C: "Bush will be president until he dies"

[mkrnhr]

Hi,
I don't want to sound harsh, because I am not. But :
- The Cassiopaeans demanded that it has to be clear that they don't have to be divined :

A: Don't deify us. And, be sure all others with which you communicate understand this too!

- If the Cassiopaeans or any others have to predict the future with 100% accuracy, that means that the universe is predetermined and that soul/spirit/freewill doesn't exist, which contradicts even the Cassiopaean experience in a certain way, doesn't it?

Edit :
Oups, the same quote has been quoted!
IMHO we should be careful of not falling into a religion/cult-type blind faith. It can start by being fan which by the way has been funnily underlined by

A: Several comments: First of all, "fan" is short for "fanatic."
...

So, let's think with a hammer instead :)

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Also I wonder if just because Laura pasted that session publicly it changed things. They said this was the case with France being nuked, so why not now? The PTB don't want the C's to be so obviously "validated" (although that is the wrong word for all the wrong reasons, as I'll explain below), and we know very well that the PTB at all kinds of levels are aware of SOTT and cassiopaea. It's even possible the C's said that intentionally knowing it will be published and knowing that this will increase chances that the PTB will choose to alter that future. It could be a way to make things difficult for PTB without interfering with their free will in any way.

Another thing that came to mind is maybe there's another reason to get predictions wrong. Maybe it's a way to encourage people to question the value of the C's transmissions - and hopefully lead to thinking with a hammer and a much more profound understanding of the sessions and the real value they hold. If people take a "failed" prediction like that and suddenly feel "insecure" about the C's and it makes them lose some of their faith in the C's and question whether they should ever care about what the C's say, that's a good thing because I think that was entirely the wrong kind of faith.

There is no question that the C's have taught us an unbelievable amount, from their inspirational insistence and elaboration on the value of Knowledge and becoming Conscious, to the clues they provide that lead Laura to some pretty amazing understandings and discoveries about the nature of our existence, to helping us learn the folly of anticipation and assumptions, to maintaining a very logical, critical, and "not telling Laura what she wants to hear" approach during sessions that I have no doubt lead to Laura being a little wiser and basically growing as a person after every single session (and everyone else who read those sessions and reflected and contemplated experienced the same kind of growth), to so many other things. In light of all this, it is absolutely ridiculous to base the value of the C's on some stupid failed prediction. Even if they give 100 more predictions and they all fail miserably it will be utterly irrelevant to what the C's have imparted to us and helped us (and continue to help us) achieve. They taught us to network, to research, and given invaluable suggestions on how to approach life in a way that is most beneficial to you and all others by encouraging us to study and understand and apply the 4th Way Work among other things.

So yeah, honestly, who cares? If someone starts reading the C's just because they got a prediction right, they're doing it for the wrong reasons, and they are looking for all the wrong things. So this may be just a way to "discourage" those who already adopted the wrong assumptions and perspective in the onset, and simultaneously to encourage a re-thinking and a re-evaluation by those who are already part of this group and reading the material, and hopefully (and as usual from the C's messages), that leads to growth.

Oh and while I was writing this Anart said it better than I did :)

 

[Vulcan59]

Q: (L) Well, let's not denigrate literal translations or at least attempts to get things into literal terms. I like realistic art
work. I am a realist in my art preferences. I want trees to look like trees and people to have only two arms and legs.
Therefore, I also like some literalness in my prognostications.

A: Some is okay, but, beware or else "California falls into the ocean" will always be interpreted as California falling into
the ocean.

And I personally agree with what someone said earlier which was that former presidents are still called president.

 

[Peam]

Trying to think symbolically about Bush remaining president “until he dies”, the C’s could have meant 'dying' in the way an old over the hill actor in the theatre might be considered to have ‘died’ with respect to his last performance. Or a rubbish performance from a comedian and being boo’d off stage.

After all, Bush’s approval rating is at an all time low as he slinks away from office, and if truth be known it probably sank even lower than a snakes belly after it was revealed how he scuttled off like an obedient little boy to answer the phone call from Olmert and do as he was told. A symbolic death in the eyes of many more people, of him no longer being a man, you might say.

As for Bush trying to remain president. Who knows, maybe as the new administration gets under way and sifts through the neocons stuff, someone might leak some information whereby they were plotting to try to keep him in power. So some corroboration of the C's statement could be still open.

Then again our timeline may have branched off from the one where Bush is right now still sat in the white house.

 

[Laura]

Not meaning any disrespect, but is there any chance the message was corrupted, or partially corrupted, as many of the early messages were?

Actually, I wouldn't say that MOST of the early messages were corrupted, only some of them. In fact, we are presently living in the world that the Cs described back then.

I mean there is some part/program of me that is fascinated and wants 100% validation so that it would prove that there are higher beings, and that at least some of them hopefully have our best interests in mind.

Keep in mind that the Cs say they are US in the future... and that the future is open. As to what that "us" means, well, I'm sure I'm a pretty consistent part of it, but it varies according to who attends the sessions and also probably includes others who are not present, but are part of some sort of "social consciousness unit."

