely recognize and accept the reality that this can not be anything but a physical prison system, and we are the prisoners. Which is not to make any claims about any metaphysical realities, of whether there is something higher than nature or this plane of existence. The metaphysical just isn't the relevant side I want to shine the spotlight on for the purpose of staying within this realm of reality we have to spend our lifetimes in, things that we can actually verify and know for ourselves, rather than beliefs. Therefore the distinction between one's own knowledge and beliefs I gave in the beginning to clarify why staying within the knowledge area of things is so important for me.
But for what it's worth, I would still like to entertain one belief here, which is 2 opposing assumptions:
1. Let's assume the Earth as we know it (i.e. Africa, America, Eurasia, Oceania etc.) is really all there is. Again, I don't mean in a metaphysical sense here either. So what I mean is, we assume that the map the state hands out is the actual, full map of the Earth. Even in this scenario, the least I can say with certainty is, just to mention a few points,
1.1 The map they hand out uses the mercator projection to map a 3D object (ball) onto a 2D image. Geometrically, this alone makes it impossible for any map to ever be correct, since you can't fully map every point of a 3D object onto a 2D image without altering the image. This is true for all projections. The mercator projection just happens to be the one the state likes to use. It's primary key trait is that it stretches out the top and bottom of the 2D map, meaning rich countries in the North look vastly larger, poor countries along the center look vastly smaller than they are, and also noteworthy is that the supposedly snowy areas (which they refer to as Arctic and Antarctica look vastly larger on the map). This is by sheer deduction of how geometry works with the map that they provide. I am not saying that any region on Earth is of any particular size, since I haven't gone around measuring landscapes or checking to see how vast the supposed snowlands are.
My point is, even if we assume that the map they give is what they claim it is, and the Earth's architecture is what is being claimed, this distortion of the map is then a given and the choice of a projection shows already, for one, that the image they try to project into peoples' mind of how we shall perceive the world is very deliberately and with clear intent chosen and the distortion itself obfuscated. This can have very practical reasons and doesn't automatically imply ill intent per se, but considering how society works by implied consent and coercion, it's more than reasonable to assume the intent to be ill. For example, nobody forces you to get a job, it just has very severe consequences on your livelihood if you don't.
1.2 Entertain me here for a little. There is no way to verify what the shape of the Earth is. Arguably, the shape really doesn't matter at all - does it? Practically speaking, what are the differences from the Earth being this or that shape? It has no practical implications on your everyday life, so it's fair to say that to most people this kind of information seems completely irrelevant because they don't see any such practical implications. I can not verify myself to know what the whole of the world looks like, but what I can very well verify is whether the informations given to me are in any way real or just based on beliefs. For example, every supposed photo of Earth taken from outside the Earth shows a sphere (ball) shape. These images are given by institutions that work for the state, so understandably people would be highly skeptical of them.
I can rather easily identify all kinds of artefacts in such images, as they are very cheaply generated with 3D graphics. For example, pointing out the obvious visual flaw of the Earth from our perspective having a blue sky that we can't see through, while in those images where we see supposed Earth from outside (galaxy view) the blue sky is not visibly there anymore. Of course there are all kinds of explanations/excuses for why these visual differences can make sense. And I'm not even saying that the images are flawed in the sense that Earth couldn't possibly e.g. have some kind of atmospheric optical effect like that. It isn't in any way intuitive and it doesn't align with anything we can observe in the real world, but it still could be very real. But I'm mainly pointing out that this is still a visual flaw because it is an undeniable discrepancy that would, under normal circumstances, have to be explained. And this same pattern is true for pretty much all the discrepancies that can be pointed out regarding concepts like space or the ball Earth.
Such as the fact we are supposedly spinning at 1000 miles per hour or that the moon is always claimed to be in space, but at the same time the same state or authorities gives out information that contradicts other information that the same authorities hand out, in this case that the moon is also still supposedly within the Earth's atmosphere, so not actually in space at all. Creating even more obscure needs for further explanations that get obscurer and obscurer the more answers are given, such as in this case you'd have to start explaining why the Moon is in this supposed twilight zone between both Earth and space, and if that is the case, why are these supposed facts never mentioned while it's always enthusiastically highlighted how it's in space. Clearly it isn't just because simple information is easier to digest but because the actual complexity of having to even bother to explain all this gets nonsensical or at the very least very technical very quickly and the state seems to like it a lot when people are oblivious because it gives room to confuse people and when people are confused they will look for answers and the state gladly provides all the answers in the form of books, the internet and figures of authority who claim to experts on all sorts of matters.
