"Crisis of the Republic" and Pathocrats - An Exercise in Discernment

[Laura]

I want to bring to everyone's attention certain anomalies in UB's posts that are clues:

Well, a lot of points made and questions. Thank you for such.
I will go quickly through them and concatenate those that were repeated therefore I may not necessarily answer directly to one person or another but rather to the points made.

Notice first of all the use of the term "concatenate". Now, this is not a usual word... I'm pretty verbose and don't think I've ever used it in my life. Does anyone talk that way, really? Usually not. Try to remember the last time you heard the term. It is used correctly, and it is a useful term, but it is not one I would ever choose to use because most people don't know what it means. I try to write as plainly as possible at all times so that the most people can understand what I am writing and I don't care a whit for whether intellectual snobs look down on this practice or not. I've certainly had quite a few of them attempt to snow me or intimidate me with all their $2 words. You see, I can read them, I understand them, and I'm not impressed. What impresses me is simplicity and being able to write a coherent sentence with what is called "high density." That is, a lot of information is conveyed in the sentence with the fewest number of words. I try to combine that with plain speaking.
So, why would UB use such a word? Is he not aware that most people don't even know what it means? If so, is he using it deliberately to create the impression that he is a "great intellect"? Or, is he not aware that most people don't know what it means? If so, then he is sadly out of touch with reality. And if he is out of touch with the reality of ordinary people, then he is also likely out of touch with reality in general.

Seeking the truth is a normal action for a soul that has gone beyond the simple level of pure materialistic conceptualization. It is one step in a direction that has no absolute destiny although it aims for the absolute.
Likewise it certainly befits well the seeker to get a better 'understanding' of his reality. Ideally, this understanding is of course always tempered with the further comprehension that 'understanding' in itself is always condition by the life program of an incarnate entity.

Now, puhleeeeeeze... tell me what information these two paragraphs conveyed? Pay special attention to "it certainly befits well the seeker ..." Here we have a clue that our "great intellect" is not so great after all.
Yes, in a certain sense, this word also is used properly, strictly speaking. Befit: To be suitable to or appropriate for: formal attire that befits the occasion.
However there is a certain awkwardness in the phrase that is jarring to the experienced reader or writer. Most people would select the word "behoove." Behoove: be appropriate or necessary; "It behooves us to reflect on this matter"
So we have here a subtle clue of a certain difficulty with using words precisely in accepted contexts.

The point of contention here seems principally the word 'truth', the difference in views about 'truth' and the difference in importance that ensues.

Another very poorly constructed sentence with words used that are only slightly "off."

As I said earlier, I do not view truth, any truth for that madder to be absolute but always relative because they always are interpretations of a psychological mind.

Even more revealing... "For that MADDER" ?? Now, certainly, this can be a typo and we all make typos. But the fact is, as we read through this post we see a certain deterioration that cannot be attributed solely to typos. We also are entitled to wonder if such a typo is not a "Freudian slip" ?
Further, the above paragraph reveals a certain aphasia. (Aphasia: Difficulty understanding the speech of others and/or expressing oneself verbally.)
Any of you who know how to diagram a sentence, please diagram that one. First of all, we have a plural noun - truth - that morphs into a singular noun - any truth - (or is that supposed to be any "system of truth" ?) which then is referred to by the plural pronoun "they" and the plural verb "are".
Then there is the final non-sequitur: "interpretations of a psychological mind."
(Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.)
So, not only is it a non sequitur, it is a syntactical bit of nonsense. A "psychological mind" ??
The clues are adding up. Moving on now:

I do understand what you mean by that word though or what is sought after. A truth that transcend all interpretations and that is at the base of reality. The difficulty remains though that so long as we look at things psychologically speaking, we are forced to use our polarized concepts, (good/evil, true/false, positive and negative), that will always force us to fragment and filter. Because truth is a polarized aspect of reality, it would reject its opposite and would therefore mask another very present aspect of that same reality. That is why I am more interested in principles that have no psychological values than in truths. On the other hand, a principle may not sound as attractive to the truth seeker, an aspect of it always being in opposition with his sense of comfort towards the information.

