May 14Liked by Geopolitics & Empire


"But why had science lost it's way in the first place?

What appeal could these teachings of Pythagoras and Plato have had to their contemporaries?

They provided I believe an intellectually respectable justification for a corrupt social order."

from 30:00 to 44:00


Expand full comment
May 14·edited May 14Author

Yeah Sagan's analysis is a completely Delphic interpretation of science. He's a gatekeeper.

Kepler used those very solids because the harmonic proportions needed to build the musical scale could be derived from the harmonic ordering governing the orbits of the planets in the solar system.

Sagan is acting as a Delphic priest to mystify the geometrical approach that allowed one to establish modern Astronomy by Kepler. The solids represented the boundedness of space time, whose proportions could be derived from their construction.

One can consult Plato's Timaeus to get a feel for that, and appreciate how scientific discovery, then as today, was perverted by mystifying those key geometrical questions of harmony governing a lawfully organized system of planetary bodies.

Sagan, like all the occultists, treats the solids as mystical forms, when they are in fact an exploration of the essential harmonic proportions which can be found governing the relationships between the planets.

This is a good primer:


Expand full comment

I agree with a lot of schillers philosophy.

Expand full comment

Rather than get lost on distraction, contemplate the specific quote. ;-)

Expand full comment

they did this because they had something to compete aganist. the problem as i see it is in the republic, it's a dystopian hellscape of state control. based on Sparta. people think that going to war for helen of troy, was fiction. no. helen was from sparta, she was given by sparta, who had Sole Possession of the means of production of warriors. She was never a free woman. she was state property. by law, if a woman did not produce with one man, she would be supplied to another. ancient writers believed that the people who became the people of abraham, were originally from Sparta. communal living, denial of family (husbands slept in the barracks) extreme control by the state. Sound familiar? Plato had many dealings with people in Egypt. a power center of ancient priests who knew how to keep a population under control. over great spans of time. Plato was the beginning of the end of the classical world. of all the books and thinkers in antiquity, why is only he left? Democratus, who deduced there were atoms, so many ideas, and beauty of mankind was destroyed. do you ever wonder if the recent attacks on things like the Physical magna carta, that happened yesterday, are to erase important human works from human memory? it is happening now. if all we had left was the Ethiopian bible with it's 88 books, the aliens Are in there, we'd have to believe in them or be heretics.

Expand full comment
May 14Liked by David Gosselin, Geopolitics & Empire

Maurice Strong (Rockefeller oil magnate) tried this in Crestone Colorado . He with his millions failed. They with their billions will also fail.

Expand full comment

Indeed, they will ultimately fail! But...it will be a heck of a ride from here to there!

Expand full comment

In simplistic terms Chislam..the fabrication of chabad noahide l decapitation law advocate ..Jewdevil occultist Jared kushner...the minder of 45..T-rump...the fact that AI was used to position .by occult micronudging..entrainment..entrancing and entrapping by. chabad Lubavitch and AI ,the previously unaware public ..is almost old news now.New AI religions ..Cern portal "research"..the old mystery religions..apparently once unified now separate are to be revisited, reunified and imposed by plutocrat Jew cyborg Controligarchs in a global way..**Non semiotic phraseology. ..like "The New Barbarians"is emplaced center stage in 2024. Look up.."Apparently Bergoglio and the Lord Satan are thrilled.**.... Notice...cults everywhere..not only ultra Jewish scientology..or Jewish freemasonry...have you seen the new mother of God cult (s) that are quite popular and quite common with black and brown folks?...Christians beware!** John 8v44 Rev 2v9 Rev 3v9 Rev 13v18. **Read before the Jews felonize the new Testament.**. Caveat Emptor.

Expand full comment

The cult is medical science and the baptism/ initiation is vaccination....not funny that this cults cure for fear of death is death itself.