Okay, so there are some very clear discrepancies in information the state hands out about our world, it's grounds for suspicion, sure, but what else? This would be the point where some people would fall for a dichotomy, meaning once they have gotten sufficiently suspicious of a piece of information/belief, they assume, what they belief to be, the opposite of that belief. Such as flat Earth. But we can not actually verify if the Earth is flat, hollow or anything similar to any meaningful extent. A lot of experiments can be done in the real world to "prove" both a flat or a ball or even a hollow Earth and otherwise. Experiments from a limited view on something that requires a wider overview just is not effective. On top of that, even just the ideas are all given by the state equally. The state supposedly once claimed the Earth was flat, then later on decided guess we'll go with it's a ball now. So, very obviously, the state is not exactly the most trustworthy source of information. It jumps to whatever world views it deems suitable to cater to its need for power. And for all that can be said, even now, the state profits from any side that claims any blind belief, no matter what belief they are arguing for. So there is plenty of reason for the state to go all in talking down one side, such that people have to choose between one side or the other. If 2 predetermined choices are given, and both lead to (possibly) false world views, and more importantly keep people pacified, content and in confused/blind belief, the government is fine with it. Especially since a flat Earth belief is pro-authority to some extent in the end, since it easily fits into religious belief systems like abrahamic religions. The ball Earth fulfills the same purpose. If you trust the religious authority of science that the state controls, the state has little reason to be displeased.
Alright, so that was a lot of talk about just some case where we can observe that the information provided to us is suspicious and untrustworthy, and to begin with just as a reminder even if the provided information wasn't in any way off it would still be nothing more than hearsay, just something someone told you and that you can not verify for yourself to be true. It's even more than that, actually, since what you can verify with certainty is that the government has outlawed you moving about freely, particularly through bodies of water or the air, but really also over land. You can not simply drive around with a ship to check out for yourself how far things go, or where they go. It is also outlawed to so much as step foot on the supposed snowlands due to the Arctic Treaty, except for some specifically chosen points and only if guided there under strict supervision - with no definitive way to tell where they are actually taking you. That's a different topic, but it also adds to the very real movement restrictions that make up this prison world. Just like the unilateral visa system, where each country's visa holds its own hierarchical rank, with some able to easily travel everywhere and others unable to travel pretty much anywhere.
Let's leave the shape of the world alone, since - among other things - it's a piece of information fully intentionally provided by the state and heavily thematized through (controlled) opposition channels as well.
Then what about the size of the world? We know the state doesn't want us to move around. It's not entirely unreasonable to think that the state does this since the state is already in full control of the world, meaning there is no land on Earth not controlled by a state, a slavery plantation if you want to call it that. I find it a more appropriate label. If everything is state-owned, and the Earth is really just what they claim, then yes, it makes perfect sense to restrict movement heavily to prevent the poor from getting to where the rich are. The state can't meaningfully exert control without enforcing strict order that allows them to enforce their control.
It's pretty straightforward stuff, and I'm likely not saying anything exciting or new to anyone, but here is the breaking point:
2. Let's assume there is more to Earth than what the state reveals.
2.1 One could immediately jump to thoughts along the lines of hidden islands on the known map, meaning islands that aren't drawn on the mercator projected worldmap, Googlemaps or openstreetmaps, google Earth and co., where the actual slave owners have their villas and estates to themselves.
Sure, it's not a bad thought process. The idea has some flaws, as realistically speaking, a person can't exert power over anything from a distance unless there is a chain of command that leads there. So, for example, I can't enforce the law as state attorney if I don't have at least some minions that will go and use violence to lock someone up on my behalf. Neither can the attorney general without the attorneys, and so on.
Why does the police officer listen to the state attorney? And the attorney to the attorney general? In other words, why and how do hierarchies work? And what does that mean for "power" as a concept? The CEO in a room of let's say 30 employees at the top of his company will be there every single day, while maybe 300 employees do the rough work in the floors below in the same building, just as a theoretical image that applies to nobody in particular. So why? It's because the chain of command, which is essentially nothing but force, has to be constantly reinforced with threats and fear (among other psychological pressure) and it can only happen if you are at least somewhat present, yourself or by proxy.
So, at the very least, the slave master (let's call them that) must be in constant contact, albeit not necessarily in the same place, with their key servants (the slave drivers). Technology enables the master to actually be further and further away in terms of actual real life location due to fast travel speeds and communication, but ultimately it also means that they still have to mingle with their slave drivers somewhat. So while they could still technically be sitting on some hidden island, they would at least have to move out (not so much out of absolute necessity but also to secure loyalty, show presence etc. for psychological effect more than anything, which is what beliefs and religions like statism heavily rely on to not just function but to actually get people to believe in the system they are working for).