There is also the possibility that there IS a reality where the Ziocons took over overtly and the world is rapidly descending into total chaos only our reportage has enabled us to steer ourselves into a different branching universe.

I suppose that, since there is such angst about this among some of you, I'll just have to ask them what they meant, but my feeling is that this latter may be close to what the solution is. I can't forget them saying to me the remark at the end of this excerpt:

4 Jan 1997

[...]
Q: ... (L) The C's said once that 4th density is
"going with the speed of light." I think I remember that
you said that there was NO speed of light there because
"speed" was a 3rd density concept.

A: Please... we are drifting! Tell A that "aether" is Terran
material science's attempt to address ether. The trouble
is, there is simply no way to physicalize a plane of
existence which is composed entirely of consciousness. It
is the union of perfect balance between the two "states"
or planes, that is the foundation and essence of all
creation/reality. You cannot have one without the other!

Q: (L) When you say the two states or planes, you are saying
the physical state and the state of consciousness...

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And you can't have one without the other. And the
state of consciousness and the state of material existence
are so completely connected, that both are infinite? One
cannot exist without the other...

A: Yes, connected, intertwined, bonded... Merged.

Q: (T) A structure of the universe that holds the levels
together... everything is connected. The consciousness of
6th density is perfectly bonded and balanced with 3rd
density, and the quasi physical level of 4th density, and
the totally physical levels 3 through 1, and the total ONE
of 7th, and whatever 5th is. (L) We have four levels of
physical expression, so to speak, going from the really
solid, minimal consciousness level 1 to....

A: Yes, but the Terran scientists have been programmed to
believe that nothing can exist unless it can be measured,
estimated, calculated and represented in some way in the
physical material plane. Not true!!!!!!! For example: We
are in NO WAY physical.

Q: (L) Well, I also want to know why you refer to a
technological device that supposedly transports someone
from one density to another, as a 'Trans Dimensional
Remolecularizer?'

A: In order to reconstruct 3rd density into 4th density
physical, other dimensions must be utilized in the
process. Remember, we are talking about exact duplicates
which are merged.

Q: (L) But, a little while ago you said there was a single
dimension and many universes, and now you are saying
utilizing another dimension, so the terminology is getting
to be a little bit confusing... (T) It is like a program
loading onto a computer. Some programs just load straight
in. Others need to create a space on the harddrive to put
files that they need to LOAD the program, but are not PART
of the program, and when it is finished loading, it erases
all the "loading instructions." The hard drive is still
the hard drive, but for a time, the program used a sector
of the hard drive, and created a temporary dimension,
let's say. (L) Is this what we are looking at here?

A: Close. And remember, we said "true" dimension!

Q: (L) So, it is like one hard drive, many programs, loading
instructions for new programs that are then erased, etc.
If there is one "true dimension," and infinite universes
within it, does one particular universe exist, of and by
itself, at any given time, until it is merged into a new
one, or is there within this one true dimension, multiple
universes as real as ours is, to which we could go, and
could be there alongside ours, so to speak?

A: Yes to the latter.

Q: (L) And, can infinite numbers of "dimensions" exist within
each level of density, even if temporary?

A: Yes. If you want to go back and change "history," either
for individuals or for universal perception, you must
first create an alternate universe to do it. Your 4th
density STS "friends" have been doing this a lot.

Q: (L) If you, being a general term, create an alternate
universe, does the former one continue to exist, or does
the former one merge into the new one?

A: Both.

Q: (L) If the former one continues to exist, does it exist
and evolve on its own, disassociated with the second one,
or this offshoot?

A: Clarify.

Q: (T) The universe you are in: you are going along and say,
"I think I will create a new Universe." You do it, and
move to it, and you bring your universe with you. That is
the merging of realities. But, when you move to the new
universe, you are no longer in the original one which
continues along on its own. The pattern of the old
universe, you bring into the new one, and when you become
part of the new universe you have just created, you are no
longer part of the old one you just left. It just goes
along with everybody else there. (L) Is this correct?

A: Sort of... remember, one can create all ranges of types of
alternate possibilities.

Q: (L) So you could create a new universe with a new "past,"
even?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) So, in that way, both actually occur and you can
change the whole thing?

A: When merged, the former never existed.

Q: (T) Not for the person creating the new universe, but the
former will continue for everybody else.

A: Close.

Q: (L) So, for the person creating a new universe, the former
never existed, but the other beings who are satisfied with
that old universe, and "go" with it, are still continuing
along as though...

A: Your 3rd density mind restrictions limit the scope of your
comprehension in this area.

Q: (L) If you decide you don't like your present universe,
and you work like crazy to learn how to create a new one,
and you do it, do you, essentially, forget that you did
this? And why you did this? And forget the other
universe?

A: If you wish.

Q: (L) So you can or you can't... (T) Going by what you just
said: "an unhappy universe," is that because your
perceiving the universe you are in as being unhappy
because that is the way you are and where you are at, in
terms of learning, and by creating a new universe, you are
simply wishing to change the way the universe is around
you, and really its not the universe that has a problem,
but you...

A: Off track.

