Ruck ⚓️

@SethKicklighter @ShaneFrakes @ShaneFrakes you gotta read this. don't let them incept you

@ShaneFrakes i hate to disagree with you kind sir!

You haven’t lived until you’ve waged a lifelong astral war with the Man in Black and still showed up the next morning as if nothing had happened.

@SethKicklighter @LostMyHats so basically this?

@zeroruck @LostMyHats if they’re there on a wednesday night, corner them after the group sesh. maybe have a homie help you to seem less weird. that’s what i did lol

The retarded thing about Greg Abbot signing the Nohide proclamation in Texas - besides the part about decapitating Christians - is that he has been outspoken against Sharia Law. In fact, he signed HB 4211 last year, banning "Sharia compounds" in residential districts. Fun fact: Halakha Law, the Jewish legal system that forms the basis of the Noahide framework, is nothing but Jewish Temu-Sharia. To put it another way, it's Sharia Law for Jews. And it's just as oppressive. The lesson? When Muslims do it, it's bad and we have to stop it. When Jews do it, we pass it off as part of our "Judeo-Christian heritage." When we figure out that Judaism is one side of the same exact flip-coined as Islam, we'll start making better choices. What SHOULD happen is the Supreme Court striking down the Texas proclamation under the Establishment Clause. What COULD happen instead is that the Supreme Court now strikes down the Sharia ban because it's obvious religious discrimination when Sharia gets banned, and Halakha gets proclaimed. We could end up with both un-American systems enshrined in American legal precedent. That's the type of juicy double standards courts love to get involved in. Thanks, Chabad! They're the same thing. Both Halakha and Sharia use divine revelation as the source of binding law, both use the rabbinic/scholarly class as interpreters of the law, both use oral tradition to supplement written religious texts, and both have comprehensive religious jurisdiction over civil, criminal, and personal life. In fact, Muhammad's exposure to Jewish legal and theological thought in 7th-century Arabia is well documented by Islamic historians and led to the framework Muslims use for Sharia. Sharia was built in a world shaped by Halakha. They're almost identical legal frameworks.

@SCHIZO_FREQ add a zero

Elon has a ten trillion dollar company on his hands if he can figure out how to replace the Indian bots with Japanese ones

@ShaneFrakes you really think you're an interdimensional power ranger? lol

@sportdrink Avg French guy

Every post I see from this guy is the most retarded shit ive ever seen in my life

I can't wait for every single non-denominational church in TEXAS this weekend to not say a single fucking thing about this

@SethKicklighter @HuntClancy Just pictured them as these guys lmao

@zeroruck @HuntClancy well duh, they’re machine elves, not solar powered libtard elves

after listening to his explanation I understand why he’s banned

@SethKicklighter @NinthHouseFemme Ahahahahahah. JUNGLE FEVER 🤒

@zeroruck @NinthHouseFemme ruck you know i like my women exactly how i like my coffee😤

⚠️THREAD OF ASTRAL TRAVEL BEING CONTROLLED SIMULATIONS LORE🧵🧵🧵 In my new book Spirit Realm Shenanigans! I solidify the concept that spirit beings (claiming to be guides, i call demons) can and will create elaborate and detailed simulations with godlike control and mastery akin to an auto generative video game. @Jason_Jorjani decided to insult my intelligence (fair) instead of hearing examples of excerpts from astral travelers themselves which he derives much of his data from. He verbally pants me in the cafeteria and everybody saw my underwear, instead of my golden (perhaps bronze) heart. Below is a thread of my attempt at righteous internet vengeance (animosity free🫀). Here are excerpts from Bob Monroe’s OOBE trilogy, Kurt Leland’s Otherwhere (Monroe Institute Contributor), and a handful of MANY MORE adjacent excerpts from practitioners themselves. Their words are all in italics, mine are not and clearly sassy/reasonable. Skip to just the italics if you want idc!!

@NinthHouseFemme @SethKicklighter Jena when you look into your newborn child’s eyes you will see and experience a vast expanse of love and purpose that will put all hyperspace to shame

@SethKicklighter Haha 🤣 but I wish to learn something from the hyperspace which many people have mapped out. However, my plan is to have a family for sure.

@SethKicklighter @NinthHouseFemme @NinthHouseFemme he’s asking you out for coffee

@NinthHouseFemme JENA YOU DONT NEED TO HYPERSPACE JUST HAVE SOME KIDS AND BANG SOME HOT GUY BE GRATEFUL BUT IN THE OPPOSITE ORDER I SAID OBVIOUSLY

@SethKicklighter @HuntClancy Bro who knew the oil crisis is affecting the machine elves!