There are quite a few very concrete areas that would immediately come to mind for such hidden islands. Particularly also when one considers how the world map roughly would have to look like if the distortion from the mercator projection was undone. Calling Europe a continent would seem ridiculous because of how tiny it is on the map, similar for Russia which looks like a gigantic country on the mercator map. The state is very upfront about how much security is needed in any place. Even when a politician or an archbishop of the church or any other high-ranking state clerk shows up anywhere, the police presence is very noticeable, including helicopters and all. So it should be needless to say that this doesn't work any differently on the high seas than it does on land. They have every ship on a radar and use long-distance Lidar as well as deploying so much as the military to come after you in these areas, which tells you that they take those areas far more seriously than any walkable area on land you could go to.
For perspective, even if I were to directly go to a place where supposedly members of rich or aristocratic families live or are present, there will be police, but not so much heavy military equipment involved. With some powerful families like the Windsor, Yamato or similar families which have a standing (supposedly ceremonial) army riding along wherever, it's a bit different.
2.2 If the world map they show is accurate, regardless of the distortion, but we assume that the restrictions on movement are particularly harsh for the sea and air not because there are hidden islands or for state control alone, but for some other reason, could you think of such a reason? Here is my proposition:
The map that they hand out is accurate for what it's worth, but it's incomplete. That'd mean what we see on the map is not a complete representation of Earth, but only one part of Earth. Just imagine that for a minute.
For example, if the supposed continents we are on are in reality little more than a colony of prison islands. Which, of course, would also imply that the area outside of the colony are not part of said prison.
If that were the case, then going back on the question of the shape of the Earth, the shape would suddenly no longer be a trivial question with no impact on your life. A flat or ball Earth make no difference because the premise is in both cases that the map we are presented with comprises all of Earth in either case.
If that isn't the case, then there is a very good chance for there to be an actual, physical way out of this side of Earth, out of Prison Earth. We aren't talking spiritual escapism with the mind here. And it's not just groundless speculation either. There are various solid indices that point to a similar or the same conclusion. Which doesn't mean that this should be taken as a fact, I'm merely proposing it as a possibility because I have found more than one reason to believe it to be true that are based on more than just hearsay, but also some reasons that are based on hearsay, meaning information collected from state sources.
First of all, the obvious. This proposition makes no sense on a ball Earth at all. If the Earth is a sphere, it loops, like a cheaply produced RPG video game map.
So to even consider this is to also consider the possibility that the Earth is not looping, meaning to move into a direction can never end you up at the point you started moving from.
Realistically speaking, this shouldn't be so hard to consider. Since from all that the government so graciously allows you to know, you don't know a situation like that in real life. You know it from some media maybe, or if you programm you might write some looping code, but in the real world there is no situation where you can walk into the same direction, no matter how far you go, and you will end up back at the start again because for that possibility to even be on the table you'd need the opportunity to move across the body of salt water that acts like a wall around us on this side of Earth. And the state proactively prevents that, with force if necessary.
The state also does a lot of work on everyones' minds to keep them in a box, always. Catch-22 style. You either pick political left or right, communist vs capitalist, all kinds of nonsensical dichotomies that make no sense in the real world since none of what these concepts represent exists, and not even in the abstract do they make any sense but the government always needs people to choose between 2 options that both lead to the same bad outcome. The outcome that serves them, at the expense of the slaves, us. This point might be a bit too convoluted with abstract concepts that I can't bother to dissect here because there really isn't anything to dissect. I'll just give a quick example to illustrate what I mean so it isn't too hard to follow what I say:
The proposition of capitalism is that the is-state is that corporations hold all power (this narrative serves the state always well because the solution is to give the state more power to regulate corporations).
The proposition of communism is a should of who should hold the power (supposedly the revolutionaries but really the concrete demand is never to hand power to people but to a single centralized state).
As this example should easily illustrate, dualities like that are a very powerful tool for the state to get slaves confused and get them to demand the exact same thing that serves the state, despite being on opposing sides due to mere distortion of their perception.
The flat earth vs ball earth fits this tactic perfectly as well, though I already mentioned this earlier: The ball earther lays his trust and faith in the scientist, who works for the state. And the flat earther places his trust and faith in the flat earther "truthers", who will always put the flat earth into a religious, abrahamic context to demand worship of authority (god in this case) from the flat earther.