Q: (L) So, the universe you are in, is what it is, and you
are in it for some reason... (T) You're in it to learn
lessons... just to change the universe because you don't
want to learn the lessons you've chosen to learn... (L)
Or, you have learned them and thereby CAN change the
universe... (T) When you learn, you just move on
automatically, you don't have to change the universe. The
universe will change for you.

A: Deja vu comes to you compliments of 4th density STS.

Q: (L) Is deja vu a result of some sensation of the universe
having changed?

A: Or... some sensation of reality bridging.

Q: (T) As you move into the new one, you have leftovers?

A: No.

Q: (L) What is reality bridging?

A: What does it sound like?

Q: (L) Is it somewhat like merging universes? (T) A bridge
is something you put between two things...

A: You wish to limit, wait till 4th density, when the word
will be obsolete!

Q: (L) That still doesn't help me to understand deja vu as a
"sensation of reality bridging." Is deja vu because
something comes into our reality from another?

A: One possibility..

Q: (T) Didn't we talk about this? That it is a bleedthrough
from other dimensions... that when we think we have been
someplace before, it is because in another dimension we
have...

A: Yes.

Q: (L) If you are now in a particular universe that has been
created and merged by 4th density STS, and there is still
the old universe existing, and you feel a connection, or a
bridging, because some alternate self is in that alternate
universe, living through some experience... or a similar
thing?

A: No limits of possibilities.

Q: (L) So it can be any and all of those things, and bridging
realities of "past" and "future," as well. Is it possible
to change the past within a discrete universe, or does
every change imply a new or alternate universe?

A: Discrete does not get it.

Q: (L) Well, within a particular, selected one of the
universes, can you go back in time, within that universe,
change the past, and have it change everything forward,
still within that selected universe, like a domino effect?

A: In such a case, yes.

Q: (L) But, you said that if you want to change the past, you
have to create an alternate universe... (T) No, you asked
about changing the past, and they said you have to create
a temporary place to work from, a position from which you
can manipulate the reality...

A: That is for specialized activities.

Q: (L) So that creating of an alternate universe was for
special things, and not for a general historic change?

A: What was described is not the same as an
"alternate universe."

Q: (L) It is a temporary file that will go away when you are
finished loading the program. And that is not creating an
alternate universe, but rather a temporary dimension...

A: Close.

Q: (L) In our particular universe, what is the primary mode?
Are we constantly shifting and merging universe to
universe, or is our past being changed and reacting like
the domino effect... at least in the past few years... (T)
But, we wouldn't know if the past has been changed because
we wouldn't see it...

A: Measurements are inadequate.

Q: (L) How does that relate to my question? Which is
happening? Is our singular universe being changed as in a
domino effect, or is it continuously being merged with a
new one and another and another... (T) What you are asking
for is a measurement. (L) Is it that any and all
possibilities and will and do take place?

A: Closer.

Q: (L) Can you clarify that any further for me?

A: No, because you would simply not grasp it.

Q: (T) It is part of the infrastructure of the universe which
we are in no way capable of understanding at this point.
We can't even get quarks right.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) Are the words "universe" and "dimension" synonymous?

A: Yes and no.

Q: (L) In what sense yes?

A: For you, these are "grey" areas, and no matter how hard
you try, until your perception shifts fundamentally, you
ain't gonna get it!

Q: (J) I guess it is a question of faith. (L) Are all
universes "Free Will" universes?

A: If chosen.

Q: (L) Are there universes where everything is predestined?

A: Within the framework of a cyclical separation bond.

Q: (L) What is a "cyclical separation bond?" I think I'm
getting in over my head...

A: Only because "you ARE in over your heads."

Q: (L) But you didn't tell me what a cyclical separation bond
is!

A: And if we do, you will ask: "What do you mean by that?"

Q: (L) Well, you are right about that. (J) It's like a
little kid asking: "Daddy, why is there air?" (L) Are
there universes where time goes in the other direction, as
in universes of anti-matter?

A: Why do you ask this?

Q: (T) They have been telling us all along that there is no
such thing as time except as we perceive it. (L) Well, I
guess I just meant "anti-matter" universe. Okay, there
are 4 physical densities...

A: No, three.

Q: (L) Okay, there are 3 physical densities, and the 4th
is...

A: One is variable. Three Ethereal.

Q: (L) Okay, three that are physical, three ethereal, and one
in between that is both.

A: Close.

Q: (L) Do you go from 4th to 5th repeatedly until you are
ready to go to 6th, or do you go to 6th from 4th, or to
6th from 5th?

A: Because of already given data, that is elementary my dear,
Martin, elementary!

Q: (L) I am NOT Martin anymore! So there!

A: You are in an alternate reality.

Q: (L) Oh, God! I don't even want to THINK about that!
That's horrible! Does this mean that when you gave me the
word "NEW," you perhaps meant a new universe? A new
reality? (T) Well, you are because you have changed. But
we're not.

A: Why does Njorrg always get the tough assignments?!?

Q: (T) Because you are lucky!

(At this point, everyone was laughing)

A: Mirth iz goot!

 

[Tigersoap]

When I think of it, I am glad the C's are wrong (or maybe they are just saying the right "wrong") sometimes.
It makes me think that changes are possible, that the future is really open.
If they had that stark accuracy at all time, that would deny our free-will osit.
I'd like to understand exactly what has changed for the events to be different though.

