Dr. Chiappalone's Damaging Pretenses of Special Authority

[MetaOntosis]

I have recently read some of what Dr. C has been up to lately, and as usual I have no complain with the substance of his writings, right up until "it gets personal".  I have no complaint about the substance of his writings because most of it, where it matters per doctrines of Truth not specifically dependent upon who is saying it, is not untrue.  The problem isn't with that part of the message, but with the parts which refer to the deliverer of it himself, and this precisely because this has something of an effect on how others receive the message who would have received it better if it were delivered without the problematic additions of the deliverers claims about himself, his insertions of the dramas of his personal life with their added claims about his special role they are made to imply (and the special and almost always evil role of others), and the generally kooky and irresponsible image of Gnosticism this creates, which in and of itself dissuades people from looking at the substance of his writings because, most of the time, they run into the ranting of a lunatic going on about his own powers of prophecy and special roles in alien/dimensional hierarchies, and his abuses of reasoning and argument which are so full of fallacies that it is a shame the man didn't stick to poetry and medicine.



As to the details:


 He keeps getting "defensive" about his "status", shooting out little quills to the effect that people need to be reminded of "who they are dealing with", and he can't seem to get off his NGE horse.  



 As usual, I'm ambivalent about him, but only in the sense that I have trouble making his behavior in this respect compatible with the essence of the True Message of Gnosticism.  Gnosticism is apocalyptic and eschatological, no doubt.  It is dualistic in the purest sense, and he captures all those aspects.  But this needless reference to his own self as playing a peculiar role in the context of doctrine seems to me at best a rhetorical device.


  But if it is merely that then it is insincere, and intolerably stupid, as it delivers no benefit to the work of awakening others.  But in fact he seems quite sincere in his "knowing that he knows because he knows" concerning the claims he makes about the immanence of the End, but even that doesn't help matters.  It might be claimed by him that because what he claims he knows is true that it is imperative to pull out all the stops and reveal just what his contacts (real, imaginary, benign or malign) have told him to reveal, but I think this claim should bear scrutiny.


 Analyzing the notion of eschatology we understand time to be finite and with a definite end.  If its end has implications for the eternal fates of spirits who will either be annihilated or proceed to further existences, this would be something to bear in mind at all times, not just right before it happened.  Surely it would not be something to ignore until right before it happened, as the meaning of time itself is "the space of opportunity for things to transpire".  If the reason time persisted so many billions of years and millions of incarnations was that the opportunity for proper separation of Good from evil had taken that long, it would imply that this was due to the difficulties inherent to the conditions here such that our bodies and their capacities were simply too chaotic, delimited, deformed, complicated, etc, to have allowed a shorter time for our Spirits to be culled from the matrix.


 If this is, in essence, the situation, it could only be, as I see it, due to the notion that our own Will had to be involved in some sort of way, or else we have a condition of fatalism and determinism which rules out the need for us to muster our decidedly focused attention on waking up at any stage of this process, including the final stage.


 If that is the case, then it must be thought that our efforts were required the entire time, and what condition we are in toward "the end" could only signify the aggregate significance of our decisions up to that point during our long careers here either as robots and hybrids and demons and theomorphs and whatever else the pantheon requires.  This could surely not be something ignored until now and then suddenly meaningful just before it is too late.


 I find that reminds me of the notion that "we don't know the day, nor the hour" and "the wise virgins keep their lamps full of oil and don't waste it" and "keep your eyes on the prize and run the race to the finish, with a view to the end", and certainly, billions of years of spiritual combat would be such a force upon our spirits that we would hear these and like phrases with a sort of instantaneous nod of affirmation in our hearts.


  So we would always wonder at the necessity to jump up and say "The END IS NEAR", because this makes us think of the strangeness of living as though it weren't.  Why would I allow my spiritual will to go dormant just because it was far?  In fact, if it were far, I would have to focus all the harder to ensure I reached it.  But if it is near, we wouldn't want to lose focus just at the end, when evil would suddenly throw its maximum efforts into spoiling our victorious finish.  Surely, and yes.  But this doesn't mean the language of "the End is Near" is suitable for anything other than a reminder that, because it may be far, we should focus and endure, and because it may be near, we should never give up.  


   But shouldn't we always focus and endure and never give up?  Do we need someone to jump up and declare the end as though HE has the direct knowledge of that?  Maybe, as Dr. C says, that is what it takes to wrestle evil to its defeat, by strategically and occasionally reminding it now and then of its end.  This may in fact agitate it so that the End WILL come shortly after its declaration, when in fact if it hadn't been declared, it wouldn't have been able to arrive, since evil's reactions to the fear of its approach, being heightened, leads to events which precipitate what it fears (as in normal fears in normal proceedings of life also do).


  So I wonder if it is really much more for a Sincere Spirit to hear in Dr. C's pontifications about his identity the confession of a sincere knowing of a truth that, were it true we perhaps would like to know ourselves (but it isn't about what we "would like"), perhaps,  or isn't it just as much important to hear in it the notion "What if he were right"?  If he were right, then I would still have the issue of needing to continue with MY ROLE in the whole affair, and not necessarily change it simply because Dr. Chiappalone came along and did HIS thing.  It is really not for him to assume I must change or do anything different because his NGE or his Special Knowledge "is active" in the world, or that the End may approach sooner than expected (when should I really expect it? Back to square one, unless you are Dr. Chiappalone, apparently, but only he is Dr. C...)


So that is one area of contention, his insistence on his powers of prophecy, when in fact those are nearly always not at issue in sincere religion, unless you think you are the lowly robot that he thinks you are, and you need to have Dr. Chiappalone blaring the trumpet of Last Days at you for you to get the Green Energy enough that you need to carry on and not throw it all away after billions of years of fighting.  Or does he do this because it is in compensation for the presumption you were sitting on your spiritual duff for that long?  Hard to believe you are still in a "class 4 body" if that is the case.... and it would seem that it takes more than a Dr. Chiappalone to wake you up even then, for truly in that case you are dead and only The Son can resurrect you.  But I suspect Dr. C isn't going to go that far in his claims without producing some tangible miracles for a change.  I've heard of NGE, but I've also heard of satellites, neural feedback systems, remotely operated directed energy programming, and all other sorts of mind influencing methodologies.  Personally, I'd rather take my chances with something "green" I can vouch for as to origin and pedigree of utility, not something 'who really knows what' that Dr. "It's All About What I KNOW THAT I KNOW AND TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT" has to offer (when it comes to energy, that's for sure).  As to doctrine, SUBSTANCE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT.


As to prophecy, well I think I've covered that issue in the same spirit as all the others who spoke on the matter from Zoroaster to Jesus, and so did the guy with the cardboard box on the corner of Sunset and Fairfax.  Dr. C isn't working any special magic in this sense.  Discussing the psychology of how demons and viables differentially respond to the idea of that end being immanent is certainly not meaningless or irrelevant, but declaring we should take seriously his general claim to being THE wielder of Gabriel's Horn is not quite so trivial.  That's a hefty claim of authority, DAMN IT.  And his motto is worn out when that is being bandied about.  If the best he can do as an anticipatory rejoinder when claiming to be THE forerunner of THE END is "take it or leave it", I don't think that is going to cut it by a long shot.  We have to take the man aside and remind him that it is SO 80s to be doing that, and the guy with the cardboard box did it with much more authenticity and class.  I think with him at least we are spared the "take it or leave it" insult.  And when he has the audacity to mention himself in the same breath as Jesus or Mani, he should remember that it was others who noted that he spoke with authority, it wasn't Jesus or Mani who kept blaring it about himself saying "take it or leave it, at your own risk, like I care, pft".  It was not necessary, because their SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT.  I'm sure their energies were efficacious without needing to be virtually trademarked and given a brand name, either!  Jesus didn't say "keep and eye out for my special light, as I'm distributing it if you're lucky it will not reject you".  He just offered his Love and His Light, and those who could receive it did, and those who couldn't didn't.  Dr. C pays lip service to this logic, but doesn't manifest it very well.


  So he literally got ALL CAPS about "his authority" in his last postings on his website.  He says if people don't like it, remember his motto, and also in a softer tone, to leave it be for now.  Well, I think it is something of a matter of why should it matter either way?  Should I care to know he knows?  By what means will I know what he knows unless I also know?  If I don't know that the "end is near" in the way he does, we know it doesn't say much, as he himself confesses that the information he "receives" may be to mix it up with evil in the intelligence war.


 In fact, by his confession, it is a war of maneuverings wherein Good literally LIES to evil!  I have no problem with that.   I have no problem with the end coming right this instant, or a million eons ago.  I think my issue is that he makes too much of an ado about his role, and he makes himself too much of a pantheonic entity, along with some other entities like his ex wife and her new hubby.  Really not into the foibles of these people, and I think the message of Truth doesn't require these dramatic scenes.  