This shows that the entire question of the earth's shape is also a catch-22 trap, at least in the way that the government lays it out. It's still very much possible for either of the 2 to be true, just like it could realistically or partly be true that corporations hold a lot of power, but the question itself is framed in such a way that the (possibly true) conclusions you arrive at will lead you to false or harmful conclusions as well (such as placing misguided blind faith in or yielding power to the state any more than absolutely necessary in any given situation).
Maybe one of you has heard of this before, but most likely not since this is - especially now with the heavy censorship - hardly talked about anywhere. It's basically little more than hearsay based on the assumption that the place we are in right now is the very center area of the Earth, with the Earth supposedly spanning multiple times the radius of the Prison Earth (what we call the center area). While the government has an extra treaty in place to prevent people from going anywhere near the snowlands, the whole discussion of flat earth always exclusively focuses on the North and South directions because that's where the state can easily catch anyone to lock them away. The actual exit is therefore believed to be either roughly to the East, West or both. With exit we mean that despite the Earth being a free space, there are likely obstructions laid out of some kind to prevent slaves from the prison colonies to escape. Although the state itself refers to these as a supposed "ice wall", it's not clear whether that's just a metaphor, a blatant bluff or otherwise.
But the idea that there is a passable exit area is also reflected in another piece of information, which is the Summer Gate. Supposedly that's the actual name of the area that isn't obstructed. The name comes from the idea that the sun moves East to West on this side of the Earth in such a way that it can serve as a navigational tool toward the exit if done during the Summer time.
I will continue this on after some sleep. This is likely an atypical topic for this forum since it's not about Hearth Magick or any other kind of Magick concepts that relate to the inner divine flame, enlightenment or similar, but I would very much like to exchange thoughts and ideas on this topic. Frankly speaking, I am not interested in pretty much anything else anymore after seriously considering that there might be a way to escape this side of the Earth, even if it is just a possibility.
An occultist, in this sense, has absolutely nothing to do with supernatural or otherworldly elements. It is - literally translated - someone who goes against traditions of authority.
The term traditions here is not to be misunderstood with natural traditions that humans would naturally be inclined to uphold, such as going out into a forest to hunt, which is also mandated by an authority of sorts (natural law). State authority is different entirely, arguably it is in total opposition to nature, even though it is still itself subject to natural law. For example, the state can not change reality, it can't change that humans require sleep or food to get by, so even state authority is subject to the authority of nature. But since nature is very lax on its rules, giving only a very rough framework of natural laws, the state uses that opportunity to fill in the blanks and give all sorts of rules on matters that nature does not.
For the most part, the imposed state rules are therefore not in direct conflict with natural law, since - as mentioned - it can not change those laws. But what the state can do a lot is to confuse people and get them to forget about what is natural, most effectively so by making people rely on consumable information, delve into worlds of fantasy and belief - away from using and relying on one's personal senses to make sense of the world.
When you have questions, you can rarely use your senses to answer most of them that easily. It takes a lot of time to observe, experience things and actually witness things in the real world, to do experiments that show what is and what is not.
In stark contrast to this, information as something you can transfer via cultural (or what you would call witchcraft if you need to put it into another context of "occult") instruments (such as speech, symbols and letters) is highly unreliable because it is based on nothing but trust and belief. It is something that can easily be centrally controlled and enforced (e.g. through surveillance, coercing people to say certain things and not say other things) and most importantly it is cheap. Anyone can utter and mumble something once they learned the basics of how to convey some pieces of information. All of this makes it clear that this kind of information is perfectly suited to spin narratives, for good or bad. You can easily use it to create entertaining stories or entire fantasy worlds for others to consume, but similarly you can alsouse it to sell people a false reality that movies like The Matrix could only be jealous of.
THE PRISON PLANET
You have heard this concept before, I'm sure, but has anyone actually seriously considered the ramifications of this? Whenever this concept is brought up, it is brought up in a spiritual, very abstract, metaphysical sense. But, much more importantly than that, in a very real and very physical sense, there is no denying that the world we live in is a prison.
In fact, our world undeniably consists of prison systems within prison systems.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Examples:
- Incarceration: Even when you get thrown into a prison, or a forensic institution, there are still prisons in those prisons, did you know that? There is always a way to make things even more inconvenient for the inmate.
- School: The state demands under threat of violence to have one's children visit this low security prison, or armed men show up to kidnap the children. This also extends beyond school, as the state can always threaten to kidnap one's children if it deems it justified for whichever arbitrary reason. I could elaborate on how it's also an indoctrination facility where obedience, learning from books and repeating what the books say is taught - the opposite to using one's own brain and senses to know and learn things in the real world for certain. Where you learn that even your body is not yours by not being allowed to speak, move or even so much as go to the toilet if you don't beg for and the authority allows it.