I think SAO has a point, I value (for lack of a better word) their input and the way Laura/sott made available for "free" on how to develop ourselves much more than on predictions, although it's still really interesting to know what's going on behind the scenes.

It sounds like a test to my hear as well, if you reject the material based on wrong predictions, maybe that's not the right time for the person to look deeper osit.
They are perfect in their imperfections :D

 

[Laura]

It makes me think that changes are possible, that the future is really open.
If they had that stark accuracy at all time, that would deny our free-will osit.
I'd like to understand exactly what has changed for the events to be different though.

Good points, Tigersoap.

I was thinking about it a little bit earlier in the context of a conversation I had with one of my daughters recently. She was reading a book I had just finished - "Where There is Evil" (highly recommended) - which was written by a Scotswoman named Sandra Brown (not "our" Sandra Brown) who is the daughter of a pedophile/murderer. She recounts her experiences as a child, and then her campaign to have her father arrested and tried later in her life when she realized how evil he was. She has become an activist for children and woman, against abuse, etc.

Anyway, what is fascinating about these kinds of books is that the person recounts what they saw and experienced and heard first hand. In some respects, this is the only way we can learn about some predators because they really are so "hidden" from public view. They are like the wind - you can only see it by it's effect on trees.

Throughout the book she recounts the bizarre support and covering up activity that so many people gave her obviously pathological father - how people struggled to "normalize" things and sweep things under the rug. Then, later, she recounts the reactions of various people to her decision to go public about it. There was one woman whose children had been victimized by this man who actually said "I never said or did anything about it because I didn't want to hurt your mother - she was such a good Christian woman." In other words, this woman sacrificed her children and their sense of safety and right to justice for the sake of not hurting someone else's feelings or causing trouble in her life. Others railed against this "going public" because they said "We have to hold our heads up in this town; people will stare at us and talk about us..." and so on.

I had started reading another book by a daughter of a mass murderer/rapist, and then a book about the same case by a journalist, where similar events were recounted. In one instance, a neighbor who was witness to VERY bizarre activities and events and horrible child abuse, said that when the killer told her that he went out looking for girls to bring back and torture and have sex with, she thought he was joking because they were such a "nice couple" and the killer "was such a joker and laughed all the time."

Anyway, had to give you this background for context of the discussion.

What we discussed was "reality bubbles"; that it seems that not only do pathological types have their own reality bubbles, but victims of pathologicals have a particular reality bubble and people who "see" have still another. And, of course, every single person has their own reality bubble that is constructed of their history and perceptions and programs.

What we notice is that the world can be a very different place for different people depending on what is "inside," so to say. A person who cannot see the world the way a pathological can see it, who cannot even imagine such a perspective, will always be a victim. They live in a reality bubble where everything that happens at the interface between their bubble and the bubble of the predator is "translated" as it enters into their personal reality bubble, and made to conform to their ideas of how things should be - or their beliefs.

What kind of reality bubble does a woman live in who would not seek justice for her own children, and possibly protect the children of other women because she didn't want to hurt the feelings of a "good Christian woman" who was carrying the burden of being married to this monster? What kind of reality bubble does a woman live in who would stay married to such a man and not see what a monster he really was? Well, she lived in a bubble that included some really pathological ideas of "honor" and "decency" and "committment." All of these concepts have been perverted by pathology in our world so that we think that committment is the greatest thing in the world and never stop to think that our devotion to duty, when it involves pathology, is just pathology! If we make a promise to a pathological person, because they have misrepresented themselves, or manipulated us into a position where we will make such a promise to them, we are NOT obliged to keep it! The instant you discover that your agreement has been manipulated out of you, that you have committed to a lie, you are not only entitled to change your mind, the survival of your soul requires it!

So, just talking in terms of our everyday world, even though there are individual bubbles, these overlap with the individual bubbles of others who see things similarly, who have similar knowledge, experiences, etc, or who are involved in a similar aim. Then, there are larger "overlapping bubbles" in social contexts, and national contexts. There are religious bubbles, and so on.

Anyway, getting back to Bush, what occurred to me, in the context of the above described discussion, is that he lives in a very particular "reality bubble," much of which he shares overlaps with others like himself. The people who surrounded Bush, and to a limited extent, GW himself, are part of that group that seek to establish totalitarian rule over the entire Earth. Do we, for a moment, think that they gave up their aims just because another presidential election was upcoming? Do we think they just collected their marbles and went home? Are they even capable of that?

No, I don't think so. What strikes me is that we may have entered what Lobaczewski called the "dissimulative phase" of the process.

Many people with various hereditary deviations and acquired defects develop pathological egotism. For such people, forcing others in their environment, whole social groups, and, if possible, entire nations to feel and think like themselves becomes an internal necessity, a ruling concept. Some game a normal person would not take seriously becomes an often lifelong goal for them, the object of effort, sacrifices, and cunning psychological strategy.