   It may seem a touch of "pride" but frankly I don't feel it fitting that others be presented with gross opportunity to simply stand or sit around the sidelines of his dramas, stand agape at his pronouncements, and feel the authority of "his voice" or his "NGE" and how soothing they are.  I like others actually have THINGS TO DO, and I don't see how his ad hoc claims, including his ad hoc claims about those claims, are anything but irrelevant and even malicious non sequitur content with a rhetorical significance at best, and a manifestation of bad taste in both form and content in the middle, whereas at worst an actual indication that he is not all he's cracked up to be and is in effect doing more harm than anything else.


  Intelligent and inspired, perhaps up to a point.  A divine emissary?  Not even by sheer appearances, much less of provided evidence, and most certainly not of the proportions he finds every opportunity to keep insisting, and most definitely not at all so evidently as he seems to imagine.  An actual counterfeit who is being manipulated to think he is genuine?  Not impossible.  I make not nearly as grand a claim as he does about my "Special Sauces", but it is not inconceivable that he or others could see me in just that same light (and often do), which is to say as a crackpot.  So he has no special claim that it is not the case in his situation, certainly not because his claims are more grandiose by far than any of mine.  His claims cannot be true because the manner in which he claims them, and the resultant effect it produces in the context of what his work is supposed to accomplish, would actually contradict those claims anyway!  But I get more into the manner of his presentation in the third post below.


  He's noted a lot of things which many have also foreseen.  He claims it is because of his Special Role.  This is the reason he mentions such correlations between events and what he has foreseen.  But this is not a sure sign of his claims being true, rather a sign that if his claims are true, then we have some better understanding of why he reached his insights.  Others may have a direct hand in such affairs and can also foresee them, such as some state actors, occult beings, and archons and demons and so on, and even humble philosophers or conspiracy investigators. They may speak in terms of probabilities, but could also couch their terms as if to sound prophetic.  They may speak from their intelligence and intuition, but could also speak as though inspired by, or coached by specific and authoritative, even Divine sources.  But these would no more be demonstrated by the accuracy of their pronouncements than they would about their intuitions and intelligence if we ourselves also didn't have access to what those qualities were like in ourselves.  So at best we can understand Dr. C's experiences directly only if we have the same experiences, which some claim to have had, and in all manner of different genres of worldview and interpretation.


   So he really insists quite a lot on his authority, which for us is a moot claim (because it is not our province to know that about Him unless it happens to be our province, and in that case his insistence is also moot), but in fact it is insisted upon to the point that one wonders if he himself understands that it is moot.  He should, for he says if it is for us moot then to let it pass.  Then why does he keep blaring away about it?


   Again, if it is to antagonize spirits, so be it.  But that is not going to be evidence of his authenticity either, for I could do the same and also get the same effects, with or without special powers (which he claims not to have, but NGE, special ambassadorial status between dimensions and between Gods and men, and prophetic channeling are powers aren't they?).  He'd say he doesn't care what others claim, and I can understand that.  He claims he doesn't care if others think one way or the other about his claims.  But he keeps making them and then keeps reminding us to take it or leave it.


   So he keeps on with his train of barking. But what if instead of merely waking up Real Beings, he is using triggers which may awaken them, but combining these with an interwoven message of authority which indicates they are to be responsive to his energy as an added implication, his claims that this is not necessary notwithstanding?  As he does say things which have to be taken ON FAITH for others, and as he yet insists on his own knowledge (as if that is consolation to anyone else...), and yet he claims this is not something he is trying to shove down anyone's throat (I'm not trying to force anyone to believe anything here, he says), but he keeps pounding it into his messages which would otherwise be quite beneficial for awakening a Being to the Truth (the content of his writings did assist me, his pontification about his own supposed special role DID NOT, and caused problems by being a ridiculous, strangely woven and absurd distraction).


   Ah, so in the end, he is pontificating, but saying "Hey, take it or leave it".  The problem is that the act of soapboxing on one's purported authority is integral to a message, and cannot be claimed to be "not shoved down throats" and "not forced at people" when it is employed in contexts where the fate of the listeners may be at stake upon receiving properly the messages delivered in the context of that purported authority, especially when he also declares that the authority purported and the message have a common source which is none other than THE LORD.


  It is not so much that he does this, as that he pretends to be aloof from such an action, when in fact his claims to the contrary amount to nothing more than rhetorical phrases to the effect of "doubt me at your own risk... just pretend you never heard me say it, then".  Such tongue in cheek, such winking, such "ahem" on the very heels of such solemnity about his giving it straight with no ego, no self-reference, etc etc.  It seems in some fundamental way wrong.


  And in fact, he claims there could be nothing Satanic about it, when in fact this behavior itself borders on precisely that.  Regardless of that, his behavior here does not even seem consistent with his purported role, precisely in that the way he declares that role doesn't square up to how he acts furtive about denying that we should heed it if we feel we needn't, or that he's not insisting on it when in fact it is about 1/3 of what he does insist on...


  So I think, as I have before, that much of the trouble with him is in all this double-speak on his own authority, and much of the trouble is that it is troubling to see this behavior from a Gnostic, when in fact I'd be much keener to see it from a demonic priest who wanted to head himself up a cult which actually kills Gnostics (remind anyone of anyone?).  So it is fine with me if the End is Near, for me it is always near, no matter how far.  But what I do take issue with is his pontificating, and that is not only unbecoming someone who speaks of these things, but it is downright a cause of suspicion about his motives, his origins, and his actual goals, for sure about his results.


   It seems he want's to bully people, because the only people he likes to mention on his page, the only letters he reproduces, are those who sound like simpering, brow-beaten cultists.  They don't sound like they have their own Gnosis, but they sound like they have a gear in their head which has just the right texture of teeth for the ego of Dr. C to find tolerable, and this bespeaks mind control operation to me. 


   Talk about someone who is a candidate for "a handler".


But I've drilled home some aspects of this line of thinking in my videos about him.  When I think about what I see him doing, I don't like it in precisely this respect.  Because of this, here is what I'll recommend:


  Since Dr. Chiappalone thinks his message is efficacious in helping Real Beings awaken and protect themselves (viable robots or whatever you will), then I won't argue with that, since in some measure they helped me.  But with this strong drink comes a mixture of rhetoric which, in spite of his declaiming to the contrary, has an inherently negative effect on the message itself, and can only be tolerated by people who want to subserve their minds under his in some way, by tacitly believing in his authority, though he claims absurdly that he doesn't require, desire, or seek this in any way...  but reiterates it enough times that his claims to the contrary look like a sad rhetorical device of irony rather than bespeaking any sincerity and gravity.


   So I recommend this:  Get the content he refers to, which is found in sources other than him and his space friends, other than him and his personal foibles and dramas, and other than him and his energies and voice and rhetoric.  Find the essence of THE Gnostic Truth (no reference to my work per se, but to the literal notion that such an Actual Truth exists), investigate it with your own  Gnosis, and continue to saturate yourself in his pontificiality only if you are specifically into that sort of thing, because if you aren't then it is a very abhorrent mixture, likely to have poisonous effects on your awakening.  Your awakening may happen regardless, and may be well in the end, but there is no reason to hazard its compromise with such a loose tongued, self-serving nit wit of a mystagogue, since the message should be sufficient without need of all that strange pizzazz about his energies, his space-faring contacts from other dimensions, and so on.  THE TRUTH WITHOUT HIM IN THE MIDDLE OF IT SHOULD BE JUST AS GOOD, IF NOT BETTER THAN THE TRUTH WITH HIM WALLOWING ALL THROUGH IT WITH HIS SUPPOSED AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL POWERS AND PRIVILEGES.........


  Even the Pope of the Catholic Church has better taste than this buffoon when presenting a message which should have its own authority when combined with the authority of the hearer, but THEN AGAIN he SEEMS TO THINK YOU ARE A BARELY VIABLE ROBOT UNLIKE HIMSELF...


Okay, so... take from this what you will, I'm not trying to force my perspective. Hell, I'm not the one mixing his life story into his metaphysics and telling you to "take it or leave it"....

[MetaOntosis]

I feel I should go on, and cover this all with a sort of fresh approach, and besides, it has become a sort of interest in itself to understand the behavior of someone who is so impertinent as to habitually flash his mania about as though because it has overtaken his own best judgment, so therefore this is a sure sign that it should be allowed to overtake everyone else's as well.  Or that because his message is "so grandiose" (to whom?) so therefore the ridiculous and suspect can be strewn into it as well without notice or concern.  I'm concerned, because I do work specifically in this area, and it means a lot to me how it is treated in public by someone who is as loud and obnoxious as Dr. Chiappalone.  I'm also concerned, truly, for many who will encounter his behavior and about how it will affect them, especially those who deserve better, much better.

Instead of using reasoned discourse to explicate the the implications of his positions, whatever their basis, he insists on what cannot be delved into further than a bare claim allows, much as one might insist that "I see a color called blark, which no one else sees".  But of course it is already understood that a person must either take something like that (or leave it).  That goes for everything ever said. The simple point is that if there is nothing else which can be said for it than that in the end, then why mention it at all?  Especially if there is no need for saying the thing, and yet it is said so much.