Expand full comment

I have written quite a lot about this. it is hard to condense a lifetime of study, but here is the short. in every faith, there is a life affirming path, and a death affirming one. even the abrahamics. the death affirming one is political success. Burn witches, inquisition 4 crusades, native people erased, and the future will be more of the same- kill those who do not agree with you. I have articles written about this, but feared the backlash. the first great reset WAS the abrahamic religions. 3 books, that's all. One person can write that in a lifetime easily. for these 3 books the great libraries of the Maya, and Alexandria Burned and Hypatia was skinned alive with seashells. Besides the aliens bs, they are pushing people into abrahamic boxes and riling them up on purpose. you will be driven to destroy each other, so the alien bs can resolve the conflict. This war was baked into the cake and always the plan.you cannot see it, unless you study all 3 faiths, and their history. then you must study the kult of kali. Do you recall the statue of shiva at that weird cern ritual? shiva is kali's husband. she was a sweet housewife, but only she could slay a monster, but if she did so, she would become a monstrous thing, never to return back. there is one way to temper the left hand path, and it was done in ancient Greece. Apollo balanced Dionysus (the root of christianity) and he became mostly beneficial. 70 thousands baccantes died in the arena of rome. way more than christians. this is why it was chosen to fashion the new faith, i believe. the kult of kali was a human sacrifice kult, they relish death. one of the other abrahamics was fashioned of the bones of this kult, for the people that once worshiped that very goddess.

Expand full comment
May 15·edited May 15

It gets tiresome listening to yet another person with an opinion about what we should do with our divine powers. God help us all if we are divine, or are to become divine, or are to blend with the rest of what is divine, because we are, above all, evil. That is our nature - self-serving, easily deceived, arrogant. If we are divine, as Gosselin claims, then we are in eternal trouble because what is divine is then, also, inherently evil. And that is because pure holiness, pure goodness, must be utterly unpolluted by evil. We fool ourselves if we think it is about being more good than bad, or better than most other people, or progressing so we can get better and better and better. That is merely an accommodation of our moral failings. Goodness means no taint of evil at all - past, present, or future. And we're not that - something made evident to us by our conscience, which has been given to us by God, so that we will not be tricked into thinking we are morally pure. To ignore evil, to forget it, deny it, or excuse it, is to countenance evil.

Those who consider themselves to be esoteric elitists have, for the longest time, complained about how the purity of their approach has been tainted by commoners who attempt to access the esoteric on the cheap, thereby poisoning the well. That is like a someone who is engaged in high-level financial fraud complaining that car-jackers give theft a bad reputation. As far as I can tell, that is what Gosselin is doing. God has revealed Himself: God is holy, merciful, all-powerful, all-knowing, and has sent His Son to die for our sins. God has not revealed Himself as the absence of contradiction. We approach God by confessing our sins, not by untangling some intellectual knot.

Gosselin does not understand human nature, power, evil, wisdom, or the trajectory of the human race. If anyone is listening to this podcast and is genuinely interested in the truth, don't listen to Gosselin, read the Bible. We find truth in Jesus Christ. Anyone who studies the Bible with sincerity will discover the historical validity of what has been written, and what has been prophesied, and will be able to make complete sense of everything that is currently going on in the world. The idea that we are divine is a doctrine of demons. It always has been. It began in Genesis with the promise that we would be like God. It was a lie then, it is a lie now. And we have little time left to figure out where we all stand.

Expand full comment

You say that the body and the world are evil, but that's not what Jesus taught at all in his teachings. The idea that this world and the body are evil is itself a Gnostic perversion., which also suggests that God created something evil, namely, the body.

The question is: if man is made in the image of God, then by virtue is he in the image of God? How does one act in the image god? And God created this world "and it was good."

The suggestion that the world is inherently evil is a gnostic perversion of Christian doctrine.

Eph. 6. [12] "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Expand full comment
May 16Liked by David Gosselin

It is very important, David, not to put words in another person's mouth. That is simply a matter of personal integrity.

I NEVER said the body is evil. I said our nature is evil. Read Romans, "ALL HAVE SINNED." Part of the Gnostic error is to blame evil on the physical world and not admit that evil is inherent in our nature. That is why the Son of God died - to pay for our sins. There is no way an honest reading of what I wrote can be interpreted as Gnostic error. Faith in Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins (see above, God "sent His Son to die for our sins") is anything but a Gnostic teaching.

Nor did I say "the world is inherently evil." I didn't discuss "the world." What God created was good. Then man fell and the ground was cursed (Genesis 3:17). The present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and the destruction of ungodly men (2 Peter 3:7). What you write contradicts the Bible, then you use the error you embrace as the standard for judging genuine Christian theology.