Pathological egotism derives from repressing from one’s field of consciousness any objectionable, self-critical associations referring to one’s own nature or normality. Dramatic question such as “who is abnormal here, me or this world of people who feel and think differently?” are answered in the world’s disfavor. Such egotism is always linked to a dissimulative attitude, with a Cleckley mask or some other pathological quality being hidden from consciousness, both one’s own and that of other people.

The importance of the contribution of this kind of egotism to the genesis of evil thus hardly needs elaboration. It is a primarily societal resource, egotizing or traumatizing others, which in turn causes further difficulties. Pathological egotism is a constant component of variegated states wherein someone who appears to be normal (although he is in fact not quite so) is driven by motivations or battles for goals a normal person considers unrealistic or unlikely. The average person asks: “What could he expect to gain by that?”. Environmental opinion, however, interprets such a situation in accordance with “common sense” and is prone to accept a “more likely” version of occurrences. Such interpretation often results in human tragedy. We should thus always remember that the principle of law cui prodest becomes illusory whenever some pathological factor enters the picture.

[...]

Pathocrats’ achievement of absolute domination in the government of a country would not be permanent since large sectors of the society would become disaffected by such rule and find some way of toppling it. Pathocracy at the summit of governmental organization also does not constitute the entire picture of the “mature phenomenon”. Such a system of government has nowhere to go but down. Any leadership position, (down to village headman and community cooperative managers, not to mention the directors of police units, and special-services police personnel, and activists in the pathocratic party) must be filled by individuals whose feeling of linkage to such a regime is conditioned by corresponding psychological deviations, which are inherited as a rule. However, such people become more valuable because they constitute a very small percentage of the population. Their intellectual level or professional skills cannot be taken into account, since people representing superior abilities are even harder to find. After such a system has lasted several years, one hundred percent of all the cases of essential psychopathy are involved in pathocratic activity; they are considered the most loyal, even though some of them were formerly involved on the other side in some way.

Under such conditions, no area of social life can develop normally, whether in economics, culture, science, technology, administration, etc. Pathocracy progressively paralyzes everything. Reasonable people must develop a level of patience beyond the ken of anyone living in a normal man’s system just to explain what to do and how to do it to some obtuse mediocrity or psychological deviant. This special pedagogy requires a great deal of time and effort, but it would otherwise not be possible to maintain tolerable living conditions and necessary achievements in the economic area or intellectual life of a society. However, pathocracy progressively intrudes everywhere and dulls everything.

Those people who initially found the original ideology attractive eventually come to the realization that they are in fact dealing with something else. The disillusionment experienced by such former ideological adherents is bitter in the extreme. The pathological minority’s attempts to retain power will thus always be threatened by the society of normal people, whose criticism keeps growing. On the other hand, any and all methods of terror and exterminatory policies must therefore be used against individuals known for their patriotic feelings and military training; other, specific “indoctrination” activities such as those we have presented are also utilized. Individuals lacking a natural feeling of being linked to society become irreplaceable in either of these activities. The foreground must again be occupied by cases of essential psychopathy, followed by those with similar anomalies, and finally by people alienated from the society in question as a result of racial or national differences.

The phenomenon of pathocracy matures during this period: an extensive and active indoctrination system is built, with a suitably refurbished ideology constituting the vehicle or Trojan horse for the process of pathologizing the thought of individuals and society. The goal is never openly admitted: forcing human minds to incorporate pathological experiential methods and thought-patterns, and consequently accepting such rule. This goal is conditioned by pathological egotism, and thus strikes them as feasible, not just indispensable. Thousands of activists must therefore participate in this work. However, time and experience confirm what a psychologist may have long foreseen. The entire effort produces results so very limited that it is reminiscent of the labors of Sisyphus. It helps bring both a general stifling of intellectual development and deep-rooted protest against affront-mongering “hypocrisy”. The authors and executors of this program are incapable of understanding that the decisive factor making their work difficult is the nature of normal human beings.

The entire system of force, terror, and forced indoctrination, or, rather, pathologization, thus proves effectively unfeasible, which causes the pathocrats no small measure of surprise. Reality places a question mark behind their conviction that such methods can change people until they eventually recognize this kind of government as a normal state.

During the initial shock, the feeling of social links are fading; after that has been survived, however, the overwhelming majority of people manifests its own phenomenon of psychological immunization. Society simultaneously starts collecting practical knowledge on the subject of this new reality and its psychological properties. Normal people slowly learn to perceive the weak spots of such a system and utilize the possibilities of more expedient arrangement of their lives. They begin to give each other advice in these matters, thus slowly regenerating the feelings of social links and reciprocal trust. A new phenomenon occurs: separation between the pathocrats and the society of normal people. The latter have an advantage in talent, professional skills, and healthy common sense. They therefore hold certain cards. The pathocracy finally realizes that it must find some modus vivendi or relations with the majority of society: “After all, somebody’s got to do the work for us.”

There are other needs and pressures, especially from outside. The pathological face must be hidden from the world somehow, since recognition by world opinion would be a catastrophe. Ideological propaganda alone could then prove an inadequate disguise. Primarily in the interests of the new elite and its expansionary plans, a pathocratic state must maintain commercial relations with the countries of normal man. Such a state aims to achieve international recognition as a certain kind of political structure; and it fears recognition in terms of clinical diagnosis.