If someone had been seeing "blark" all along, so be it.  If to the rest of us it is only a shade of blue, or some color that we cannot distinguish from black, then it is, perhaps sadly, our loss.  Yet can this be repaired by persistent reference to this special quality which is peculiar strictly to the consciousness of its single, unique observer?

I should say at this point that I cannot verify that others who seem to posses a Nous sealed within them that they really do unless they show some certain sign.  But it is not imperative for them to do this for me, and I am not deeply interested in that, as they should be interested in their own awakening, and that is what matters anyway.  If they are, they'll gradually convince me by the simple fact that I can feel it in their presence by the sheer lack of many contraindications, which by the Logos are painfully obvious when present, even if hidden!  If there are too many contraindications, then it is irrelevant if there is Nous, because it is as good as dead in that body, which is an animated corpse without it.

But this doesn't mean there isn't a Nous in someone, but in many cases there is (in some corrupted form, perhaps).  But I'm not interested in cases where it cannot be relevant to my interaction with that person, since in that case I cannot interact with it by definition.  I'm speaking here of the situation as I consider the matter in my mind.  Sometimes all I can do is leave a catalyst and move on. But simply, the reason this matters here is that this person is not usually making a big deal out of the notion that they do have such, and they usually aren't making a big deal out of how unconcerned they are with my view on it and everyone else's, and they aren't adding to all that something inane like "there it is, what you do with it is up to you". (sorry, had to laugh... AND LET YOU KNOW... so I guess "LOL, take it or leave it").

Dr. Chiappalone has a similar sort of thing going on with him.  He insists on something that in fact is not something we have any meaningful way of knowing, certainly not by anything he has said or done so far, and certainly not by his claims to possess energy he can dispense, or because he's detected the obvious as far as some of us are concerned.  I mean, really, even James Carville can see WWIII coming, I'm sure, so what is the big deal here if Dr. Chiappalone can?  He says it is because he has a special knowledge!  

Well, ONCE AGAIN, IF he has that knowledge THEN that helps explain why he knows (does Carville have that also?), but, not the other way around, because that "if" is key here.  IF he has it, THEN it explains.  So really we care about the "then" as well, eh?  It means, this conditional thought, that "when it is the case that his having such special knowledge is true, then we rightly expect such predictions to be accurate, in fact it must follow, because the former implies the latter".  This doesn't mean that if what would be explained is present, we are to be convinced that his proposed explanation for it is true...  

To put it more concretely:  If I like to get drunk, this might explain why I am drinking (much) wine.  But my drinking wine does not explain why I like to get drunk in a proportional and reverse way (unless I happen to add the stipulation that it might be that I like the drunkenness peculiar to wine intoxication)!  It might explain why I endure getting drunk, because I like drinking wine THAT MUCH, but it doesn't work the same way as in the original instance, to claim that knowing I'm fond of getting drunk explains why I'm drinking (much) wine (but, then again, perhaps it isn't even much wine, since some can get drunk off little).  Maybe I drink much more than I need to get drunk merely because I like how it tastes and feels on my palate, which is also a reason I drink wine, not only to get drunk...  

So see how the examples are showing the point simply by being more sophisticated than a rude unfamiliarity with conditional logic will permit us to get away with if it just so happens that the facts are more or other than our initial assumptions allowed? My point is also, jointly with this, that the converse of a given and reasonably likely conditional statement is usually more problematic to assert than the forward version, because cause and effect relationships, as well as categorical relationships, are usually not symmetrical as we encounter them in phenomena, and we usually have to go one direction with ease, and the other with difficulty.

Put it another way, because examples are fun: If I have the ability to state many things which I (supposedly) never came across before, this may be explained by something, but that may or may not be any proposed explanation.  Perhaps I'm an MK-Ultra subject, and fed information through various methods, or perhaps a being in another dimension is involved (channeling), or perhaps both, or perhaps... NEITHER.  Who's to say?  But if I insist on ONE of these, that is my choice, but this alleged effect is not by that claim alone proof that it is really a true statement of the actual cause of the effect... it could be various of those, perhaps even as far as anyone knows!  What if it was past life information?  What if I was an inquisitor in a past life, and tortured many Gnostics to death to get all their information as well as to see how their minds worked until broken?  Then perhaps in a future life I'll have "mysterious access" to Gnostic ideas, perhaps via some Reptilian advised CIA mind control unit located in my hometown as I grew up, or in another where I later trained in profession quite unrelated to the subjects to which those statements directly pertain.  What about that possibility?  Why should I rule that out?  There are also these things called biases which the human mind is prone to include in its cognition at this point, which all amply explain my preference for believing something good about myself rather than something bad, but perhaps the cause is also that this story needs to be covered up, and in this new incarnation especially, because I'm due to try and harvest a lot of Real Beings into a cult of personality, to play the pipes for them and walk them into a mind control trap in which I'm the central catch in this life.

Who knows?

Perhaps it is the case, but at least I don't say that is the case just because it might be, but I just proposed this as a reasonable alternative. After all, even Dr. Chiappalone explains that he has not reached very many people with his current approach.  Perhaps their spiritual instincts warned them away from him because of his strange behaviors?  Maybe I'm not the only one who has seen this, and am merely the only one that has been so loud about making a point of mentioning it?  But perhaps that is more conjecture we don't need in order to continue my point which is simply that proposing a cause is not itself more than a proposition, and we can't then look at how neatly the effect looks on the other end of it as an indication of the truth of the proposed cause (or reason, in logic, to grant it as following as an implication in thought).  We can't do that because that presumes what we ought to understand is not yet demonstrated...  and in some cases can't be demonstrated, and again in some cases, is not relevant to our business (or his, or is it? It depends upon what business is really involved does it not?). 

But Dr. C has a logic which runs like this:  Sounds like a good explanation doesn't it, eh?  And if that isn't good enough, then (yes, here it comes...) "YOU KNOW MY MOTTO"  (by now you know my facial expression...   )

I wouldn't accuse him of being such a nefarious being as my example suggests, but I will accuse him of logical rudeness at the very least.  I don't think is a Calabrian trait, per se, but that would be an amusing proposition! I partly jest here, but only partly.  After all, Giussepe himself suggested that certain traits are ethnically heritable, such as a stubborn head, which he suggests is a Calabrian trait. Well, perhaps he has a stubborn incapacity to wrap his head around conditional reasoning when it doesn't suit his rhetoric, but surely he passed a course on introductory logic in premed, didn't he?

Now take that example and reverse it.  If any of the propositions were found TRUE, THEN THAT would help explain the effects they seem to have caused.  But the effects do not nearly as strongly indicate their causes,  at least not in cases like this where plenty of causes may be the actual one, severally and singly or all at once, and also in various proportions, and perhaps differently in different circumstances, and also some which are unknown.  More to the point here, causes can exist and be proposed many of which are so fantastic as to cause us to prefer to discount one of the premises which arouse their being suggested, such as the premise that "I have never encountered any of this information in this life".  I find sometimes I have to make an allowance for the possibility that someone is just full of BS, sometimes on something as simple as one thing like this, as it makes so much else they do and say easier to understand in a meaningful and logical way, and in accordance with my intutions, rather than accept a proposition as true which they then go through strange or inappropriate acrobatics to explain or justify, seemingly as a means to some rhetorical end that makes me thing that... ah yes, maybe that's the reason, to dwell on the proposed cause of this ad hoc story thrown into his writing which should have been anecdotal, but became a recurring theme enough to be worth about 20% of the content of his verbiage (not just this appended story, but others as well, all taken together).  Otherwise, if I accept that this "effect", that miraculous knowledge has occurred, then at least when explanations are proposed I have to ask myself which seems most explanatory given the following:

  who is offering the explanation and why?

  does it square with other things that could also use some explaining?

and perhaps most importantly

  does it NEED explaining!!

The fact that such a story is not really important to the rest of us except perhaps once as background material brings to mind the odd fact that this, along with other examples of persistent, distracting, odd, and even pernicious NON SEQUITUR and IRRELEVANCE are mixed in, perhaps stitched into his works like some project envisioned by a mean-eyed Dr. Frankenstein.  And while I don't recommend pitchforks and torches, and I also am not fond of peasant mobs, I don't care for Gnostic hierophants and mystagogues who don't even deserve those descriptions as much as charlatan Pied Pipers.

Here is an interesting page on logical rudeness.

[MetaOntosis]

1) I have studied philosophy, and did so both vigorously and, by some accounts, well and even commendably so, some would even say in a scholarly and perhaps even "honorable" way (although few would say "always in a polite" way, I received some recompense for that and then some)



2) Therefore (Insert True Information)
.


.