- Work: The industrialists work one to the bone, they decide how much your work is worth, the only control you are given to make any decision for yourself is to choose the slave master to serve under. Work is a rigged system that ties into other systems in society via money through the money sinks that society offers, to ensure you are either always just scraping by from paycheck to paycheck, or if you dare to try to save up money or build something up from it, the state puts a lot of effort into providing and advertising all kinds of investment options to rid you of your earnings. And if none of it works, they still have fines and other means to put the pressure on the slaves financially, to keep them in the loop, selling them false hope that any of their work could ever amount to anything. A scientist would claim that they do work for the good of humanity, but how many pieces of technology have we already had and the world is still the same? The world is still a prison and nothing of meaning has changed for the better, things have only gotten worse. The industrial revolutions, as well as the agricultural revolution before it have worsened living and working conditions everytime they came around with the next iteration and only the aristocrats and their loyal tech/industrialist, religious, health and entertainment institutions have benefitted from this. In other words, the systems have benefitted, but none of the people who work for those systems, including even those who own those systems, have benefited from it. Even the CEO in a large company is not rarely tied all day long in his office dedicated to nothing more than keeping the wheel spinning. Most of their lifetime is wasted at work, just like their employees'.
- Senior homes: I'm sure everyone has someone they know who works in some care facility, so I don't have to go into depth on how people there are treated for the most part as cattle, to put it mildly - because that's literally what the state treats their slaves in general. The actually horrifying part is rather the legal aspect, where similar to other institutions that lock you away into some prison can incarcerate you without your consent being required whatsoever, such as willing family members gaining legal ability from the state to do so.
- Monasteries: These are last resorts for people who are so far in debt that they wouldn't otherwise be able to be allowed to live a semi-decent life in society anymore by the state. Upon entry into the monastery they are spoken free from all their debt, at the cost of not being allowed to own anything, and under a lifelong promise of servitude, essentially slavery. Even though you mostly need a higher education to even be able to join a monastery, the conditions in monasteries are more than just ascetic. You are being worn and torn with almost no sleep in between work shifts, and horrible food.
And all of these have yet more ways than one to restrict your movement, impair you or otherwise make your life a hell once you are tangled up in them.
________________________________________________________________________
This is not supposed to be a story about how bad the state is or a blame game of whether corporations and their industrialists or some powerful families and their clergy or even technology, humanity or nature itself are the culprits for how the world is. That's philosophy, and I'll leave that part aside here.
I merely recognize and accept the reality that this can not be anything but a physical prison system, and we are the prisoners. Which is not to make any claims about any metaphysical realities, of whether there is something higher than nature or this plane of existence. The metaphysical just isn't the relevant side I want to shine the spotlight on for the purpose of staying within this realm of reality we have to spend our lifetimes in, things that we can actually verify and know for ourselves, rather than beliefs. Therefore the distinction between one's own knowledge and beliefs I gave in the beginning to clarify why staying within the knowledge area of things is so important for me.
But for what it's worth, I would still like to entertain one belief here, which is 2 opposing assumptions:
1. Let's assume the Earth as we know it (i.e. Africa, America, Eurasia, Oceania etc.) is really all there is. Again, I don't mean in a metaphysical sense here either. So what I mean is, we assume that the map the state hands out is the actual, full map of the Earth. Even in this scenario, the least I can say with certainty is, just to mention a few points,
1.1 The map they hand out uses the mercator projection to map a 3D object (ball) onto a 2D image. Geometrically, this alone makes it impossible for any map to ever be correct, since you can't fully map every point of a 3D object onto a 2D image without altering the image. This is true for all projections. The mercator projection just happens to be the one the state likes to use. It's primary key trait is that it stretches out the top and bottom of the 2D map, meaning rich countries in the North look vastly larger, poor countries along the center look vastly smaller than they are, and also noteworthy is that the supposedly snowy areas (which they refer to as Arctic and Antarctica look vastly larger on the map). This is by sheer deduction of how geometry works with the map that they provide. I am not saying that any region on Earth is of any particular size, since I haven't gone around measuring landscapes or checking to see how vast the supposed snowlands are.