A more striking example of word salad would be hard to come by. "So long as we look at things psychologically..." What does that mean? Worse: "So long as we look at things psychologically speaking, we are forced to use our polarized concepts..."
Of course, we CAN get a certain meaning out of this nonsense by projecting richer concepts onto what is actually a syntactical hodgepodge. Basically, what UB seems to be saying is that as long as we look at things with our intellect, we have no hope of moving toward truth because our mind FORCES us to fragment and filter everything. In short, MIND is the enemy. We can never hope to understand anything at all as long as we use our minds!
Then he says: "Because truth is a polarized aspect of reality, it would reject its opposite..."
Say WHAT???!!!
Since when did Truth become a "polarized aspect of reality"??
Polarized: a state of opposition.
The question is: what is Truth OPPOSED to in UB's mind? The only thing that Truth can be opposed to is LIES.
So, UB is saying that Truth would reject lies which would "therefore mask another very present aspect of that same reality."
In other words, his argument is that by searching for Truth, you will reject Lies, and this will result in the "masking" of those lies... Or, is he saying that LIES are the very present aspect of reality that one should not seek to unmask??
Most confusing, and certainly evidence of a certain deterioration of logic that is leading us to an interesting conclusion.
Moving on...

About the statement of maybe not liking the stance and my position:
Even is I say that this is my position it in no way suggests that that position cannot be challenged. On the contrary, if one perceives a flaw, it is to my advantage to be presented with that flaw. When we have blind spots, we always need the one who sees it to point it out.

Well, we could let this one slide by, but again, the very poor syntax is not in keeping with the deliberate use of $2 words... It's actually starting to sound a bit like George W. Bush and his famous "Put food on your family..." or "fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again."

To be objective a truth must not be polarized mentally. Then, it is not a truth.

Here is this bizarre idea again, that Truth is "polarized mentally." It seems that the most fundamental meaning of all, the definition of TRUTH, is unavailable to UB.
Again we ask: what is a POLARIZED Truth???

I am not arguing for the sake of such but only trying to point out certain subtleties of a concept such as truth. Many concepts that are held high in esteem by our human philosophical thinking scheme, even worse, our human spiritual aspirations, are also traps that keep us in a state of mind that prevents other aspects of reality to be realized. Any concept can be useful so long as we do not make them sacred. When we sacralize a concept, we become its slave and it becomes the limit of our vision.

Wow! Glad we cleared that up! Truth is just a "concept" and it has mislead us because it has been held in "high esteem" The idea of seeking Truth is just a trap... a limit.

That is why I cannot give too much value to truths.

In other words, value is rather given to LIES.
But, to be fair, that may not be what UB meant. Maybe the problem is, as Frai Jonah has suggested, that UB does not have a good working definition of Truth, that he is talking about "beliefs"?
Even if this is the case, is does not lessen the problem that such as UB are not suited to such discourse either because of self-importance, some sort of pathological condition as evidenced by the aphasia, or because they have a definite agenda. It's hard to tell sometimes, but all these little word clues are leading us somewhere.

And no, you don't have to agree with me either. One thing I will not do is try and convince you.

Then what is he trying to do? He is, in fact, trying to convince everyone of the rightness of his views, and is using all sorts of twisty and turny language to give himself the air of a great intellect who understands things that others do not.

Convincing or attempting to is a subtle way of imposing one's intelligence upon that of the other. It is a form of manipulation, even if done with all the apparent respect that one can muster.

Another aphasic clue. "imposing one's intelligence"??? What happened to "imposing one's will"? How, exactly, does one "impose one's intelligence" on another?
So, does UB equate Truth with Beliefs and Will with Intelligence? If so, then he has a serious problem of aphasia.

People should never be convinced of anything.

Say WHAT? To make such a bold and unilateral statement is a bit CONVINCED, now isn't it?
Convinced: persuaded of; very sure.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I am pretty sure that staying open to anything is a good thing. But there does come a point in everyone's life when probability is so high that they can safely say "I am persuaded" or "very sure" of this or that. There is always going to be that small percentage of possibility that must remain open. Perhaps there ARE some things about which a person should be convinced? Certainly, it is not that "People should never be convinced of anything."

Convictions, beliefs, all these things that are supported by pride and that act as egoic false security of having found something, until the ego becomes convinced of something else?

Not necessarily. It seems that UB is describing his own reality, that HE is only convinced by pride. Perhaps it never occurs to him that others can be quite open and observe and collect data, and network and experiment, until they are persuaded that something is, with a high degree of probability, just this or that?