All this makes pathocrats tend to limit their measures of terror, subjecting propaganda and indoctrination methods to certain cosmetology, and to accord the society they control some margin of autonomous activity, especially regarding cultural life. The more liberal pathocrats would not be averse to giving such a society a certain minimum of economic prosperity in order to reduce the irritation level, but their own corruption and inability to administer the economy prevents them from doing so.

This great societal disease runs its course through a new phase: methods of activity become milder, and there is coexistence with countries whose structure is that of normal man. Anyone studying this phenomenon, who must be a psychopathologist, is reminded rather of the dissimulative state or phase of a patient attempting to play the role of a normal person, hiding the pathological reality although he continues to be sick or abnormal. Let as therefore use the term “the dissimulative phase of pathocracy” for the state of affairs wherein a pathocratic system ever more skillfully plays the role of a normal sociopolitical system with different doctrinal institutions. In this state, people become resistant and adapt themselves to the situation within a country affected by this phenomenon; outside, however, this phase is marked by outstanding ponerogenic activity. The pathological material of this system rather easily infiltrates into other societies, particularly if they are more primitive, and all the avenues of pathocratic expansion are facilitated because of the decrease of commonsensical criticism on the part of the nations constituting the territory of expansionism.

Meanwhile, in the pathocratic country, the active structure of government rests in the hands of psychopathic individuals, and essential psychopathy plays a starring role.

Especially during the dissimulative phase, however, individuals with obvious pathological traits must be removed from certain areas of activity: namely, political posts with international exposure, where such personalities could help betray the pathological contents of the phenomenon.

They would also have some limited means of exercising diplomatic functions or becoming familiar with the political situation characterizing the countries of normal man. The persons selected for such positions thus have thought-processes more similar to the world of normal people; in general, they are sufficiently connected to the pathological system to provide a guarantee of loyalty.

An expert in various psychological anomalies can nevertheless discern the discreet deviations upon which such links are based. Another networking factor are the great personal advantages accorded to them by the pathocracy. Small wonder, then, that such loyalty is sometimes deceptive. This applies in particular to the sons of typical pathocrats, who of course enjoy trust because they have been reared to allegiance since infancy; if through some happy genetic coincidence they have not inherited pathological properties, their nature takes precedence over nurture.

Similar needs apply to other areas as well. The building director for a new factory is often someone barely connected with the pathocratic system but whose skills are essential. Once the plant is operational further administration is taken over by pathocrats, which often leads to technical ruin. The army similarly needs people endowed with perspicacity and essential qualifications, especially in the area of modern weapons. At crucial moments, healthy common sense can override the results of pathocratic drill.

In such a state of affairs, many people are forced to adapt, accepting the ruling system as a status quo, but also criticizing it. They fulfill their duties amid doubts and conflicts of conscience, always searching for a more sensible way out which they discuss within trusted circles. In effect, they are always hanging in a limbo between pathocracy and the world of normal people. Deficiency on the part of faithful people has been and is a factor of the pathocratic system’s internal weakness.

The following questions thus suggest themselves: what happens if the network of understandings among psychopaths achieves power in leadership positions with international exposure? This can happen, especially during the later phases of the phenomenon. Goaded by their character, such people thirst for just that even though it would conflict with their own life interest, but they are removed by the less pathological, more logical wing of the ruling apparatus. They do not understand that a catastrophe would otherwise ensue. Germs are not aware that they will be burned alive or buried deep in the ground along with the human body whose death they are causing.

If such and many managerial positions are assumed by individuals deprived of sufficient abilities to feel and understand most other people, and who also betray deficiencies in technical imagination and practical skills—(faculties indispensable for governing economic and political matters) this must result in an exceptionally serious crisis in all areas, both within the country in question and with regard to international relations. Within, the situation shall become unbearable even for those citizens who were able to feather their nest into a relatively comfortable modus vivendi. Outside, other societies start to feel the pathological quality of the phenomenon quite distinctly. Such a state of affairs cannot last long. One must then be prepared for ever more rapid changes, and also behave with great circumspection.

Pathocracy is a disease of great social movements followed by entire societies, nations, and empires. In the course of human history, it has affected social, political, and religious movements, as well as the accompanying ideologies characteristic for the time and the ethnological conditions, and turned them into caricatures of themselves. This occurs as a result of the activities of similar etiological factors in this phenomenon, namely in the form of participation by pathological agents in a pathodynamically similar process. That explains why all the pathocracies of the world are and have been so similar in their essential properties. Contemporaneous ones easily find a common language, even if the ideologies nourishing them and protecting their pathological contents from identification differ widely.

Identifying these phenomena through history and properly qualifying them according to their true nature and contents, not according to the ideology in question, which succumbed to the characteristic process of caricaturization, is a job for historians. However, the ideology must always have been socially dynamic and have contained creative elements, otherwise it would be incapable of long term nurturing and protection from human criticism of a phenomenon which is essentially pathological, nor of furnishing it the tools for implementing its expansionist goals on the outside.