.

n)  Something else important in the discussion, involving 2) directly or indirectly





If it turns out that 1) is true, then that is perhaps a very interesting explanation for something in 2), assuming that 2) is even important for our discussion, and also assuming that it is validly a premise for 2).  But perhaps 1) is merely a sufficient explanation, and not really that interesting.  In other words, people might accept 2) on a presumption of my good faith, and so they may not even require a droll recounting of innumerable facts which may support it, which may be required to be put in 1) upon insistence, if it is deemed really necessary to the point of the discussion in 2).  It shouldn't be produced otherwise, and if produced, it shouldn't become an end in itself, nor a means to another end except to support 2).  It should have no direct bearing on n) per se, except through supporting 2), whatever that is. 


It may turn out that 1) is not merely a droll story to retell, but perhaps it is even a bit self-serving, self-flattering, and even perhaps somehow, if and only if accepted as true, relevant to some other points being made in other cases which may arise in the course of discussion of n), and not only something provided in adequate defense or explanation of 2).  It has another argumentative agenda, in other words, than its purported reason for being expressed.  There is a motive ulterior to 2), although whether that other motive is appropriate depends on what 2) is, what n) is, and how they are related to each other, and how either is related to 1).  But for now, 1) is offered simply as back story for 2), and it is not pretended to do more than that, although it is not precluded from doing more than that either.



If that is the case, it may then be the case that this is not something to be taken lightly in the discussion anymore.  In fact it may be so important from then on that its truth value becomes important for more reasons than assessing the logical validity of "if 1), then 2)".



I hope this is clear to any reader, because this is a generally important feature of rhetoric at least, but in cases where influence upon others is important (and it almost always is important) then we might want to understand that process  a bit more carefully and ensure it has gone in our favor (an understandable desire in any case), which for us means going in favor of the undistorted Truth. And this should have been, in the case of Dr. Chiappalone's writings, the actual merit of his work.  Therefore the merit of his work rests on the question of whether he had any inappropriate motives or took any inappropriate actions in the course of making his arguments and statements in his writings, especially if his claims and their implications are serious, and they are quite serious.


Given that in the case at hand of the various rhetorical and argumentative methods, and dare I say tactics, of Dr. Chiappalone, there is an academic aspect to it which suddenly makes my mentioning of the example contents of 1) above more than a "merely self-flattering" example to have chosen. This is that 1) can be used to explain 2) which in the case here is that I have a rather personal, vocational interest in all this.  That is, for the purpose of explaining, as an example, something about my style of exposition.



That partly explains my addressing it "at length", both here and on some videos. This was used as an example because it applies to the question, raised by a troll in one of my youtube videos on Dr. Chiappalone, concerning why I have been so prolix.  Of course he was being a troll and I didn't explain that 2) is the case, and that it is substantiated by some facts in 1), and some other facts [say, 1a) - 1z), for example].  That and other reasons partly explains my "prolixity", there and also here. It is because I'm interested in the logical mechanics of knowledge and belief, especially in spiritual matters!! DUH!  Hello, I'm a philosopher, and it is usually the guess of people who talk with me even about mundane matters.  It is what I am.  It isn't something I "have been trained" to do.  I've been trained to write papers and pass tests also, but that is actually beside the point.  If I am prolix on philosophical topics, especially ones I think are important, I think that is not to be a big astonishment.  Hence, if I were to explain my interests, it would be something I'd bring up, no surprise there, either.  It should be mentioned in 1), because if it were true, then it would help explain the claim mentioned in 2), which includes that I have personal and vocational interests in these matters.



Personal reasons for being for being very writey-writey, talkey-talkey, include a rather unusual capacity for noticing details in anything about which I am interested, and to a degree which is not usually the case with an average person, especially on certain matters, and this is something that has been pointed out to me by such persons time and again, and I have also noticed this countless more times simply because, as you'd expect, I notice details like that. Why this is the case is that there is some trait peculiar to some people and not others, concerning the processing of information, and that trait is one possessed by this body/mind form in which I am incarnate, and that is a simple fact.  It can be assessed with various tests and categorized in various ways, and there are plenty of psychologists who have wrapped their entire careers around these phenomena who will attest to it with blood curdling oaths rather than accede to a trollish declaration that they are "just making sh*t up".  In my case, it leads to a rather prolix and unpolished way of going about expositing my thought.  If it is awkward, then so be it, but it is the case nevertheless. This is conjoint with my statement 1) above, and can be added to it as perhaps "1b)", to help explain that I have good reasons to go on at length on these really very significant points about Dr. Chiappalone, and these are reasons which are both personal and vocational. Why these reasons are the case, and even whether they are the case, are really secondary now that I have at least explained them under the construction for illustration here, namely that they were relevant to a discussion which was illustrated, and which it will turn out that they are in fact, by way of an interesting analogy, also pertinent to the issue at hand here. It is not that they are merely what they seem in their details, which is an explanation referring to the fact that I am prolix in my efforts.  They are put in this context because I'm illustrating this way of making points in order to make a further point, here, about Dr. Chiappalone's more grievous writing sins.



A point to enlarge upon now is that I have said enough in 1) to support or explain 2) for most reasonable interlocutors, so there is no need for me to pull out degree certificates, grade reports, professors' testimonies, the testimonies of other students, eyewitness accounts of my study habits and of my discussions on matters in public which would be relevant to my assertions, etc.  There is no need to deliver anecdotal accounts about my psychological proclivities and attributes concerning my attention to fine detail in certain matters.  And even if I did, there is still the matter whether those things meaningfully, and also if they validly justify my going on at length... for perhaps it is simply that my writing is like my thinking, rather prolix, and it is that simply because I don't exposit as cleanly and neatly as many who can do that better.  Personally, I think it is a combination of this and the other two reasons which can go into 1) in order to explain and support 2), which is "why I am prolix" on this topic, particularly, and perhaps also in general.


In fact, it would be a case in point if I did go into those explanations at length in that way, because that is a convoluted and overly involved way of explaining why my style of exposition can seem convoluted and overly involved.  It would be an unfortunate case in point, indeed.  It would be exceptionally dysfunctional if it kept coming up now and again in my writings, even though this point had already been addressed once and at length...  I think readers may start to see that I am laying down a mechanical apparatus by which to later dissect an issue that is actually at hand in my points about Dr. Chiappalone, so I hope their patience will not be so tested now.



It is simply an example to illustrate a point.  The construction goes as follows:


  1a) - 1z) are brought up to justify 2) only because 2) is important in some way, because for example someone, presumably in good faith, suggested that 2) was an issue worthy of mention (in this case, that I address matters under discussion in a rather lengthy way).  I offer an explanation, and leave it at that (without saying "take it or leave it").  Someone may very well leave it at that, just as they may have "left it at that" when they saw the lengthiness of the writings and videos and the seeming obsession with addressing these matters, often involving many circuitous, even outright tangential and possibly even utterly digressive episodes which either trail off and never come back, or else somehow beat their way back to the main point.  But in that case, if the interlocutor did "leave it at that", which is that "this guy seems to ramble, either rightly or wrongly, either well or badly", then I would never have need of mentioning the lengths and intensity of my measures, nor what seems to be their causes and reasons.  If I did mention 1) on my own initiative in order to discuss 2) just because I felt it necessary, then it would indicate a preoccupation on my account, an issue lying within my own mind first and foremost.  



At the very least, it indicates another agenda, perhaps simply a rhetorical one. But in the case of spiritual writings, especially in matters having contents as grave as Dr. Chiappalone's chosen subjects, and especially when the contents brought up pertain to issues that seem as to logical content utterly unrelated to the value of the other information presented, then this at least deserves to be noted, and this I have done.  But furthermore, especially as the claims they involve are of the sort as to be begging of our credulity in the first place, and also are reiterated throughout his other content in a way which seems to be inappropriate, and so each time constitute further attempts at begging our credulity (besides being distracting, because irrelevant, to the point of being asinine) then Shakespeare's famous line can be modified to say "I think thou dost insist too much". And further, when all this is compounded by histrionic pretenses at being aloof to anyone's incredulity, with stock arrogance and skull-bone density indicators which are so epitomal of his address that they become his freaking motto, then that this is not a minor issue, actually.  If it were only a matter of style, he would have been reduced to a complete caricature of crackpot by this sort of stunt alone.  But it is even more serious, if only in that he even says it himself, that the energies of his writings are of profound impact... and that we are to be WARNED, etc.  All the more reason, I think, to be responsible for the manner in which those writings, and their subsequent impacts, are designed and structured by their author, and all the more reason for others who have a stake in the matters addressed by those writings to be keen to uncover any problems which lie therein.  If the creator god gets no breaks, then neither does the ponce responsible for the antics with which I have been taking issue here.