Actually, truths are far more related to convictions that they are to fundamental principles. This is another aspect I might have pointed at above.

Say what? Truth is more related to convictions? And convictions as UB has defined them, to boot.
Again, aphasia.

About reading or not the material:
When I said I was less interested in the material, I did so after reading some of it. I did not read all but got the 'drift' so to speak.

Very interesting, if true. Seems that if he "got the drift" that he decided that he didn't like that "drift" and it was his job to come save people from their errors of seeking Truth.

I got wind of the forums and came to see what things were being discussed. I had not at that point realized that the discussions revolved around a specific points, namely channeling.

He "got wind" of the forum? Not so subtle "dig" on channeling. Since the discussions do not revolve around channeling, but rather around Knowledge and Truth, one wonders where he "got wind" from?

Many subjects were being discussed and they were all subjects of interest.

No doubt. Especially to "information control specialists."

It was my mistake to suppose that materials were discussed neutrally and were not specifically tied to a particular school of beliefs.

This is paramoralistic word salad.

Incarnate consciousnesses on this planet do not all come from the same place and what you would call their 'higher selves' do not have the same universal statuses.

What happened to discussing things "neutrally"? What happened to not being tied to a particular school of beliefs?

There are races in the cosmos that have seeded the planet and are getting ready to collect the result of their work. Some of those races will bring many back with them. I am not one for the take.

What happened to discussing things "neutrally"? What happened to not being tied to a particular school of beliefs?

The real disinformation network is the web of occult ties that connect all reincarnated entity together with their disincarnate peers, creating this huge mind matrix that indifferencially influences, controls the psyche by what you could call a form of possession.

And finally, we come back to the same old, tired, stuff that Duran and Angelo, and Vinnie Bridges, and a host of others want to impose on everyone... The whole OCCULT network thang!
It's not about OPs or psychopaths or anything that can be reasonably discussed and understood with the mind, and by the masses of human beings: it's this vast Occult Network that is composed of people who are possessed by evil spirits, and we only have to battle these evil spirits with rituals and beliefs in the efficacy of said rituals and go back to sleep. That way, we won't notice that the planet is being taken over by genetic psychopaths and we are being replaced by them because they are creating wars to kill all the normal people off.

We tend to point at others for the attacks on our psychic and physical territory while the real mafia is a hidden, invisible, occult one. Unless we are aware of these influences, that start with the subjective thought process, our polarized conceptualizations will always benefit these forces.

Busted!

It is the invisible we should hate, not our peers. Unfortunately, we as a spiritual race, are in total awe with the invisible and readily give them way more than the benefit of the doubt.

And of course, all human beings have souls, all human beings just want a good life, those that act nasty have been influenced by evil spirits and/or bad childhood experiences. Go back to sleep people! There are no OPs, there are no psychopaths!

It is so deeply ingrained in the human psyche that we do not realize that even a charlatan is already possessed with a message that will be voiced through subjective processes because he will say what he thinks and because his psychic space does not belong to him even against his conviction to the contrary. This is how Hitler got caught too.

Good job... a little psychological manipulation there... Hitler is always a good one to drag out and use as an example.

"how can you take anything that anyone says here as the "truth"
I don't and I won't. I take what is said with interest but I do not believe. I will not say that I believe what you discuss or state as false but I do not believe it to be true either.

Talking out of both sides of his mouth at once.

If you refer to the likes of Gurdijeff for instance, I will not take any of what he may have written as 'truth'. I will give it consideration and I will add to it but I will not have a master, like I will not be the master of any. One has to be his own proof and it is simply not possible to transfer experience. One can speak, write, but one can never interfere more than what is asked of him. Otherwise, it is a sort of black magic. The need to influence stems directly from occult forces that seek to control humanity. These forces are directly connected to the psychological nature of the reincarnated.

Oh, very nice paramoralistic manipulation. "I'm so good an proper... never mind that I've been doing all the things that I'm saying here I won't do... and let's not miss a chance to get in a dig at Gurdjieff... And let's not forget to add something about black magic to divert the possibility of that coming up... And get in a final shot about it all being about Occult Forces... and how they so easily manipulate poor souled humans... " etc etc.