The moment at which a movement has been transformed into something we can call a pathocracy as a result of the ponerogenic process is a matter of convention. The process is temporally cumulative and reaches a point of no return at some particular moment. Eventually, however, internal confrontation with the adherents of the original ideology occurs, thus finally affixing the seal of the pathocratic character of the phenomenon. Hitlerism most certainly passed this point of no return, but was prevented from all-out confrontation with the adherents of the original ideology because the Allied armies smashed its entire military might.

So, it seems obvious that there are some people in the "ruling elite" who must have realized that the whole thing was going South and they "pulled Bush." And they may have managed to do this by promising him that he would "still be in charge" even if behind the scenes. In Bush's reality bubble, he may very well be President - in a very real sense TO HIM - until he dies.

I am reminded of Lyndon Johnson who played the game so well and participated in the Kennedy assassination. But things went South in a big way during his administration. He elected NOT to run for a second term, went home to Texas and was, reportedly, under psychiatric care until he died.

Look also at what happened to Reagan: his mental deterioration was quite interesting.

So, will the same happen to Bush? How many ways are there to "die." And does death really mean death of the body?

"Moreover, it happens fairly often that essence dies in a man while his personality and his body are still alive. A considerable percentage of the people we meet in the streets of a great town are people who are empty inside, that is, they are actually already dead.

"It is fortunate for us that we do not see and do not know it. If we knew what a number of people are actually dead and what a number of these dead people govern our lives, we should go mad with horror. And indeed people often do go mad because they End out something of this nature without the proper preparation, that is, they see something they are not supposed to see. In order to see without danger one must be on the way. If a man who can do nothing sees the truth he will certainly go mad. Only this rarely happens. Usually everything is so arranged that a man can see nothing prematurely. Personality sees only what it likes to see and what does not interfere with its life. It never sees what it does not like. This is both good and bad at the same time. It is good if a man wants to sleep, bad if he wants to awaken."

So, perhaps, in HIS reality bubble, Bush thinks he is still POTUS in fact, even if a new puppet has been raised up. Or, he is already dead.

 

[mugatea]

Well, we can speculate all over the place because we want the Cs to be "right" all the time, but that's really kind of a waste of time. IF there is some sort of hidden meaning there, we won't know it until it is revealed. Heck, for all we know, Bush died a few years ago and they replaced him with a double. But that's really getting into wild theories! Beyond that, I would say that either the Cs were just plain wrong, or there was something that happened that changed the outcome.

I think that the chances of the Zio-cons making a move for total overt take-over and world domination have been pretty good over the past 8 years. But something may have shifted along the way... and they shifted their plans accordingly.

We don't yet know how deep in the doo Obama is; to me he is still a cipher. There are lots of signs that it is just "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." and we also have an idea that the POTUS is not really in charge anyway. So, if Obama thinks he's really gonna BE president like Kennedy thought, well... we'll see how long that lasts.

It's been one heck of a ride for the past 8 years and I think it ain't over yet...

There was a lot of talk and fear of the elections being fixed again, maybe that was the turning point and the ptb bottled it/turned to plan b. It coulf have been the increased awareness of the public that changed things compared to the awareness of the public back when the C's made the comment.

There are a lot if's and maybe's in my comment, i know.

Jamie

 

[vinny]

in light of Laura's quotation from Lobaczewski, I think it is worth linking a recent article from Sott: Iranian Journalist Interviews Gilad Atzmon.

He clearly describes the end result of this process - a state which has become so far ponerized that it "detaches the Hebraic paradigm from any notion of humanist ethics" . I think anyone who is struggling to make sense of what is happening in Israel, and the extreme level of conflicting 'reality bubbles', would do well to read Political Ponerology.

 

[RedFox]

Thanks for that insight Laura....I think I need to move Political Penorology up my reading list. I've been looking at Obama, and couldn't put my finger on what the PTB where up to until reading that!

The quote from G about the death of essence hit me like a ton of bricks...

The pathocracy finally realizes that it must find some modus vivendi or relations with the majority of society: “After all, somebody’s got to do the work for us.

_http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28751183/page/2/

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions — who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them— that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

I've not picked the whole thing appart, but the bit in his speech I heard about america needing to work its way out of this (manufactured) 'problem', stuck me. And reading Laura's post from above it finally seems to make more sense.
The PTB must have realised it wasn't working (or at least a faction did), and so the new 'friendly' (well hidden pathology) was chosen.

As to america/the world actually 'working' its way out of this mess (and I can see that there will be lots of jobs and LOTS of hard work ahead)...

The more liberal pathocrats would not be averse to giving such a society a certain minimum of economic prosperity in order to reduce the irritation level, but their own corruption and inability to administer the economy prevents them from doing so.

...to get no where.

So, perhaps, in HIS reality bubble, Bush thinks he is still POTUS in fact, even if a new puppet has been raised up. Or, he is already dead.

Perhaps even both?

The context of reality bubbles is fascinating!

 

[dant]

VERY interesting discussions here, and quite useful! I
understand quite readily, the multiple interpretations that
could be derived from the C's statement - at least I believe
I understand how possible the various perceptions are
easily manipulated by this Evil Magician's diabolical tricks.
Pretty much tracks Gurdjeiff's `Tale of the Evil Magician'
story, fwiw.