But in fact, I mention this example because I do seriously think that this situation requires a redress for major reasons of spiritual and and psychosocial importance.  Even if Dr. Chiappalone hadn't made many of his claims about himself and what he knows, and only stated the typical and classical Gnostic information and made relevant observations about the world, all of which could have been the case with him or anyone (and is the case with me), then it would still possibly matter if he had any improper agendas to go along with his presentations.  It might matter simply because if he did, then that could become a problem simply because we have immediate cause to determine that how he influences people would be tainted, on some level, by an improper agenda.  How and when that would come up in an acute way would be another matter.  That it might come up is not in need of serious argument to make clear, because it is a given in human interactions that such a case may occur, and this may have been one of those cases. So this is a chronic problem with the man and his work from this point on, and not a minor one at that, with possibly very critical consequences for the unaware, and unprepared, who will get little consolation from the rather pompous warnings issued by the author himself about such things when he warns us to "protect and cleanse" against all untoward influences.


But if we were without any overt evidence of this being the case, we would simply then have had to go on and look at his work on its merits alone, and leave aside any suspicions other than those which are normal and procedural in our ongoing investigations more generally, by which we are enabled to keep an eye out for anything out of place.  And since his work is an overt attempt to influence others, and we already know that there are many people in the world and even in the universe who are eager to do this for all sorts of nefarious reasons, and in all sorts of wicked ways, we have added cause for this concern in the case of writings like his.  In fact, this is something that is thoroughly acknowledged by Dr. Chiappalone in his own writings. It is admitted at length and virtually in every sort of way, so it would be a valid concern about him even if based only upon his own words to that effect.  I have been arguing in my previous iterations in this thread and elsewhere that there are particular reasons which stand out to deserve our unrelenting scrutiny, and so I'm going into those in detail for those reasons.  All this is, once again, simply to explain the context of my efforts, and to better frame the reasons for their unfolding in the manner that they have, which is to say with a decided sort of fixity on what seems like a subtle point about rhetoric, but is actually a weighty point about a whole gamut of issues, philosophical, exegetical, psychospiritual and so forth.  Now on to a further point.


His sanity and authenticity have been challenged on numerous occasions, and it must be said that in some of these situations the questions raised were so significant, especially in light of how they were subsequently handled by Dr. Chiappalone, as to have brought any observer to a reasonably concerned position.  I, as have many, did read over those accounts when first reading his writings, or when reading about him in other contexts.  In fact, I almost ignored his actual work completely because what I first ran into was not his actual Gnostic writings but his diatribes about other people in his life who in various contexts were giving him grief, and about him not having to put up with it, etc.. or the world about to come to an end (already knew that, thanks).  So my first encounter with him was a cause for concern as to the man and his methods.  It wasn't his "content" or "his energy" or any of his prophecies per se, none of which I had ever heard before.  This is the context in which I had to first encounter him, and it already puts the mind duly on guard.


So when I finally found out he existed as an entity which wrote about Gnosticism per se, this was through Amitakh's writing about him on Xee-a-Twelve or whatever, and even this was only because I had already been researching the Problem of Evil and had already been working on that very issue (and had been for a long while).  This happened because I was doing searches on the topics involved and I hit upon an essay of hers, and I found the essence of what she wrote in that particular piece (concerning Mani vs. Augustine) to be actually quite relevant to my work.  I found out through that same website, then, about her relation to her former husband, and then found out about his writings, but only those fragments on his website because I couldn't then arrange the electronic payment required to get a book from him, but had to dig through his horribly thrown-together online gobbely gook, if I may be honest about how it seemed to me, and that meant digging through a lot of personal, and frankly irrelevant material to get occasional indications of his actual positions on matters relevant to my own work.  As to why I couldn't purchase a book then, it was because I was overseas at that time, and the financial instruments were hard to arrange, enough said. 


Well, by the time I got to his books, I had already done enough of my own research on his site, at the Nag Hammadi Library, at Montalk.net, and other places around the internet that, combined with my own Nous and philosophical effort, I constructed a relationship to Gnostic Truth such that I was both aware of my situation, and also aware that something was not right with Dr. Chiappalone, but I couldn't then get fully into it because I hadn't yet read his own books, and felt that I should wait until I had done so to get complete information about his positions and reasons for them.  And besides that, as I have indicated, I do my own work, and I'm not, nor have I ever been principally concerned with his or any other person's.  Yet enough had come up already that I had decided that his references to himself were problematic to the whole package which he was presenting, and so I realized that he could easily be a false being (despite his claims to the contrary, which would be moot under that interpretation anyway, how's that for being circular?).  But I hadn't decided, fully.  I decided that, either way, if the rest of the information I would later find in is work was consistent with the Law of Antivalence I had formulated (and other metaphysical axioms which I formulated, and only some of which I publicly announced and explicated later in Austin), then I wouldn't have to directly concern myself with "his" identity anyway.  What would it really matter?  I wasn't into him for his energy or his prophecy in the first place, and wanted to know what he systematically presented about what I had already been researching anyway.  Was he going to teach things I didn't know?  Would they be significant to my work, novel in any way, inspiring even? We'd see.


Well, when I got back to the States, I had read plenty of his books, but before that had already started my youtube channel years before, and at this point I decided to get serious about confronting the archons in some direct manner before the public, in Good faith against evil.  I was at that time encouraged in so doing by the rather vigorous and virulent writings of Dr. Chiappalone, but found his metaphysical content to be basic and only marginally novel.  What I found most significant was that he did adequately employ the Law of Antivalence (not ever clearly stated by him in a definite way) in explaining his various ideas which he said were given to him energetically.  


Well, he could be given the number pi out to 2000 decimal places energetically, as long as it is found to be accurate upon inspection, what do I actually care?  I'm not interested in where he gets his experiences of information, but rather in what I can make out that is meaningful in his presentation of it.  So I try my best to pass over all his references to his experiences and sources, letting him make his anecdotal references to them with a sense of charity that he may be telling the truth as he perceives it and then perceived it, and that what he says may even be in fact true.  Granted he said a lot of true Gnostic information, and put together lots of insights about the mechanics of exploitation, but that would have been fine right there.  It got a little disturbing when he began to make an argument in his texts that this sort of information was thereby an indication of the veracity of his stories about himself and his other experiences...  That was going in a different direction.  He claimed it was to do the work of helping to sort the True from the false, but this would have been done simply by presenting the information, as would have been the case with any energies supposedly inserted or delivered, as would have been the veracity of his information sources if they were true. All would have been undisturbed in their efficacy if he had simply gone about delivering his message, maybe with one sufficiently clear warning and/or explanation about this part of his purpose, history, and intention, and then move on to the meat.


Well he would move on to the meat, but then he would throw in a lot of barley (his references to his own identity, etc) and it began to look exactly as if he was taking the information relevant to an awakening Gnostic (accessible even to demons, btw, especially concerning exploitation and its structural facilities on metaphysical and physical levels), and weaving it all with his stories about himself precisely in such a way so as to produce a sense that to properly "get" this is to properly "get him" as well.  That was when it was getting ridiculous.  Then his more frequent references, during 2012 especially, concerning his NGE and all that, as well as the dynamics of flux and mutual deception practices in the information war between Good and evil, especially in regards prophetic announcements, and it was all turning into a clear formula like this: Get a Nous-bearing meatbag to read about what it wants, but put all that bait on a hook about me and my battles and my identities and other dramas.  Thereby, more and more, also make it more and more about me such that thoughts and concerns about, as he writes "who I am" are more and more central to the whole experience (and it is, after all, an experience, just as are those he claimed to have, and in his own claims in a continuum with them, and in a sort of hierarchical underclass to them, for everyone else other than a few God-beings he walks on sandy beaches with, or dimension travels with, etc).


Allow me to cuss a bit. But his is a fu*king cult of personality, with Gnostic information thrown on it like sauce, poisoned thoroughly with an insistent and persistent reference to dogmas and myths which he propounds as his own trademarked products of propaganda, on the pretense that it helps awaken people and that in fact, if you don't agree that he is who he says he is and what, then that is a sign YOU are not with THE spiritual program.  So it is an argument from authority, and a circular argument at that, because he is propounding things about this, that and the other, but with the main goal of referring to his role and his significance.


I know many will be looking at this and going "Dude (or Sir), you are, as it were, preaching to the choir".  I say, yeah, but dude, that is like not what I'm doing, because I'm doing philosophy and delineating my gut reactions and other psychospiritual syndromes from the bare facts as they can be logically dissected, and THAT is what makes this a work which is useful to others who don't already have the same feelings and intuitions, but might like to learn about what is going on without just being left with sense that "well dude, that's like, just your opinion man".   So I'm trying identify, and objectify, before I banish!


So this is the work of philosophy, to clarify and legalistically and procedurally gather all the facts, and then assess them fairly, and demonstrate that a certain burden of proof has been established and satisfied validly, and then to conclude the case thoroughly and cleanly, with any ambiguities either cleared up or at least addressed and put in their proper places, so that this is handled in such a manner that what is important in it is not missed nor is it mishandled, and what can be made certain is made certain, and what is not, admitted as uncertain and why in both cases.