If I remain (or even allowed to) on this forum, I will have to look a few things up here and there. That material will never be an influence or indoctrinated by anything but definitely, if I see something I don't like, I would not hesitate to point it out, likewise, if something holds ground, I will do so.

Don't hold your breath, UB. You are already busted.

I can already see that some would react by saying 'on what grounds can you give or withhold ground?'. All I would say to this would be that this is the prerogative of the individual to upturn all stones and be prepared to see his own stone upturned until that time when it is untouchable. We have to be free in spirit, free of mind, concepts should not prevail over the right of freedom of a mind.

Paramoralistic BS framed in a particularly empty paragraph with evidence of aphasia.

Now, what have we learned in this thread about the Paranoid character disorder?

Paranoid character disorders: It is characteristic of paranoid behavior for people to be capable of relatively correct reasoning and discussion as long as the conversation involves minor differences of opinion. This stops abruptly when the partner's arguments begin to undermine their overvalued ideas, crush their long-held stereotypes of reasoning, or forces them to accept a conclusion they had subconsciously rejected before. Such a stimulus unleashes upon the partner a torrent of pseudo-logical, largely paramoralistic, often insulting utterances which always contain some degree of suggestion. ...
...the power of the paranoid lies in the fact that they easily enslave less critical minds, e.g. people with other kinds of psychological deficiencies, who have been victims of the egotistical influence of individuals with character disorders, and, in particular, a large segment of young people.

I believe Fifth Way has been caught by this already a time or two. I notice that you were being sucked in this time as well, FW. I think you might need to spend some time reading the very things I suggested earlier for getting a grip on the real world.

... the response of accepting paranoid argumentation is qualitatively more frequent in reverse proportion to the civilization level of the community in question...

For your edification, here is a bit more on the type:

We know today that the psychological mechanism of paranoid phenomena is twofold: one is caused by damage to the brain tissue, the other is functional or behavioral. Within the above-mentioned process of rehabilitation, any brain-tissue lesion causes a certain slackening of accurate thinking and, as a consequence, of the personality structure. Most typical are those cases caused by an aggression in the diencephalon by various pathological factors, resulting in its permanently decreased tonal ability, and similarly of the tonus of inhibition in the brain cortex. Particularly during sleepless nights, runaway thoughts give rise to a paranoid changed view of human reality, as well as to ideas which can be either gently naive or violently revolutionary. Let us call this kind paranoid characteropathy.

In persons free of brain tissue lesions, such phenomena most frequently occur as a result of being reared by people with paranoid characteropathia, along with the psychological terror of their childhood. Such psychological material is then assimilated creating the rigid stereotypes of abnormal experiencing. This makes it difficult for thought and world view to develop normally, and the terror-blocked contents become transformed into permanent, functional, congestive centers.

Now, it would be nice if we could, by calmly discussing things here, help such people to overcome such problems, but the fact is, we can't. We have experienced it too many times, in all its variations, to deceive ourselves that we can. You could say that we are "convinced" to a high degree of probability, based on experience, observation, testing hypotheses, and so on, that there is little possibility that a forum such as this is the place for individuals to undertake the kind of disintegration necessary to clean out their thinking circuits even if it COULD be done. And the best research says it can't be done; such conditions can only be "managed," not cured.

And here is where we come to the problem: We don't want the forum to deteriorate into a food fight, and we intend to preserve the free will of those who want to discuss and not be inundated with schizoidal and paranoid nonsense.

But that leads to the issue: how do we do this without acting like paranoid characteropaths ourselves?

We have had to give thought to this problem for a number of years now, especially after the interactions with Vinnie Bridges and gang. When we booted them from the list, of course they began to rant "cult" and "totalitarian" and "violation of free speech" and so on.

Well, at the time, we didn't understand what was happening in terms of ponerization. But we certainly understood that OUR free will to be free of manipulation was being violated. We also understood that these rants were attempts to manipulate others into agreeing with them that WE had no rights at all.

Over time, as we observed this behavior, we began to get a glimmer of just how the "giving" tendencies of individuals could be so easily manipulated by liars using what are generally accepted as "truths". That later led to understanding of "the cult of the plausible lie." And so on.

At the same time, we could see how this same approach of the liars and manipulators was exactly that: cultic, "totalitarian" and a "violation of free speech." (Not to mention Free Will.)