My point is, even if we assume that the map they give is what they claim it is, and the Earth's architecture is what is being claimed, this distortion of the map is then a given and the choice of a projection shows already, for one, that the image they try to project into peoples' mind of how we shall perceive the world is very deliberately and with clear intent chosen and the distortion itself obfuscated. This can have very practical reasons and doesn't automatically imply ill intent per se, but considering how society works by implied consent and coercion, it's more than reasonable to assume the intent to be ill. For example, nobody forces you to get a job, it just has very severe consequences on your livelihood if you don't.
1.2 Entertain me here for a little. There is no way to verify what the shape of the Earth is. Arguably, the shape really doesn't matter at all - does it? Practically speaking, what are the differences from the Earth being this or that shape? It has no practical implications on your everyday life, so it's fair to say that to most people this kind of information seems completely irrelevant because they don't see any such practical implications. I can not verify myself to know what the whole of the world looks like, but what I can very well verify is whether the informations given to me are in any way real or just based on beliefs. For example, every supposed photo of Earth taken from outside the Earth shows a sphere (ball) shape. These images are given by institutions that work for the state, so understandably people would be highly skeptical of them.
I can rather easily identify all kinds of artefacts in such images, as they are very cheaply generated with 3D graphics. For example, pointing out the obvious visual flaw of the Earth from our perspective having a blue sky that we can't see through, while in those images where we see supposed Earth from outside (galaxy view) the blue sky is not visibly there anymore. Of course there are all kinds of explanations/excuses for why these visual differences can make sense. And I'm not even saying that the images are flawed in the sense that Earth couldn't possibly e.g. have some kind of atmospheric optical effect like that. It isn't in any way intuitive and it doesn't align with anything we can observe in the real world, but it still could be very real. But I'm mainly pointing out that this is still a visual flaw because it is an undeniable discrepancy that would, under normal circumstances, have to be explained. And this same pattern is true for pretty much all the discrepancies that can be pointed out regarding concepts like space or the ball Earth.
Such as the fact we are supposedly spinning at 1000 miles per hour or that the moon is always claimed to be in space, but at the same time the same state or authorities gives out information that contradicts other information that the same authorities hand out, in this case that the moon is also still supposedly within the Earth's atmosphere, so not actually in space at all. Creating even more obscure needs for further explanations that get obscurer and obscurer the more answers are given, such as in this case you'd have to start explaining why the Moon is in this supposed twilight zone between both Earth and space, and if that is the case, why are these supposed facts never mentioned while it's always enthusiastically highlighted how it's in space. Clearly it isn't just because simple information is easier to digest but because the actual complexity of having to even bother to explain all this gets nonsensical or at the very least very technical very quickly and the state seems to like it a lot when people are oblivious because it gives room to confuse people and when people are confused they will look for answers and the state gladly provides all the answers in the form of books, the internet and figures of authority who claim to experts on all sorts of matters.
Okay, so there are some very clear discrepancies in information the state hands out about our world, it's grounds for suspicion, sure, but what else? This would be the point where some people would fall for a dichotomy, meaning once they have gotten sufficiently suspicious of a piece of information/belief, they assume, what they belief to be, the opposite of that belief. Such as flat Earth. But we can not actually verify if the Earth is flat, hollow or anything similar to any meaningful extent. A lot of experiments can be done in the real world to "prove" both a flat or a ball or even a hollow Earth and otherwise. Experiments from a limited view on something that requires a wider overview just is not effective. On top of that, even just the ideas are all given by the state equally. The state supposedly once claimed the Earth was flat, then later on decided guess we'll go with it's a ball now. So, very obviously, the state is not exactly the most trustworthy source of information. It jumps to whatever world views it deems suitable to cater to its need for power. And for all that can be said, even now, the state profits from any side that claims any blind belief, no matter what belief they are arguing for. So there is plenty of reason for the state to go all in talking down one side, such that people have to choose between one side or the other. If 2 predetermined choices are given, and both lead to (possibly) false world views, and more importantly keep people pacified, content and in confused/blind belief, the government is fine with it. Especially since a flat Earth belief is pro-authority to some extent in the end, since it easily fits into religious belief systems like abrahamic religions. The ball Earth fulfills the same purpose. If you trust the religious authority of science that the state controls, the state has little reason to be displeased.
Alright, so that was a lot of talk about just some case where we can observe that the information provided to us is suspicious and untrustworthy, and to begin with just as a reminder even if the provided information wasn't in any way off it would still be nothing more than hearsay, just something someone told you and that you can not verify for yourself to be true. It's even more than that, actually, since what you can verify with certainty is that the government has outlawed you moving about freely, particularly through bodies of water or the air, but really also over land. You can not simply drive around with a ship to check out for yourself how far things go, or where they go. It is also outlawed to so much as step foot on the supposed snowlands due to the Arctic Treaty, except for some specifically chosen points and only if guided there under strict supervision - with no definitive way to tell where they are actually taking you. That's a different topic, but it also adds to the very real movement restrictions that make up this prison world. Just like the unilateral visa system, where each country's visa holds its own hierarchical rank, with some able to easily travel everywhere and others unable to travel pretty much anywhere.