@HuntClancy the demonic realm is just short staffed! x.com/sethkicklighte…

I think I understand your viewpoint better now. I think we’re now discussing the retrocausality of retrocausality itself lol I agree with you that the very temporal order itself hinges upon the cross. I think this is intuitive from many verses and explanations. The fact God knew sin would enter the world and would need a resolution. He had to have a solution to this problem before it began. Which exactly points to the cross. This is what you’re positing in effect. What I’m picturing in my mind and you can correct me if I’m wrong if this is “enough” to satisfy your position. The cross event came into being in the mind of God before creation began. He knew this would be needed for the whole thing to work. I think what you’re trying to say is the very concept and ideal of the cross predates the very concept and idea of creation itself! My theory says the cross became the foundation of the home that was being built. But it doesn’t fully satisfy the WHY the home was built in the first place. A chicken and egg paradox. It’s a bit of a rough answer that leaves the home being built as a sort of thing that just happens just cause. Not very good, we can do better. Contrasting , your theory says there isnt even the idea of a home let alone a foundation without knowing why you want to build it. You’re trying to satisfy extreme precision in the original mechanism and the first domino that sets things in motion. So in an ultra abstracted view God knew the cross was needed before he thought about creation. So cross came “first” as a super structured ‘idea’ that predates creation metaphysically. I think this further meshes our viewpoints. My theory is explains the retrocausal nature of the cross one layer deep, occurring within time and its effects happening forward and backwards. Your theory is like the derivative (or integral) of that retrocausality. It’s a second layer deep that explains the why of the why. I think flushing these out these retrocausals as separate yet together helps make the argument be more cogent and slightly easier to digest and leaves less of the exact mechanism to abstract thought and speculation Such a vast and deeply complex concept and explanation requires such an equal answer too!

This is a genuinely thoughtful refinement and you've improved the precision of the discussion in an important way. The formulation you're proposing does real work, and I want to acknowledge that before drawing the one distinction that I think still matters. I agree with a great deal of what you're proposing. The cross is a single event within history. Its effects are not confined to that moment. And describing those effects as propagating both forward and backward in time is a meaningful way to express the cross's trans-temporal significance. That formulation integrates cleanly with the once-for-all language of Hebrews and the sequential structure we discussed earlier. On that level you've genuinely strengthened the coherence of the model and I think that's a real contribution to the discussion. Where I think a distinction still matters is in how we understand the nature of that trans-temporal relation. In the model you're proposing, the cross occurs at a point in time and its effects propagate backward to ground what precedes it. The past depends on the cross through retroactive extension. That is a coherent and powerful model. But it still treats the cross as operating within a timeline that is already in place as the medium of that propagation. The timeline itself is the given. The cross works within it, even backward. The claim the paper is making is slightly different. It is not that the cross reaches back through an existing timeline to ground earlier states. It is that the timeline itself depends on the cross as a condition of its possibility. That is a different kind of dependence. To put it as precisely as possible: Your model: the cross occurs, its effects propagate across time in both directions, earlier states are grounded by that retroactive extension. The paper's claim: the cross is not just propagated across time but is ontologically prior to the possibility of the temporal order itself. Backward propagation explains how an event can influence earlier points within a given temporal system. Ontological grounding asks what must be true for that temporal system to exist at all. Those are not interchangeable questions and they require different levels of explanation. This is also where the physics analogy reaches its limit, and I want to be precise rather than dismissive about this because the analogy is genuinely illuminating up to a point. The retrocausal experiments you're referencing demonstrate non-linear correlations within a pre-existing spacetime framework. They show that effects can precede causes within a system that is already given. What they don't address is what grounds the existence of that framework itself. The experiments presuppose the medium. The paper's claim is about what makes the medium possible. So even granting full bidirectional propagation within linear time, the question the paper is asking remains open: is the cross an event whose influence extends backward through an existing timeline, or is it a condition without which the timeline itself could not exist? Your model gives a strong and coherent account of the first. The question is whether the text is pointing toward the second. And that is where the lexical argument still matters. The New Testament had precise vocabulary for describing pre-temporal relation in terms of foreknowledge. First Peter 1:20 uses foreknown before the foundation of the world, which is exactly the kind of language that would fit a propagation model. Revelation does not use that word. It uses slain. That is not epistemic language describing what God knew. It is event language describing what has occurred, applied in direct relation to the foundation of the world. If the intent were simply to describe retroactive influence through time, the available vocabulary could have expressed that. The choice of slain creates pressure that the propagation model, however well-constructed, does not fully resolve. So I would frame the synthesis this way. What you've proposed is a stronger and more physically grounded account of how a temporally located event can have trans-temporal effects. That is a genuine improvement and it closes some of the tension with Hebrews 10 that the earlier exchange raised. The additional question the paper is pressing is whether the text is pointing beyond trans-temporal influence toward something more like constitutive dependence. Not that the cross propagates its effects back through time, but that the temporal order itself depends on the cross as its prior condition. That may not be strictly required by the text. But I don't think it can be reduced to propagation alone without leaving part of the language under-explained.