Well, we certainly knew that, in our case, we were not a cult, nor were we being totalitarian nor violating anyone's right to Free Speech. But, we could see how it could easily TURN that way if we tried to establish hard and fast rules about it.

Every time the same issue came up with various early cass discussion group members who tried the manipulation game and ended up on the outside, either because we exposed them and they unsubbed, or because we unsubbed them for violation of our very liberal "rules," the whole "cult" rant would begin again. What's more, we could see that this appeal - "my free speech has been violated! Don't I have rights, too?! - to the giving nature of the normal person had a strange affect on people's minds.

We started thinking about social and cultural rules in general and saw how so many things that are accepted as "normal" were used AGAINST normal people in the hands of psychopaths, pathocrats, etc.

We now have a much better understanding of this from Lobaczewski and descriptions of the Ponerization processes. Well, as noted above, we have given a LOT of thought to this for a LONG time now.

As mentioned above, there is the issue of ideological terms and moralistic statements extracted from a positive ideology being used by liars to manipulate and control "normal" people. Here is an excerpt from Ponerology about this:

Note: a "primary ponerogenic association" is one that begins, from the outset, with evil intentions, like a mafia or a criminal gang that makes no pretense of being "good." They are generally easily spotted. It is the "secondary ponerogenic associations" that are more problematical. This is a group that starts out with a positive ideology (whether perfect or not, at least there are good intentions and some good ideas) and is gradually subverted to the use of evil. One example is Christianity and how it has been coopted for control and to justify wars and murder. Another more recent one is the republican party "revived" by the "Neocons."

An ideology of a secondarily ponerogenic association is formed by gradual adaptation of the primary ideology to functions and goals other than the original formative ones.

A certain kind of layering or schizophrenia of ideology takes place during the ponerization process. The outer layer closest to the original content is used for the group's propaganda purposes, especially regarding the outside world, although it can in part also be used inside with regard to disbelieving lower-echelon members.

The second layer presents the elite with no problems of comprehension: it is more hermetic, generally composed by slipping a different meaning into the same names. Since identical names signify different contents depending on the layer in question, understanding this "doubletalk" requires simultaneous fluency in both languages.

Average people succumb to the first layer's suggestive insinuations for a long time before they learn to understand the second one as well. Anyone with certain psychological deviations, especially if he is wearing the mask of normality with which we are already familiar, immediately perceives the second layer to be attractive and significant; after all, it was built by people like him.

Comprehending this doubletalk is therefore a vexatious task, provoking quite understandable psychological resistance; this very duality of language, however, is a pathognomonic symptom indicating that the human union in question is touched by the ponerogenic process to an advanced degree.

So, we see that using words in a certain way, a "doubletalk" way, is one of the signs of ponerization. That is, when people like Vinnie rant about "free speech," which we all accept as a positive thing, what they really mean is "freedom to lie and use manipulative tactics on anyone and everyone." When they accuse a group of being a "cult," it really means that the targeted group resists their attempts to lie and manipulate their way to the top within it.

Lobaczewski talks about the fact that groups that are susceptible to ponerization are groups that are formed to "right social wrongs," etc. This means that the members are people who are "fighting for the underdog" to begin with, and because of this, are already willing to give up standardized and accepted social "principles" which makes it even easier for them to give up more and more and justify everything they do in the name of their ideological goal: righting social wrongs.

The ideology of unions affected by such degeneration has certain constant factors regardless of their quality, quantity, or scope of action: namely, the motivations of a wronged group, radical righting of the wrong, and the higher values of the individuals who have joined the organization. These motivations facilitate sublimation of the feeling of being wronged and different, caused by one's own psychological failings, and appear to liberate the individual from the need to abide by uncomfortable moral principles.

In the world full of real injustice and human humiliation, making it conducive to the formation of an ideology containing the above elements, a union of its converts may easily succumb to degradation. When this happens, those people with a tendency to accept the better version of the ideology will tend to justify such ideological duality.

This, of course, (even before Lobaczewski), was a problem that exercised us to no end. How to determine when, where, and how to identify so-called "moral principles" that have been specifically created to oppress people, and which are truly "universal," so to say? Which to give up? Which to retain? And if not retain, what principles to replace what is given up with?

For example, not too long ago on the cass list, we had a long discussion about true conscience and whether or not people who are acting based on "social rules" are really acting out of conscience or just because they are programmed.