How does one act in the image of God? That concept, and the idea of virtue, seem important to you. But your question has no meaning. Man and woman were created in the image of God - they were not instructed to act in the image of God. You speak of virtue. It is not clear what you mean by the term. Although the Bible might use that word in some translations, the focus of the Bible is on sin and our need to find forgiveness through Jesus Christ. Our nature is renewed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who transforms us so that we can take on the character of Christ. The biblical concept is "holiness." The Bible knows nothing of the inherent "virtue" of human beings, if that is what you are referring to. In Philippians 3:9, Paul speaks of counting everything (including his former sense of righteousness under the law) as loss so that he "may be found in Him (that is, in Jesus Christ), not having a righteousness of [his] own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith." Our righteousness comes from God, not from within ourselves. The imagery we are given is also found in Isaiah 1:18: "though our sins are like scarlet, they will be made as white as snow." The introduction to this verse is "come, let us reason together." That is God's idea of reasoning - talking to us about getting rid of our sin. It is not an exercise in intellectual prowess.

Whatever you are saying, whatever you are promoting, it seems to be focused on a critique of the manner in which the purist version of esotericism has been distorted in common use. That is not the problem. The problem is that anyone who dies in their sin will stand before his or her Creator, will be judged for their sins, and will suffer eternal destruction. Jesus Christ is the only means of salvation given to mankind. Without Him, we face judgment, destruction, and death. Your virtue will get you nowhere, David.

I made a number of very specific comments in my critique of what you have said, but you have not responded to any of them. Most importantly, you do not confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that we are sinners who must repent, that we find salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone, that He paid for our sins when He shed His blood on the cross. You do not embrace biblical Christianity. Worse, you seem to toy with its doctrines, offering positive comments about some of its teachings, like humility, and referring to the teachings of Jesus Christ as though you understand them, when you deny the gospel and its power. Of particular concern, you did not respond to my statement that we are evil (i.e., we sin). This is a critical matter, David. 1 John 1:8 states, "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us."

My hope is that you will turn from what you are doing, stop misleading others with false teaching, and find salvation in Christ. However, in spite of my hope, the instruction to the Christian is not to welcome men like you with open arms, hoping that by finding common ground the truth will come to light. Rather, Christians are to make sure that they in no way support or encourage what you are doing: 1 John 4:3 is clear: "every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist...." I don't need to emphasize the severity of that indictment. But further, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds (2 John 10-11)." You are a young man playing with fire, David. By the grace of God, I hope that will change.

Expand full comment

We’re on the same side.

I simply wrote a bit quickly in reply to your “we are, above all, evil. That is our nature.” My answer remains the same though. Humans are not evil.

You say a lot of things, but I think there’s no point if we’re going to avoid this fundamental issue. The rest just becomes a question of scripture-proofing one’s position. It’s better to take the fundamental issue head on.

Jesus did not teach that man is evil. It is a Gnostic perversion, though a popular one. You won’t be able to find anything by Jesus saying that man is evil. Man can do evil things, just as he can do good things, but that’s very different.

No one is perfect, which means by definition everyone is prone to sin i.e., to stray and miss the mark. But that doesn’t make human beings evil. Further, digging into such a position, despite it not being true or demonstrable through any teaching by Christ himself is also a sin: slothfulness—slothfulness of mind, spirit and intellect. It’s just as dangerous as pride.

We are made in the image of God. So what does it mean to act in the image of God? I could tell you what I think but ultimately I believe it's something we all need to meditate on individually. It will be different for each of us, given we're each a unique image of God. However, your specific response on this point doesn’t make sense. And I don’t say that as some debate point, but actually to point out that there’s an opportunity to go deeper.

You write:

“How does one act in the image of God? That concept, and the idea of virtue, seem important to you. But your question has no meaning. Man and woman were created in the image of God - they were not instructed to act in the image of God.”

This makes no sense and lies at the root of the disagreement, everything else is detail.

If Christ is the Word made flesh, the Logos incarnate, and one is committed to imitating that image, it necessarily involves embodiment, both in thought and action. Otherwise it’s just worshipping something at a comfortable distance, which isn't much of a spiritual journey.

Shouldn’t one be trying to live in imitation of Christ, not just talking about him or going through the motions, saying the right thing?

We are in the image of God. And that is a mystery worth contemplating, in my opinion. I think that’s what we’ve largely forgotten. The real mystery is right before us.

“Men go abroad to wonder at the heights of mountains, at the huge waves of the sea, at the long courses of rivers, at the vast compass of the ocean, and the circular motion of the stars, yet pass over the mystery of themselves without a thought.”