So for various reasons of rhetoric and also of illustration, I've thrown in some stuff here about me, my background, my motives, my concerns, my intentions, and my goals.  I've been transparent without being TMI, and I've been short in places without trying to be opaque.  But the goal was achieved, which was simply to enlarge on my relation to the one and his work, both of which I do criticize as extremely flawed, and also damaging to the very "viables" which he claims to be assisting.


If I did keep on going on about myself, and what all this means about me, and what I'm doing in other ways and venues beyond this, it would mark me as exploiting this which I just purported above to serve as a means to other ends.  And that is what I haven't done.  But in the case where Dr. Chiappalone had an opportunity to do right by his readers and hearers, and just tell the Truth of Gnosis, and leave out the pretenses of authority, the pretenses of identity, the pretenses of powers and connections, then he could have been taken more seriously even in those very capacities even if they were never mentioned.  Indeed, many would have suspected, barring evidence to the contrary (of which there has been plenty), that some of what he claims might have been true (of himself), even without being provoked or encouraged to do so in any overt way, simply if he had presented the substance of Truth sufficient to assist viables as would have been the simple telling of Gnosticism to a modern audience in a way that is accurate, because there was a huge niche there waiting for someone to fill it.  But instead of simply doing that, he demonstrably utilized that very fact to attempt to monopolize and assert a unique and worldwide office for himself and his vain, pompous, inflated and arrogant, mis-educated and truth distorting ego, and that cannot be forgiven.


And for the crime of doing this, and claiming many things that would make a POPE blush, I personally and do with all my heart, soul, mind and spirit, based on all evidence found about the matter, and after having duly and carefully scrutinized it, and after having already given him a chance to demonstrate his own good faith which he has not, CONDEMN this man as a fraud, as an impostor, and as a demon of the rankest order.  He may be shy about getting direct in such things, but I will not, not when things are at the point where he is forming a cult around himself, and damaging the image and expression of a Vital Truth in a way that is actually WORSE than the Catholic Church does by far, at least no worse than they ever did for sure.


I WILL defend the Truth against the very God of this world, to the best of my ability, as that is part of what I do within my sphere of influence, in such a way as to make sure that if even one Spirit could have awakened but did not, it will NOT be because I sat back and let some barely disguised mind-control puppet make a travesty of what might have been a real opportunity for That One to awaken. 


I will say also that this foul prig has done more to the service of evil by way of his misrepresentation of Gnosticism as his own personal carpet to ride to the top of a cult centered around his histrionic narcissism, than did ever any Pope since Innocent III.


So while it was anecdotal that I do have some philosophical and personal interests in the purely mechanical, epistemological and argument theoretical issues brought up by this man's actions, I am quite more keenly interested in the ethical, moral and spiritual implications they harbor.  I will confess that I have found my interest in studies I once thought rather dry and barren, specifically in the field of reliabilist epistemology, to be newly interesting.  I would rather not, however, use this situation as a springboard from which to launch a campaign to indicate to others that my intellectual acumen is equal to the task of applying some obscure points of the logic of knowledge and belief to an issue concerning a hierphantic jester, but I will admit that this is, incidentally, a relevant area of the field, where we wish to know the details and implications of stating that we know something if and only if we believe it and it is true and our mode of being informed about all these things is reliably certain.


Cursory application: Dr. Chiappalone has utilized the presentation of information which for Spiritual Gnosis is already reliably certain to construct around himself a soapbox by which to inflate his status in the eyes of others, specifically Spiritual Sovereigns already here in this world under great duress in Our battles, and specifically to define this status as being over Us, and between Us and the world beyond this one from which we are Originally digressed into this one, and has therefore taken what is a Sacred Content and Touchstone and is reliably certain and attempted to corrupt it into a means by which to influence others beliefs about himself, the Truth of which is not known in detail, but is known by this action on his part to be contrary to the interests of the Nous of any Real Being here or anywhere, and so he as acted just as do the archons and demons, and in fact just as would an agent of Yaldabaoth.


He has done this probably as part of a nefarious plan involving secret agencies of the darkest sort, which endeavor to find, isolate, and deceive individuals who may awaken to their True Selves, especially if they come into contact with Gnostic information, and that is why such information was supplied as bait (a tactic he mentions in his writings as a favorite of demons).  He has then ensured that these beings are targeted by some apparatus which directs at them a sort of energy that is not effective save that the target becomes infatuated with Dr. Chiapplone's arbitrary claims of authority vis-a-vis spurious association with Gnostic information which is known by everyone involved to be valid already, so that the Nous of the target is disarmed and turned into a willing victim of whatever designs those who wield such weapons may then have against them (and from the looks of some of those who have already succumbed to this fate, their state of mind and spirit looks quite deteriorated, which may be a prerequisite of this weapon, or a consequence of its effects, or both in some proportion depending on the individual and other circumstances).


Everything else he discusses, regardless of what it has been, is usually something the community of honest people already know, or else something that the community of Gnostic Beings already know, and don't need him to explain anyway.  As to the other things, like his prophecies, that is irrelevant to True Beings because we don't need a fraud to remind us that "the end is nigh".  We have a built in ability to know this, and we don't take blaring of deceivers as a sign that Gabriel has blown his horn.


This is to say, he won't be tooting it when he does.

[MetaOntosis]

I think all that is universally unappealing to Good Gnostic sensibility has been expressed here as far as I can determine.  There may be more, but I think these are the gravest points.  I am not interested in giving evil forces some advantage by this exercise.  In fact the opposite.  I expect that I am harming their efforts by exposing a false messenger, while still holding out that the Essence of the Truth is quite unharmed after being cleanly separated from the absurdities of the person presenting them with such an obviously evil intention to mislead.


I will leave it at these three, and I will try to shorten them up, improve them, and polish them over time.  I expect they will stand the test of time as the "go to" arguments against this impostor, because they are structured on facts, logic, and relevant discourses and events in the world, and they indicate that serious inconsistencies and improprieties have been found and will be addressed.  It is not my main work by a long shot, but because of what my main work is, I cannot help but see this problem and get busy with dealing with it.  



Since it had been an issue with me for a while, one may wonder why have I come out like a bursting dam about it?  Well, it deserves to be dealt with this way, but one is not always able to do something like this properly until the time is right, and even now there are things which stand in the way of doing it full justice.  As I said there are other things to be accomplished far more important, but this is still important enough that it had to be done in at least some form, even if not in the best possible form because the time to conceive its structure and content, and prepare it for interested readers, was not sufficient, yet the delay in doing it could not be further justified by circumstances.



As to the "trigger" which brought down my resolution, it was due to his arrogance being in some way directed at my work on youtube, which was suggested to me was something he took issue with.  I took the matter to him directly, but he snubbed addressing me directly about it.  This confirmed bad faith to me beyond the shadow of any doubt, and so I realized that there could be no more patience extended with the way he has mixed exposition of Gnostic Truths with a pretense at monopolizing the floor in the matters which are at the table for all to see and to which all must come to some relation based upon all available resources.  Anyone who is in bad faith yet makes such sad and obviously circular claims to authority is abusing the power of the Truth contained in anything he otherwise brings up, and this puts those Truths in a bad light, and puts at risk the fates of those who would encounter it without being given access to a proper warning about what is going on, as the manner of his rhetorical method is quite insidious to someone who takes his work in Good Faith, and has some actual Spirituality which is impacted by accounts of Truth relevant to the Logos Within.  This is the case such that egregious abuses of that opportunity to influence such Ones cannot be tolerated once found out.



I'll say that this trigger was really just the final nail in the coffin for Dr. Chiappalone, because it just made all the other evidence click in a firmer way which also had a sort of effect of pissing me off.  I can only withstand so much hypocrisy when it manifests in the form of a donkey's ass, especially when it is blathering on about matters which have been my lifelong focus and sincerest passion.  Someone coming in and bandying about already known Truths as if they didn't exist before he mentioned them, as if they weren't known to others until he "revealed them", and relying on the veracity contained already in those Truths, which are quite independent of him and his agendas, simply to bolster his specious claims about himself per se, is a CRIME in the field of religion which has been committed by men like him from time immemorial, and is always inspired by demonic filth.  I was told this would be an appropriate forum in which to come forth about my responses to this demon and his works, and so now that the opportunity has come about I have done so.  And I will continue to do so.


So the above three posts contain the gist of what I think is the minimum of what needs to be said, and it is not meant to be an exhaustive minimum, let alone maximum of what needs to be said, nor of what else could be usefully said.  I don't claim my statements are immune to criticism as in "insulated", but only logical and sincere rebuttals would be seriously entertained.  The real purpose of this thread is not so much to produce reactions with which to contend with inside the thread, but just to put it out there that, yes, someone who is not at odds with Gnostic Truth has a definite stance against the man and his methods, known as Dr. Giussepe Stephano Chiappalone, and it is not all the case that you have New Agers on one side, and just him on the other, when it comes to proponents of Gnosticism in some form.