“Retrocausality makes the cross weight-bearing in an absolute sense. It is not merely the remedy for what went wrong within creation, but the condition that made creation possible at all. That is not an unnecessary extra step. It is an attempt to locate the cross at the deepest ontological level rather than treat it only as a contingent response to human failure.” I think you just stated the perfect key explanation for the Cross. I fully agree with what you just said here. And I may have a proposal that marries both our stances. Working together and integrating both. Let me explain While reading your response it came to mind how Christ’s act on the cross was for ALL SIN past, present, and future. We can all agree on this. The act on the cross sent reverberations through linear time propagating FORWARD AND BACKWARDS. This is the very definition of retrocausality, and adds even more strength and reference to your argument. I believe it’s possible to presume that the cross event happened ONCE, in linear time, (not outside of time as you explain) still can carry the ontological weight you express all the way back to before the creation of the world. The shockwave itself becomes the foundation that sets creation in motion as you say. We can all agree the absolute significance and necessity of the cross event being integral and vital to allow creation to ensue. I find it even more incredible that time occurred linearly from the beginning and that an act 2000 years after the story began then becomes the backbone of the beginning of the story. I also believe this view is more aligned to the actual physics understanding we see in proven retrocausal experiments. The experiments that have been shown happen in linear time and we see their effects forward and backward in time. The experiments don’t (need to) occur ‘outside’ time itself. Local linear reality is where effect happens/is measured and the ‘outside’ is the transmission medium of the cause which then appear back in linear time. So yes, the Cross event is/was a retrocausal event. But it just occurred from within linear time, in keeping with the explanations of the Bible that this was an ontologic and metaphysically singular event. The effects of it obey and complement your initial stance. The Retrocausal first domino to fall in a sense does not need to occur outside of time. It can and does occur within linear time. Which is what science experiments have proven. I don’t know if it could ever be possible to prove the ‘outside’ retrocausality you express. Let me know what you think!

Thank you for this. It's a fair and honest objection and it deserves a careful response. You're right that divine omniscience explains a great deal. If God knew the cross was necessary before creation and structured creation accordingly, that account is coherent, parsimonious, and has served the tradition well. The paper doesn't dispute any of that. The question is whether omniscience and retrocausality are actually equivalent explanations, or whether they're doing different work. Omniscience explains anticipation. God knew the cross would happen and planned around it. That's a forward causal chain with perfect foreknowledge attached. The creation happens, history unfolds, the cross occurs, God had known all along. The cross is necessary and foreseen, but it remains a response to conditions that preceded it, even if those conditions were themselves foreseen. Retrocausality makes a different and stronger claim. The cross is not merely anticipated by creation. It is generative of it. The event precedes the world not in God's foreknowledge but in the causal structure of reality itself. Creation doesn't set up the conditions for the cross. The cross is what makes creation possible. It's worth distinguishing this from the Scotist tradition, which also elevates the cross beyond a mere response to the fall. Duns Scotus argued that the incarnation was willed by God absolutely, prior to and independent of any foreseen sin. That's a genuine and important alternative to the Augustinian damage-control model. The retrocausal reading shares that instinct but goes further. Scotus locates the incarnation as the apex of creation's purpose within God's will. Retrocausality locates the cross as the causal condition of creation's existence. The difference is between a plan and a foundation. Both resist reducing the cross to contingency. Only one makes it structurally constitutive. That distinction matters because of the text's own word choice. The apostolic corpus had foreknowledge vocabulary available. 1 Peter 1:20 uses it explicitly, προεγνωσμένου, foreknown before the foundation of the world. Revelation doesn't use that word. It uses slain. If omniscience were the sufficient explanation, foreknown was available and would have been the natural choice. The choice of slain suggests the text is reaching for something stronger than anticipation, something constitutive rather than merely foreseen. Retrocausality accounts for that lexical choice more fully. On Occam's razor, the simpler explanation wins if it accounts for all the data equally well. But if the text is deliberately choosing event language over foreknowledge language, omniscience leaves that specific lexical choice under-explained. The gravitas question cuts the other way. If the cross is only the solution God planned for a problem he foresaw, its significance remains logically downstream of the problem. Retrocausality makes the cross weight-bearing in an absolute sense. It is not merely the remedy for what went wrong within creation, but the condition that made creation possible at all. That is not an unnecessary extra step. It is an attempt to locate the cross at the deepest ontological level rather than treat it only as a contingent response to human failure.