Again, a network is invaluable. The subject can be researched, the problems identified, etc.

Another example is the subject of lying. Now, Mouravieff has a long section on lying and Gurdjieff talks about it at length as well. But then, Gurdjieff makes the remark that "sincerity with everyone is weakness." He also points out that the teacher can lie to the students, but the student must not ever lie to the teacher. There is an obvious reason for this. Very often, the teacher may have to put a student in a certain situation in order for them to learn something crucial. That may require a lie. But if the student lies to the teacher, there is no possibility that the teacher can help such a student because he will be working with incomplete data.

Then, of course, there is the very important issue of what Mouravieff calls the "strategic enclosure," that a person, who begins the work, must "pretend" and "play a role" - as Gurdjieff calls it - toward the outside world in order to forestall attacks from the General Law which he is not yet prepared to defend against. This is certainly lying of a special sort.

The ONE thing that is certain about this is that lying to the SELF is the major no-no. If you lie to yourself, and worse, if you believe the lies you tell yourself, (which is pretty common for most people running on programs), then you are a hypocrite and, according to everything we can observe, as well as statements made in esoteric work, a hypocrite has no hope for spiritual advancement.

The whole point of the work is to expose to the self the lies that one tells the self, to ruthlessly eradicate such lies and find the true self, stripped of all illusion.

So we see, from just this short review, that "never tell a lie" is another area that is doubletalk used by psychopaths and pathocrats against normal people.

Certainly, in an STO world, never telling a lie would be the norm. But we are not in such a world, and in a world where liars lie almost constantly in the guise of truth, and telling the truth can expose you to the control and manipulation of liars so that you can never accumulate enough strength to "see the unseen" or do anything else, obviously, a different approach is necessary.

Now, the C's have said: "give the lie what it asks for: the truth." But there is another part to this. When you are being manipulated to tell the truth so that some psychopath can gain control of you, you are almost obligated to tell a lie.

I have often used the example of a resistance movement to point this out.

If a resistance movement is fighting for freedom for all, what would happen if they went around telling the much stronger invaders all their plans, who did this or that, where they meet, when they are going to make their next uprising, and so on, the GOAL of "Freedom for All" would be denied it's necessary support and would fail. Telling the absolute truth in all cases would FEED the STS agenda.

Does that mean that the end justifies the means?

That's another slippery slope that has to be navigated with great care. Obviously, if you go too far with that one, you have become part of the STS reality.

So, where do you draw the line?

Well, that is obviously going to be something that we have to work our way through as each situation presents itself. I don't think that there can be any hard and fast rules. We will always have to remember the Law of the Three Forces: there is Good, there is Evil, and there is the specific situation that determines which is which.

Observation of the ponerization processes of various human unions throughout history easily leads to the conclusion that the initial step is a moral warping of the group's ideational contents. In analyzing the contamination of a group's ideology, we note first of all an infiltration of foreign, simplistic, and doctrinaire contents, thereby depriving it of any healthy support for, and trust in, the necessity of understanding of human nature. This opens the way for invasion by pathological factors and the ponerogenic role of their carriers.

Above, Lobaczewski has pointed out that the ponerization process includes the infiltration of SIMPLISTIC and DOCTRINAIRE contents that eliminate the possibility of a wide understanding of human nature. When you start declaring things as "black or white," you've already lost. When you say "free speech for all" and "never tell a lie" or never do this, and always do that, you have become simplistic and doctrinaire and have lost the ability to utilize the Three Forces and to analyze the line of force in a situation which can tell you if the action moves you closer to a Free Will universe where STO prevails, or does it feed the STS domination.

[The threat of infiltration of simplistic and doctrinaire influences] could justify the conviction of moralists that maintaining a union's ethical discipline and ideational purity is sufficient protection against derailing or hurtling into an insufficiently comprehended world of error. Such a conviction strikes a ponerologist as a unilateral oversimplification of an eternal reality which is more complex. After all, the loosening of ethical and intellectual controls is sometimes a consequence of the direct or indirect influence of the omnipresent factors of the existence of deviants in any social group, along with some other non-pathological human weaknesses.