St. Augustine of Hippo, Confessions

Expand full comment

You disagree with my approach of quoting from the Bible, but I will not argue in any other way. Do you think your reasoning is superior to the Word of God? Do you think biblical Christianity is revealed in some other document? The Bible is clear on the moral state of human beings. Romans 5:6: "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the UNGODLY." The reference to the "ungodly" is to all men. 1 Timothy 4:10: "For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of ALL MEN, especially of believers." God is the Savior of all men, because all men are ungodly.

To say that we sin but are not evil is to say that water is not wet. Water is the noun, wet is the adjective. Sin is what we do, sinners is what we are. You deny this, but your statement is conclusory, and you provide no analysis to support your position. You also say people are not inherently evil because Jesus Christ never said they are. He also never said we are inherently good. You make an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy. And this is why it is a fallacy: If I explain that my neighbor was carried away in an ambulance and remained in the hospital for two weeks, do I need to state, expressly, that my neighbor had a medical emergency? Of course not. In fact, if I add the statement that my neighbor had a medical emergency, most people would consider that to be rehashing the obvious, for simpletons who are completely unable to make logical inferences. In the same way, the Son of God became man in order to shed His blood for our sins. Is it really necessary to say that we are evil after the Son of God incarnate had to die to pay for the sins we commit? And again, why would Jesus preach the message of repentance so many times? Repent from what? From righteousness? The Holy Spirit had no obligation to inspire the gospels to be written in a way that meets your narrow literary demands.

If you want to refer to what Jesus Christ said or did not say, the only intellectually honest way to do it is in the context of why the Son of God became flesh in the first place. You also need to put His words in the context of the entire Old Testament, because as Jesus Christ Himself said in John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me." Those Scriptures include Isaiah 53, "But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed." And when Jesus reads from that same book - Isaiah - in Luke 4:18, what does He mean when he says, "He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives?" and then tells His listeners that this Scripture is being fulfilled in their hearing? Do you think He meant political captivity? It is captivity from sin, just as Paul describes in Romans.

The Bible clearly indicts our nature. We find the indictment, not only in Romans 5:6, but further on in Romans 5:10: "For if while we were ENEMIES we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." This verse is preceded by Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:19, "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made SINNERS …" [As an aside, this verse does not teach the doctrine of original sin, which comes from an error by Augustine, whom, to my surprise, you quote.] Sinners, ungodly, enemies of God - because we are good? The Bible says we are guilty, and because we are guilty we stand condemned (1 Corinthians 11:32). So even if you ignore the words evil, ungodly, sinner, and enemy, you still have to contend with our status of guilt and the resulting condemnation, judgment and eternal punishment for our sins, which you do admit we commit.

None of this means that, under ordinary circumstances, evil cannot be restrained. That is the purpose of both government and conscience. But when the constraints are removed, human nature is fully revealed, and we do evil continually. It happened during the time of Noah, and it will happen again. It is like potential energy - even when not being currently converted into kinetic energy, the potential is there, waiting to be released. Thus, the description of the flood in Genesis 8:21b: "and the Lord said to Himself, "I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the INTENT OF MAN'S HEART IS EVIL from his youth." And 2 Peter 2:5 "and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly." Has human nature changed, somehow, since then?

When I say we are evil, that does not mean we are incapable of doing good, or of wanting to do good. It means we are incapable of being perfectly holy. If I have a spot of dirt on a white shirt, and someone asks me if the shirt is clean, I say no. I do not say the shirt is mostly clean but has a spot. The same is true if food has been contaminated with rat poison. I do not say it is mostly healthy. I say it has been poisoned. The same is true, yet again, of our moral state. I can do good, I can strive to do good, but if I have sinned, I am now a sinner, an enemy of God, ungodly, and guilty. Sin is like rat poison.

When you speak of our imitation of Christ, you clearly do not understand the transforming work of the Holy Spirit. We cannot change our nature on our own. But there is no mystery to the means of being conformed to Christ. We die to ourselves daily and rely on the Holy Spirit. You create mysteries of contemplation where there are none and confuse the concept of following Christ and how that is accomplished with the notion of acting in the image of God. And when it comes to the image of God, you are arguing with a definition. If I bake a cake, I do not then expect it to do something to act like a cake. It IS a cake, it has been created that way. Unfortunately, the cake fell. So what it is now is not what it was at the time of its creation. Recall Romans 5:19, cited above. We are commanded to act like Christ. We are never commanded to act like images of God. Please don't confuse the two. One is our responsibility, the other is a reflection of God's creative intent.