@SethKicklighter @TopLobsta @RedPandaKoala

@TopLobsta @RedPandaKoala Done, let’s start with that. then duval defamation time! gonna need 3 hours this this time tho🫱🏻‍🫲🏾 (u can lie to me)

🚨 Reports from multiple psychonauts that they are being kicked out of the DMT realm

the retrocausality felt like an excessively complex solution to a simple question and answer. Yes God knew that the cross was integral and necessary for the entire creation event to exist. Because of the freedom he bestowed upon us, the potential for rebellion was built in, and as you mentioned God needed a solution for this (Salvation). God's omniscience easily explains the forward and backward propagation of the Cross event. Also imparting the importance of the Cross event to NEED to happen outside of linear time feels like force fitting the narrative. The exact moment in linear time God chose to set things in motion would be perfect by default. By his will and choice alone. By imposing a higher retrocausal structural requirement seem like adding extra steps that aren't necessary nor does the "simpler" solution detract from the weight/importance/gravitas of the Cross event

"The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world." Was He though? I mean, you've named your article after the wording we find in the King James Version, and you've rested the entire superstructural weight of a mighty theological argument upon this foundation. But does the foundation support anything at all? Revelation 13:8 (KJV) And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. So far so good. But upon closer examination, we see a problem emerges from a few other major English translations: NASB All who live on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slaughtered. ESV ...everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. LSB ...everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. So then to the Greek: καὶ προσκυνήσουσιν αὐτὸν πάντες οἱ κατοικοῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, οὗ οὐ γέγραπται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ ἀρνίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. Here we find the Greek phrase ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου comes at the end of the verse, so a literal reading would have the phrase attach to the Lamb who was slain. But there's the other option as well - which would attach ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου to the names written in the Lamb's book of life. And this is an important question, so we must resolve the dilemma; especially when writing articles like the above in which the weight of argument needs to rest on the correct answer. The phrase "from the foundation of the world/cosmos" attaches either to the Lamb or to the names written in the book. Is there biblical precedent for one option or the other? Of course there is: Revelation 17:8 (KJV) ...And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. Used here is precisely the same construction in Greek, ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. And with a little digging we discover this precise phrase appears in the Greek New Testament seven times: Matthew 13:35 and 25:34, Luke 11:50, Hebrews 4:3 and 9:26, Revelation 13:8 and 17:8. The two examples from Revelation we've already looked at. But one on the list is of further benefit to us in resolving this dilemma decisively: Hebrews 9:26 (KJV) He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Thus, we would be left with a contradiction on our hands if we insisted upon the KJV rendering of Revelation 13:8. Only one can be correct. Here we have in Hebrews 9:26 the answer to the question - Christ, the Lamb of God, was slain once at the consummation of the ages (KJV has it "end of the ages" and the Greek has συντέλεια, from συντελέω meaning in either case, entire or completion, i.e. consummation or end. So there has been a debate about which subject the phrase ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου rightly attaches to in Revelation 13:8, either the names written in the book or to the Lamb who was slain, but the more modern translations have corrected the error made by the King James translators and have attached ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου to the names written in the book. Without this correction, the conflict in the King James would be unresolved and we'd be left with TWO sacrifices of the Lamb; one before the foundation of the world in Revelation 13:8 and one at the end (KJV) or consummation of the ages in Hebrews 9:26. When the correct answer to the debate is relied upon, the contradiction in the KJV resolved, and we find that the Lamb was not slain from the foundation of the world but was slain once, where the Gospels reflect, and which the Letter to the Hebrews describes as happening at the consummation of the ages. The event was central to all things, but did not occur before the foundation of the world, and the above argument of retrocausality is therefore unnecessary.

@Truthpole must be the oil crisis...

Why are psychonauts are getting banned by entities in the DMT realms? Is something major happening there , or something's coming 👁

@DavidLCorbo The cool kids call this hyperstition

If they manufacture end times prophecy and it takes place on a global scale, is that not the fulfillment of prophecy? I’m not saying I believe it is but I think it’s an interesting discussion

remember, in the Bible there are multiple warnings for us against any and all forms of divination and witchcraft. explicitly because they DO work, and they will pull you away from God and the truth. The enemy wants to twist, manipulate, and plant the tiniest little lies in us. Anything that draws us away from God or tries to 'add' is highly dangerous and playing with fire.

@SethKicklighter @RedPandaKoala Thank you very much, I’m glad I found your work. I am a curious person, I will continue to read and learn. God bless.

@damienslash Paging the psyop game master @SethKicklighter

I have been banned from the DMT realm