It is also the case that I want to use this as an opportunity to contend that hierophants, mystagogues, and other "chosen individuals" had best be categorized as one group, "over there", and that they are either Real or false, and they must be judged by their deeds and words, their consistency and their effects and results, not merely by their own claims, which should be a given, but I think needs to be emphasized.  That is one thing, then also there is what they claim is the truth, what can be done with those claims of truth, both in how they are presented, and what they state and imply, and this is to be separate from what these people want to say about themselves.  If the status of the person is Good and True, then his work should reflect that.  But if the mere fact that he says some True things is all he thinks it takes to make his own claims about himself stand true, then he better think again.  And if he thinks that he he can do that and do it horribly so that it actually sours the supposed agenda of sharing a message of Truth with those who need it, and that this is not damning about him, then about that he is also very mistaken.  I don't care "what" he is, "who" his friends are, or what sort of energies they have: They are being exposed.


And if not by me, then by another who will come after me, because the Truth is Immortal, and these ranks will never be empty.

[Elizabeth]

Thank you for writing this very persuasive and thorough piece focusing on subtler sticking points of Doc Chiappalone's presentation. I can't disagree with anything you've said here. Anyone who has followed Dr. Chiappalone's work has probably held these thoughts before, but you have taken the time to analyze and write them down and it is commendable.

A few more to add to the list:

 1) Hitler is an Attas of the light (?) Specifically programmed and a Rothschild yes...but a being of light?
 2) With the pronouncements (like a beacon) of having to be here in order to pull the final straw out of the camel's back in order to destroy the universe.
 3) Moving the finish line for many years with no more than an explanatory shrug.
 4) Stating that there are now only a few hundred viables worth salvaging on the planet at this time. Hmm....dunno about that.
 
There's much that does point to this being a high level psy-op run by ET/EDs to round up the juiciest spirits, in particular the ones who've finally seen through religions old and new age and ended up coming to a somewhat Gnostic understanding. 

I believe Doc Chiappalone is sincere in that he thoroughly believes what he's writing and saying and doesn't believe he's being used as a tool of entrapment. I read 50+ pages on GodLightProductions a few years back where a lot of distressed former followers shared their stories. He admitted to being a heavy drinker before so maybe he'd blame some of this conduct on that. Either way it's ALWAYS a bad idea to follow another human being and hinge the judgement of one's immortal soul on their fickle say-so.

First I started reading Amitakh Stanford's writings which led me to Doc Chiappalone's work and both of them made sense to me. There is resonance (another risky way to determine truth - on par with emotional experience).

I get the warm, fuzzy, feelings of comfort when I read his words and I'm aware that it could be the bait or pleasure- trap that keeps people coming back to get triggered again. Piece of cake for ETs and our secret governments to pull these emotional experiences off. Always present is ambivalence and inner promptings to be careful.

[MetaOntosis]

/....

I get the warm, fuzzy, feelings of comfort when I read his words and I'm aware that it could be the bait or pleasure- trap that keeps people coming back to get triggered again. Piece of cake for ETs and our secret governments to pull these emotional experiences off. Always present is ambivalence and inner promptings to be careful.

Exactly here, I got a strong muting and whine in my left ear, right at the end of reading this.

I happen to agree with your assessment here.  The pleasure of seeing a force present as Absolute and Antivalent to evil is a pleasure to the Spirit, even when it is merely a mockery.  Any of the movies in cinema which take advantage of this Good versus evil "absolute antivalence" (such as Tombstone, or Lord of the Rings Trilogy), these encourage a real sense of satisfaction in the mind of the person whose Inner Spirit is willing to "come forth" to witness such material, and so colludes with the outer person/mind in the activity, and this creates a temporary Spiritual High because it is a condensation of "what should be" appearing as "what seems to be".  

If that construction is valid, and if the facts under interpretation concerning propaganda fit it soundly, then it goes a way toward explaining how this "bait" works, and why it works.  I cannot excuse his actions on the basis of his own manic embrace of the delusions he has allowed to foster in his mind, and Amitakh's self-centered White Lighting is also a huge put off, in spite of the adroitness of her intelligence, in which, as anyone might expect, I take much pleasure.  Nothing quite as pleasurable as an intelligent woman   .

But these fanciful apparitions fade when they blow against the platinum-iridium of Logic, which cannot in any way be phased by such things anyway, and can be allowed to yield to them only when they are appearances which are substantiated by actual facts!  

But since this means only that we needn't be held hostage by the persons involved, the essence becomes for us to keep the substance which we found in what they said which was True, because that held a valid communion with the Touchstone within our Spirits, and so the Philosopher's Stone will form no matter what the petty conditions happened which were accidental to its generation, since the art of True Alchemy is to discard the accidental and concentrate the Essence.

So I can read some things in Dr. Chiappalone's writings, when I was reading his books, which were useful to read, and have no need of dismissing them because they were useful to read not in virtue of his having written them but because, having been written by anyone who pleases, it was I who read them, and it was my Nous which responded to the Truth.  Even if the Nous hadn't existed until it was implanted by God out of Mercy, and this only upon coming across Truths such as can be found in writings (by anyone), events with persons who may be anyone, and so forth, these events were merely triggers through which it was deemed by Holy Heaven right to use, and not a boon to be attributed to the modus transmissus.

These people, like the Popes on their thrones, however, are themselves stuck somehow with the idea that the transmission module is somehow the substance of what is transmitted.  So there comes a point where listening to anything they say, even if Truth thrice purified and displayed with supreme erudition and grace, is only like listening to a clear recording of what a True Being elsewhere, perhaps myself, may have said, replayed through a device which is in fact part of an apparatus which is designed specifically to harm me by stripping me of the very qualities which it imitates.

What a horrific gesture!

[MetaOntosis]

Recently Chiappalone has declared his pomposity once anew, and with enhanced vigor! This asinine figure of arrogant delusion has it that it is his place to declare this and that about such and so.  That's his bottom line. While adding to this "if you don't like it, you can go to hell" is a surefire way to shoot his own idiotic self in the foot as an authority of any kind, it also adds nothing to his charm, immediately turning many off to him, and unfortunately they may never encounter Gnosticism in any other light than the ridiculous way in which Chiappalone presents it, as a polluted subset of information otherwise drenched in his own "energies".

I would remind anyone that there is NOTHING in his work which is, per se, not already contained here and there throughout the body of literature on the subjects involved!  All he adds is his own wicked need for personal attention.  His level of delusion is running a fever pitch right now.  Guess what critical NEWS he has for everyone!?  *He* is really on the War Council of Light 

Great, that really helps.  And now that he's alerted us all to this stunning revelation, we can just ignore everyone else who ever said they are speaking on behalf of this or that Galactic Federation and so on, etc.  Seth Speaks much?

So once again, it boils down to natural processes.  We see a seed of something "off" in him and "his work", which is the plagiarizing usurpation of Gnostic information, deforming it into his own poisoned cocktail of pernicious grandstanding on behalf of "whomever".  It has borne full and ripe fruit, for it started as a hint here and there, and now it is fully blaring out "Hey, none to the Father but through me", which Jesus nor any Avatar ever said.  He has as much as said it, this arrogant demon sh*t.

Remember, the Truth Within does not require any reference to a Special Agent who announces himself publicly, especially not in this manner in which this fraud has done so.  All you need is within you.  If information is presented to you "from without", that is totally superfluous.  Take it with caution, always referencing back to your own Inner Core Nous, and leave out the toxins which are usually lathered on such information!  We are in an information war-zone of evil spirits trying to drag everyone and everything down into hell and consequential oblivion with them.  All it takes is a slightly imbalanced personality with an ego the size of a speeding garbage truck, feed it some New Age gumbo disguised as "radically different", and you can get a Chiappalone Special just like that, lickety split.  

The key is that he's fishing for some sort of belief/faith adherence to his own personal fantasies about himself and "his role" in all this.  He's not genuinely trying to guide people to True Self Realization.  That's the fatal sign about him.

It doesn't matter how much truthful information he mixes with his spiritual arsenic, it will be poison in the end.  He likes to throw around words like "spiritual bastard" but forgets to check his own lineage carefully enough.  I fully do oppose him and "his work", which is sh*t, basically.  Go to the Nag Hammadi, go to any other sources, you don't need his crap.  But if that's your thing, by all means dive into it!  It seems that is de facto invitation for his special sauce to be directed at you, for whatever that's worth.  It's green if that helps.  It supposedly makes some people feel good, and other are not made to feel good, and flee in terror.  No, I don't suppose it is Cannabis, but I'd rather try that than whatever he's hocking.

BUT HEY!  He "doesn't care one whit" what anyone thinks of him or what he says (what a laughable pretension of confidence, because it comes off as sheer bravado).  So that's to tell us what?  It says NOTHING!  Lot's of delusional people also don't care one whit what others think about anything, and care so little they never make any outward indications of that fact.