Here the point is made that just hanging on to strict ideals and having hard and fast moral answers to any question is not enough, especially when one considers the element of deviants that can infect a group like a pathogen. Again, a broad understanding of human nature, of reality, and keeping always in mind the law of three is probably the best approach we have at present. We may figure out more as we go along, but for now, that's what we have to work with.

And that is why it is SO CRUCIAL for ALL of you to have a broad and comprehensive knowledge base. When the C's say "knowledge protects," they aren't saying that Laura and Ark and the SOTT team are going to gather all this knowledge and protect YOU... it means that YOU, yourselves, must work as hard as you can to acquire as much as you can. We can help, we can all help each other. No one of us can do all the research and searching needed... it takes a team, a group, myriads of experiences and contributions, to create the kind of knowledge base that protects.

For centuries, individuals exhibiting various psychological anomalies have had the tendency to participate in the activities of human unions. This is made possible on the one hand by such group's weaknesses, i.e. failure in adequate psychological knowledge; on the other hand, it deepens the moral failings and stifles the possibilities of utilizing healthy common sense and understanding matters objectively. In spite of the resulting tragedies and unhappiness, humanity has shown a certain progress, especially in the cognitive area; therefore, a ponerologist may be cautiously optimistic. After all, by detecting and describing these aspects of the ponerization process of human groups, which could not be understood until recently, we shall be able to counteract such processes earlier and more effectively.

Again, depth and breadth of knowledge of human psychological variations is crucial.

Repeat that: breadth of knowledge of human psychological variations is CRUCIAL.

And now we come to the specific problem that concerns us:

Any human group affected by the process described herein is characterized by its increasing regression from natural common sense and the ability to perceive psychological reality. Someone considering this in terms of traditional categories might consider it an instance of "turning into half- wits" or the development of intellectual deficiencies and moral failings.

This certainly describes our world today... regression from common sense in EVERY area, from Iraq to the economy, to the fact that people are accepting violation of their human rights, torture, loss of freedoms, etc. A whole lot of people most definitely seem to have turned into half-wits diseased with intellectual deficiencies and moral failings in spite of their paramoralistic slogans. So we have a clear example to observe.

A ponerological analysis of this process, however, indicates that pressure is being applied to the more normal part of the association by pathological factors present in certain individuals who have been allowed to participate in the group because the lack of good psychological knowledge has not madated their exclusion.

Thus, whenever we observe some group member being treated with no critical distance, although he betrays one of the psychological anomalies familiar to us, and his opinions being treated as at least equal to those of normal people, although they are based on a characteristically different view of human matters, we must derive the conclusion that this human group is affected by a ponerogenic process and if measures are not taken the process shall continue to its logical conclusion.

And this is the problem right here. We must treat those who display psychological anomalies with DISTANCE and CRITICISM. And that means, again "depth and breadth of knowledge of human psychological variations is crucial."

We shall treat this in accordance with the above described first criterion of ponerology, which retains its validity regardless of the qualitative and quantitative features of such a union: the atrophy of natural critical faculties with respect to pathological individuals becomes an opening to their activities, and, at the same time, a criterion for recognizing the association in concern as ponerogenic.

REPEAT: the atrophy of natural critical faculties with respect to pathological individuals becomes an opening to their activities, and, at the same time, a criterion for recognizing the association in concern as ponerogenic.

That is to say, if we do NOT distance ourselves from those with psychological anomalies, we are permitting the infection. This means that we must examine their writings and produce adequate critiques for the sake of others who come behind us, showing how to recognize such pathogens, and how to deal with them. ]

Such a state of affairs simultaneously consists as a liminal (watershed) situation, whereupon further damage to people's healthy common sense and critical moral faculties becomes ever easier. Once a group has inhaled a sufficient dose of pathological material to give birth to the conviction that these not-quite-normal people are unique geniuses, it starts subjecting its more normal members to pressure characterized by corresponding paralogical and paramoral elements.

For many people, such pressure of collective opinion takes on attributes of a moral criterion; for others, it represents a kind of psychological terror ever more difficult to endure.

The average person who does not have a breadth and depth of psychological knowledge can be so easily terrorized by these pathogenic people. Trolls or agents or whatever we may call them. They travel in packs and subject normal people to their special brand of psychological pressure, and this affects normal people without adequate knowledge as being a "collective opinion." This is, in fact, the means they use to control and dominate: they create the illusion of "collective opinion" by their "spellbinders" and "clappers."