Many here, has made some very good arguments, have given
many points to consider and ponder. All very good points,
regarding free-will, the cunning and manipulative works by
the PTB. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Dan

 

[mugatea]

Q: (J) Will Bush continue on as President?

A: Until he dies.

Q: (J) Will he be assassinated?

A: Not likely.

Q: (H) Will he try to become a permanent leader, a Furher?

A: Will try.

Q: (H) Is he sick and will he die from his illness?

A: No...

Q: [Discussion about him being made sick or dying from other reasons.]

A: There are many ways to die.


The C's reply that bush will continue "until he dies". Which is a very clear answer, then when asked if he will try to become a permanent leader, a fuhrer, the C' reply, "Will try", which kinda contradicts the first answer, right, cause it seems to imply he'll fail? I mean, from president 'until he dies' to 'will try' to become a permanent leader, seems odd. And then the 'There are many ways to die." just makes thing odder.

Maybe the C's arent so wrong. It just may be the ptb are not finished with him yet.

It wasnt long ago it seemed all ties to the 911 job were being cleaned up and Bush and that doing what they can to make sure they dont go down for it as well as for war crimes. Behaving as if they were maybe expecting some revelation on 911 to be revealed or impeachment. Yet there was no indication that anyone was gonna impeach for the war crimes. Which seems kinda odd. Maybe the 'There are many ways to die'remark is in reference to 911 or war crimes.

Jamie

my grammer sux, sorry.

 

[Miss Isness]

Under such conditions, no area of social life can develop normally, whether in economics, culture, science, technology, administration, etc. Pathocracy progressively paralyzes everything. Reasonable people must develop a level of patience beyond the ken of anyone living in a normal man’s system just to explain what to do and how to do it to some obtuse mediocrity or psychological deviant. This special pedagogy requires a great deal of time and effort, but it would otherwise not be possible to maintain tolerable living conditions and necessary achievements in the economic area or intellectual life of a society. However, pathocracy progressively intrudes everywhere and dulls everything.

That reminds me of the experience I had trying to make an early payment on my mortgage. The loan officer was having difficulty with the computer program, and no one seemed to know how to change some data so I could make the payment. He asked me to come back another day - something that happens regularly when people don't feel like doing their jobs in Italy. I told him to call the administrative branch for help. He refused saying that they were never willing to help, so I went home and called the green number. I explained the situation, and a young woman gave me the bank's internal technical support number. When I went back there was a different, but similar problem. I had to literally insist that he use the tech number, but he couldn't even manage that without getting advice from his colleague on how to dial out. One wonders what these people do all day.

If we make a promise to a pathological person, because they have misrepresented themselves, or manipulated us into a position where we will make such a promise to them, we are NOT obliged to keep it! The instant you discover that your agreement has been manipulated out of you, that you have committed to a lie, you are not only entitled to change your mind, the survival of your soul requires it!

How true! I would be in a real bind right now if I hadn't backed out of a coerced 'agreement' recently. I simply explained that I had 'agreed' because all the ground work had been laid to instill fear in me, so I didn't feel like I had a choice. Furthermore, I didn't know what my rights were regarding that particular situation. Of course, that got a sarcastic, "yeah, right", but I can see that it effectively set a new boundry in how things have unfolded since then.

 

[Mark7]

I have a feeling that former president Bush may deteriorate quickly - physically and/or mentally.
I don't wish him ill. He's mostly machine after all.

 

[thevenusian]

Very interesting thread.

I am nearly finished reading Political Ponerology for the first time, and I also wonder if we are not entering the "dissimulative phase" in the US as referenced earlier by Laura. Actually, perhaps we are re-entering if we take an even longer view. Bush certainly fits Lobaczewski's criteria for pathological egotism and has been a recognizable face for it in the world for 8 years now. He has set a new benchmark for it. I cannot help but feel the C's comment about his being 'president for life' is making comment about his own mental framework as a pathological egoist. I seriously doubt he is capable of making the adjustment to suddenly start waiting in line like everyone else.

It is lamentable that Lobaczewski's citations and references to the original research were lost to us, though understandable given the circumstances. We are lucky he was able to reconstruct the work at all. Because his frame of reference is so influenced by the experiences he lived through with the Nazis and Communists, I have had the C's comment that Nazi Germany was the 'practice run' sitting in the back of my mind while considering his ideas. As such, I would expect what is happening now to exhibit the same basic principles and dynamics but to incorporate some new twists and turns and maybe not look exactly like what we expect to see.

Bush has served to push the face of pathocracy out into much greater recognition than any recent president of the US. Most of the world saw and did not publicly approve. Citizens of the US- even die-hard Republicans- became so sick of him that many voted for a Democrat for the first time in their lives. There was a huge amount of dynamic energy which was all lined up and ready to accept Obama as representing 'change' because anything would be better than the observable pathology of Bush. It is this dynamic energy which frankly makes me most nervous. It is a big energy and we have manipulators in charge. I live in the US and the last time I was aware of such a surge of 'nationalism' was following Sept 11, 2001.