In any event, such horrible rhetoric aside, the point is that at bottom this fool thinks it literally matters WHEN the world is "going to end".  It is such a ridiculous assertion, it belies his very own ignorance of eschatology.  He will talk about the dynamic aspects of the presentation of information and the question of their fulfillment or not, and if to be fulfilled then in what way and in what time.  About how all this is subject to variation dependent upon complex factors beyond our limited and humanly weak position from which to know anything about such factors.  He talks about this like he, however, has a special insight into such things, provided to him by "his sources".  

WHO CAN'T CLAIM SUCH A THING, and WHY would it matter?  It can only matter if by mentioning it he wants to seduce people into believing specifically that tripe about him.  It adds not "one whit" of authority or weight, or credulity, or even presentational clarity to anything substantive which could be written about matters of Truth and conscience here or anywhere!  He seems to think he's Moses and wants to throw his stick on ground to prove it, but like Moses in that story he just appears to be an arrogant and misguided ass.

So he thinks he's a prophet, BIG DEAL. That has NO, as in ZERO bearing on Gnosticism, and that little narcissistic pet project of his has no more value or weight in the consideration among Gnostics than any other mysterious drivel which has ever fallen from the facial (or other) orifices of beings, human or otherwise.  So while water can be derived and purified though it was drawn from a toilet, I say in this case, why bother?  Because that's "his work", to take golden information of Gnostic significance, coat poisoned, rotten, infested apples with it, and then drop them in his toilet and tell you to go bobbing for it there.  Neat that he has the consideration to remind us we can "leave it" be if we so wish.  Seeing how he has taken a reflection of the moon and not the moon itself, I see no reason at all not to "leave the sh*t out of it" and get my information from better sources, of which there are MANY, and quite better than his manipulative crap.

So beyond this, he wants to make a big fuss about the relativity of eschatological utterances, but demands that his mere mentioning of this makes him a clear front-runner prophet for serious consideration.  Not to mention his bad form in that capacity for now, it is enough to say that he has said nothing concerning what has been impending on this planet that isn't already known by many, has been suggested and mentioned, predicted, by MANY, many of whom were involved in some way and leaked this information!  It's not like the world was completely asleep about such things and then CHIAPPALONE came along and clanged his truth symbals in a unique way.  Many of these disasters had long been foreseen, had already happened from other dimensional perspectives, had been predicted by people who didn't have to go to the Chiappalone school of metaphysics to see what was going on, etc.  So it is amazing that he can get off of who knows what train of self-important posturing, induced by whatever drugs, alien implants, black ops directed energy devices, or who knows what and expect to be taken seriously in saying he's said something unique and unheard of in terms of end-time events, because this stuff has been rolling down hill for centuries, and people had seen in coming in ALL MANNER throughout this century.  Just Chiappalone was calling out in the wilderness till now?  Really?  He really believes this?  I can't believe he's that stupid.  He must think everyone else is, however, since he actually presents that as a stellar qualification for his own credibility.  While a false premise, at least it is worth falsifying, and beats hearing "I know, because I KNOW, and that's IT" etc.  Sorry if you vomited upon reading that, but yes, that's what sort of thing he actually likes to write and expect you to willingly read without sneering all up and down one side of your face and wanting to puke.  Go figure.

More like "Take it or FLUSH it".

But as to the question of whether it even could matter, leaving aside the issue of his lacking any credible reason to be taken seriously in the prophetic regards, or in any others due to this and other antics, how could it even matter if it were going to end?  It is ALWAYS GOING TO END.  It was ALWAYS GOING to end.  I don't know where he got his fantasies of knowing anything meaningful about Zoroaster, but Zoroaster knew all about THE END, and it was ALWAYS NEAR, ALWAYS.  It doesn't "become" near to some era.  It is ALWAYS HERE.  We are and have always been "at the END".  It is both simpler and more complex than a dimwit like Chiappalone can comprehend. 

The "time" it takes for "THE END" to manifest is a special subset for each individual soul-being, and this is a subset of the "time" it takes for "THE END" to manifest for all beings.  They are interrelated "times".  There is a dynamic tension between them, and they all cohere into the final "Omega Point", when the last bit of all this goes down the drain of destruction and transmutation as Zoroaster LONG AGO described as "the inevitable".  It doesn't matter "when" it happens in linear time!  All that matters is what YOU, the individual, are doing to make the appropriate Moral Decisions, and take the appropriate actions by your Best and Highest Minded Judgement.  It has not ONE WHIT to do with what some fool coming out of the desert or any other place wants to say about "when" it is coming.  It is ALWAYS COMING, and only a MORAL OAF needs to be told that it doesn't matter how "far away" or "near" in time, but he "must do his duty"! Arjuna was an oaf, and he got set straight by Krishna.  I don't think there is a Krishna capable of setting an oaf like Chiappalone straight except by lopping off his head.

It is always RIGHT ABOVE YOUR CROWN chakra, as the divine Judge's Sword of Justice, and you better bet it is cutting in REAL TIME.  Now who the hell needs Chiappalone to tell them how many years out it may or may not be in earth years when you know THAT?  And who gives a DAMN what he has to say about sh*t or SHIOLA when you know THAT?  Knowing and contemplating the Truth in what I just said however can add some iotas to your chances of awakening.  It has nothing to do with any space ships, alien friends, war councils, special energies, etc.  I can DEDUCE and present it to you in away that is straightfoward, metaphysically palpable, as you know if time works in terms of Moral Value, then the end has already happened.  Foolish is the one who thinks "I have time" and idles...

Foolish the one who looks out for the end...  for it is already here, and already has been for some time...

Foolish he who claims authority when he has none, and foolish he who makes the steps of the Righteous shaky with is nonsense claims about himself... he is damned for sure and certain!

[Elizabeth]

"We see a seed of something "off" in him and "his work", which is the plagiarizing usurpation of Gnostic information, deforming it into his own poisoned cocktail of pernicious grandstanding on behalf of "whomever".  It has borne full and ripe fruit, for it started as a hint here and there, and now it is fully blaring out "Hey, none to the Father but through me", which Jesus nor any Avatar ever said.  He has as much as said it, this arrogant demon sh*t"(MetaOntosis).

...if I didn't know any better I'd say he's posturing like an old god what's trying to sop up the last bits of loosh.

Recognizing or not recognizing one (bad) actor's authority could never count even a feather's weight upon the scales of spirit-worthiness. 

[MetaOntosis]

 

...if I didn't know any better I'd say he's posturing like an old god what's trying to sop up the last bits of loosh.

Recognizing or not recognizing one (bad) actor's authority could never count even a feather's weight upon the scales of spirit-worthiness. 

Yes, and the fact that he is immune to recognizing this indicates that he and his ilk really do rely on such a gamble, that it can hook people who might have known better if only the trick were just a little plainer.  It only gets the more simple-minded ones in the end, and those are generally not "spiritually viable" anyway (what an irony).  The one's who are Spiritual Beings are only partly deceived at worst, and will successfully pull away from his bullshit although not without some significant delay or other problems caused for their agendas.  It leaves a mark to take in the poison this guy is peddling, and I can say that it was a struggle with me from the first. Fortunately I got good messages which I listened to, which explained that his was a long term project, and that careful separation of truth from falsehood had to be the emphasis, and for that I had to develop my own systematic understanding of matters from my own Nous anyway, so at first exposing him was merely incidental.  Then it became critical as he "stepped up his game" and began just hanging it out there what sort of cretin he is after all.  As I said, I can tolerate arrogance and bullshit only so long, and then I must call it as I see it.

Thankfully, others have been seeing it, so I don't have to explicate these findings without anyone gaining from them!

[Elizabeth]

The more strident he gets, the more fence-sitters will recoil. Chiappalone's personal belief in these experiences as well as their benevolence helps sell the scheme he is pied piper-ing for.  They need idealist beings to front their causes.

Hypnotic Snake Magick: stating intentions, repeating it enough so as to lull listeners into a trance, then slipping in outrageous statements and getting away with it. Hssss...

The emotional effect of repeated consumption of Chiappa's words: comfort and visceral delight giving way to dysentery, depression, apathy.

 Dark side for sure needs warriors to give up and hand it over so passivity has been carefully programmed in to the human being.

Thank you again for clarifying subtle sticking points and exposing the catches.

~~~

"It is a cookie cutter example of how the Reptoids operate.  Manipulation is the name of their game.  And like any con, after the bait has led to the bite, they start reeling it in.  They alter the proportion of slack and pull so as to take the fight out of the victim, and draw it in as imperceptibly as possible.


  They prefer to convince the fish to leap into their jaws if possible, but otherwise reel it in more and more aggressively only in some proportion to the weakness of the victim.  But they would like to pull such a stunt as to teach it to be blind to this process and just swim into their mouths like it's a blessing!


  But the more trash he talks the more it shows what he's really about: his own cult of narcissistic delusion.  What a mind job!  Dr. "It is because I SAY it is!!" Chiappalone!  Mr. "I know because I know!" Chiappalone!  Guiseppe "take it or leave it" Chiappalone."(MetaOntosis)