Let's leave the shape of the world alone, since - among other things - it's a piece of information fully intentionally provided by the state and heavily thematized through (controlled) opposition channels as well.
Then what about the size of the world? We know the state doesn't want us to move around. It's not entirely unreasonable to think that the state does this since the state is already in full control of the world, meaning there is no land on Earth not controlled by a state, a slavery plantation if you want to call it that. I find it a more appropriate label. If everything is state-owned, and the Earth is really just what they claim, then yes, it makes perfect sense to restrict movement heavily to prevent the poor from getting to where the rich are. The state can't meaningfully exert control without enforcing strict order that allows them to enforce their control.
It's pretty straightforward stuff, and I'm likely not saying anything exciting or new to anyone, but here is the breaking point:
2. Let's assume there is more to Earth than what the state reveals.
2.1 One could immediately jump to thoughts along the lines of hidden islands on the known map, meaning islands that aren't drawn on the mercator projected worldmap, Googlemaps or openstreetmaps, google Earth and co., where the actual slave owners have their villas and estates to themselves.
Sure, it's not a bad thought process. The idea has some flaws, as realistically speaking, a person can't exert power over anything from a distance unless there is a chain of command that leads there. So, for example, I can't enforce the law as state attorney if I don't have at least some minions that will go and use violence to lock someone up on my behalf. Neither can the attorney general without the attorneys, and so on.
Why does the police officer listen to the state attorney? And the attorney to the attorney general? In other words, why and how do hierarchies work? And what does that mean for "power" as a concept? The CEO in a room of let's say 30 employees at the top of his company will be there every single day, while maybe 300 employees do the rough work in the floors below in the same building, just as a theoretical image that applies to nobody in particular. So why? It's because the chain of command, which is essentially nothing but force, has to be constantly reinforced with threats and fear (among other psychological pressure) and it can only happen if you are at least somewhat present, yourself or by proxy.
So, at the very least, the slave master (let's call them that) must be in constant contact, albeit not necessarily in the same place, with their key servants (the slave drivers). Technology enables the master to actually be further and further away in terms of actual real life location due to fast travel speeds and communication, but ultimately it also means that they still have to mingle with their slave drivers somewhat. So while they could still technically be sitting on some hidden island, they would at least have to move out (not so much out of absolute necessity but also to secure loyalty, show presence etc. for psychological effect more than anything, which is what beliefs and religions like statism heavily rely on to not just function but to actually get people to believe in the system they are working for).
There are quite a few very concrete areas that would immediately come to mind for such hidden islands. Particularly also when one considers how the world map roughly would have to look like if the distortion from the mercator projection was undone. Calling Europe a continent would seem ridiculous because of how tiny it is on the map, similar for Russia which looks like a gigantic country on the mercator map. The state is very upfront about how much security is needed in any place. Even when a politician or an archbishop of the church or any other high-ranking state clerk shows up anywhere, the police presence is very noticeable, including helicopters and all. So it should be needless to say that this doesn't work any differently on the high seas than it does on land. They have every ship on a radar and use long-distance Lidar as well as deploying so much as the military to come after you in these areas, which tells you that they take those areas far more seriously than any walkable area on land you could go to.
For perspective, even if I were to directly go to a place where supposedly members of rich or aristocratic families live or are present, there will be police, but not so much heavy military equipment involved. With some powerful families like the Windsor, Yamato or similar families which have a standing (supposedly ceremonial) army riding along wherever, it's a bit different.
2.2 If the world map they show is accurate, regardless of the distortion, but we assume that the restrictions on movement are particularly harsh for the sea and air not because there are hidden islands or for state control alone, but for some other reason, could you think of such a reason? Here is my proposition:
The map that they hand out is accurate for what it's worth, but it's incomplete. That'd mean what we see on the map is not a complete representation of Earth, but only one part of Earth. Just imagine that for a minute.
For example, if the supposed continents we are on are in reality little more than a colony of prison islands. Which, of course, would also imply that the area outside of the colony are not part of said prison.
If that were the case, then going back on the question of the shape of the Earth, the shape would suddenly no longer be a trivial question with no impact on your life. A flat or ball Earth make no difference because the premise is in both cases that the map we are presented with comprises all of Earth in either case.