You also distort the error of Gnosticism. The teaching that man is evil, even that there are sins of the flesh, is biblical. The evil of man is not a sufficient definition of Gnosticism, nor is it its distinguishing characteristic. Paul goes so far as to use the literary device of separating the sin of his body from the good he wants to do, although the Bible is clear that we sin from our heart, even when a physical analogy is used to make a point - as when we are instructed to cut off our hand if it causes us to sin. Or are you saying that the Bible itself is a Gnostic document? It is difficult to tell. In any event, we can ignore Gnosticism altogether, and focus on the fundamental Satanic lie, one offered before the first Gnostic ever arrived on earth. And THE lie is not that we are evil, but that we will be like God - it is that old promise of divinity that keeps popping up, along with the teaching that this divinity is actualized by acquiring special, forbidden knowledge. The Gnostic lie in a Christian context is that we can escape evil on our own, apart from faith in Jesus Christ, while Jesus Christ Himself is recharacterized in a way that denies biblical truth - THAT is Gnosticism, not the raw statement that man is evil..

You have made the statement that we need to use our divine powers in the service of our efforts to untangle the deceptions of the world. With this, you repeat the lie - the divinity we possess, the promise that knowledge will set us free. You even create a new sin of your own to match - slothfulness of intellect. In identifying this new offense, do you presume to stand in the shoes of God, defining the failure to exercise one's intellect to your satisfaction as sin? You exert yourself, intellectually I suppose, in the essay you wrote that took you so many months to write, only to make a great effort out of something that is inherently obvious, effortless, for any genuine follower of Christ. Why is it so difficult to find truth, using your approach, when it is so easily understood by believers? You speak of slothfulness of mind, referring to my position, and yet who read whose note so carelessly as to completely mischaracterize what was said?

We are not inherently divine, David. Believers can disagree on matters of doctrine, but not this one. As long as you claim that sinful man possesses a spark of divinity that can be used to untangle an intellectual knot, rather than confessing that we can only be pleasing to God through faith in Jesus Christ, by dying to ourselves daily, and by relying on the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, you and I will never be on the same side of anything. If you are serious about your intellectual inquiries, then don't just repeat what you have already written, respond to the many verses I have quoted and the message they communicate.

Expand full comment

As I said, the problem is a lot of folks like to "scripture proof" their arguments. They make an argument then quote something from scripture and believe their arguments are water-tight.

People say they are fundamentalists, but in reality, often they're just being literalists. For example, different gospels speak to different ideas and are addressed to different peoples. Sometimes Paul is speaking to Corinthians, other times Philippians, other times Romans. Depending on who he's speaking to, he's speaking on different subjects and the language is geared towards a particular issue. One can't just splice this or that quote out of context and believe they have the correct interpretation, outside of any context.

Simple example.

Paul writes:

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." — 1 Corinthians 13:11

Contrast the passage above with:

And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew 18:3

Which is it then? Should we become men or become like children? Should a man wanting to enter the kingdom become a child or a man?

If someone takes a purely logical approach, the two statements appear contradictory. In reality, they're not contradictory, they're simply making different points and have to be read in context.

Scripture proofing involves just splicing quotes to make one's argument appear incontrovertible, but in reality there's no way around discernment. What sets men apart from beasts is discernment, without that we are essentially beasts.

So let us cultivate it.

The question of man being made in the image of God isn't really a contentious issue. It's just a matter of discernment, which Plato actually considered the highest of the divine virtues, followed by temperance, justice and courage. Discernment precedes all the other virtues because without it the rest are all easily spoiled.

Likewise, one can't really read the gospels or any sacred text without discernment.

You write:

"The reference to the "ungodly" is to all men. 1 Timothy 4:10: "For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of ALL MEN, especially of believers." God is the Savior of all men, because all men are ungodly."

If we refuse to take these passages in context, then logically, they contradict the idea that man is made in the image of God. Is man ungodly or made in the image of god? In reality, there's no conflict between the two statements, but if one wants to take a strict scholastic approach, then there are logical contradictions every step of the way.

So we are on the same side, but we have very different approaches to reading the same passages. It's a matter of context.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the lecture.

"For indeed, Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." 1 Corinthians 1:22-25

If you love Plato so much, David, go chase after him. You are only cheating yourself.

Expand full comment