If that isn't the case, then there is a very good chance for there to be an actual, physical way out of this side of Earth, out of Prison Earth. We aren't talking spiritual escapism with the mind here. And it's not just groundless speculation either. There are various solid indices that point to a similar or the same conclusion. Which doesn't mean that this should be taken as a fact, I'm merely proposing it as a possibility because I have found more than one reason to believe it to be true that are based on more than just hearsay, but also some reasons that are based on hearsay, meaning information collected from state sources.
First of all, the obvious. This proposition makes no sense on a ball Earth at all. If the Earth is a sphere, it loops, like a cheaply produced RPG video game map.
So to even consider this is to also consider the possibility that the Earth is not looping, meaning to move into a direction can never end you up at the point you started moving from.
Realistically speaking, this shouldn't be so hard to consider. Since from all that the government so graciously allows you to know, you don't know a situation like that in real life. You know it from some media maybe, or if you programm you might write some looping code, but in the real world there is no situation where you can walk into the same direction, no matter how far you go, and you will end up back at the start again because for that possibility to even be on the table you'd need the opportunity to move across the body of salt water that acts like a wall around us on this side of Earth. And the state proactively prevents that, with force if necessary.
The state also does a lot of work on everyones' minds to keep them in a box, always. Catch-22 style. You either pick political left or right, communist vs capitalist, all kinds of nonsensical dichotomies that make no sense in the real world since none of what these concepts represent exists, and not even in the abstract do they make any sense but the government always needs people to choose between 2 options that both lead to the same bad outcome. The outcome that serves them, at the expense of the slaves, us. This point might be a bit too convoluted with abstract concepts that I can't bother to dissect here because there really isn't anything to dissect. I'll just give a quick example to illustrate what I mean so it isn't too hard to follow what I say:
The proposition of capitalism is that the is-state is that corporations hold all power (this narrative serves the state always well because the solution is to give the state more power to regulate corporations).
The proposition of communism is a should of who should hold the power (supposedly the revolutionaries but really the concrete demand is never to hand power to people but to a single centralized state).
As this example should easily illustrate, dualities like that are a very powerful tool for the state to get slaves confused and get them to demand the exact same thing that serves the state, despite being on opposing sides due to mere distortion of their perception.
The flat earth vs ball earth fits this tactic perfectly as well, though I already mentioned this earlier: The ball earther lays his trust and faith in the scientist, who works for the state. And the flat earther places his trust and faith in the flat earther "truthers", who will always put the flat earth into a religious, abrahamic context to demand worship of authority (god in this case) from the flat earther.
This shows that the entire question of the earth's shape is also a catch-22 trap, at least in the way that the government lays it out. It's still very much possible for either of the 2 to be true, just like it could realistically or partly be true that corporations hold a lot of power, but the question itself is framed in such a way that the (possibly true) conclusions you arrive at will lead you to false or harmful conclusions as well (such as placing misguided blind faith in or yielding power to the state any more than absolutely necessary in any given situation).
Maybe one of you has heard of this before, but most likely not since this is - especially now with the heavy censorship - hardly talked about anywhere. It's basically little more than hearsay based on the assumption that the place we are in right now is the very center area of the Earth, with the Earth supposedly spanning multiple times the radius of the Prison Earth (what we call the center area). While the government has an extra treaty in place to prevent people from going anywhere near the snowlands, the whole discussion of flat earth always exclusively focuses on the North and South directions because that's where the state can easily catch anyone to lock them away. The actual exit is therefore believed to be either roughly to the East, West or both. With exit we mean that despite the Earth being a free space, there are likely obstructions laid out of some kind to prevent slaves from the prison colonies to escape. Although the state itself refers to these as a supposed "ice wall", it's not clear whether that's just a metaphor, a blatant bluff or otherwise.
But the idea that there is a passable exit area is also reflected in another piece of information, which is the Summer Gate. Supposedly that's the actual name of the area that isn't obstructed. The name comes from the idea that the sun moves East to West on this side of the Earth in such a way that it can serve as a navigational tool toward the exit if done during the Summer time.
I will continue this on after some sleep. This is likely an atypical topic for this forum since it's not about Hearth Magick or any other kind of Magick concepts that relate to the inner divine flame, enlightenment or similar, but I would very much like to exchange thoughts and ideas on this topic. Frankly speaking, I am not interested in pretty much anything else anymore after seriously considering that there might be a way to escape this side of the Earth, even if it is just a possibility.