The phenomenon of counter-selection thus occurs in this phase of ponerization: individuals with a more normal sense of psychological reality leave after entering into conflict with the newly modified group; simultaneously, individuals with various psychological anomalies join the group and easily find a way of life there. The former feel "pushed into counter-revolutionary positions", and the latter can afford to remove their masks of sanity ever more often.

People who have been thus thrown out of a ponerogenic association because they were too normal suffer bitterly; they are unable to understand their specific state. Their ideal, the reason they joined the group, which constituted a part of the meaning of life for them, has now been degraded, although they cannot find a rational basis for this fact. They feel wronged; they "fight against demons" they are not in a position to identify.

The fact is their personalities have already been modified to a certain extent due to saturation by abnormal psychological material, especially psychopathic material. They easily fall into the opposite extreme in such cases, because unhealthy emotions rule their decisions. What they need is good psychological information in order to find the path of reason and measure. Based on a ponerologic understanding of their condition, psychotherapy could provide rapid positive results.

However, if the union they left is succumbing to deep ponerization, a threat looms over them: they may become the objects of revenge, since they have "betrayed" a magnificent ideology.

This is the stormy period of a group's ponerization, followed by a certain stabilization in terms of contents, structure, and customs. Rigorous selective measures of a clearly psychological kind are applied to new members. So as to exclude the possibility of becoming sidetracked by defectors, people are observed and tested to eliminate those characterized by excessive mental independence or psychological normality. The new internal function created is something like a "psychologist", and it doubtless takes advantage of the above-described psychological knowledge collected by psychopaths.

It should be noted that certain of these exclusionary steps taken by a group in the process of ponerization, should have been taken against deviants by the ideological group in the beginning. So rigorous selective measures of a psychological kind taken by a group is not necessarily an indicator that the group is ponerogenic. Rather one should carefully examine what the psychological selection is based on.

If any group seeks to avoid ponerization, it will want to exclude individuals with any psychological dependence on subjective beliefs, rites, rituals, drugs, and certainly those individuals that are incapable of objectively analyzing their own inner psychological content or who reject the process of Positive disintegration.

So, there it is. Yes, a fine line, but there ARE criteria... they are somewhat subtle at times, and more evident at others. Most important of all is a broad knowledge base. Because, believe me, if, at some point in the future, any of you are required by circumstances to act as adviser to any group that seeks the knowledge YOU have acquired, you are going to be faced with this problem.

How to learn what you must learn, how to pass it on to others, how to teach it to children and impress on them that they must teach it to their children... This is a pressing concern.

We do not know what is going to happen in the next few years, but based on the signs, it is going to be interesting. Getting in shape to be able to hold your frequency, to help others acquire knowledge to act colinearly with you, is the goal.

This is the classroom.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Actually, 'concatenate' is used quite a lot in the software engineering world because it means pasting together different text fields into one field. It is a technical term that in certain circles is used in a more extended way. Since I work for a software engineering division of a company, I hear the word a lot. But it's true that other people wouldn't know what it means.

That being said, UB seemed to use it wrongly, since he, I think, meant the opposite of concatenate.

I want to bring to everyone's attention certain anomalies in UB's posts that are clues:

Well, a lot of points made and questions. Thank you for such.
I will go quickly through them and concatenate those that were repeated therefore I may not necessarily answer directly to one person or another but rather to the points made.

Notice first of all the use of the term "concatenate". Now, this is not a usual word... I'm pretty verbose and don't think I've ever used it in my life. Does anyone talk that way, really? Usually not...

 

[ark]

That being said, UB seemed to use it wrongly, since he, I think, meant the opposite of concatenate.

Exactly. From his comments it is clear that what he meant is to take "set theoretical union", that is to replace the repeating concatenated content by one common term:

In formal language theory (and therefore in programming languages), concatenation is the operation of joining two character strings end to end. For example, the strings "foo" and "bar" may be concatenated to give "foobar". In programming languages, string concatenation is usually accomplished by putting a concatenation operator between two strings (operands). The following statement assumes the language uses the "+" symbol as its concatenation operator:

print "Hello " + "World";

This code will print to the screen:

Hello World

 

[Fifth Way]

\



Given the fact that I am continuously being "sucked into it" shows that - even though I think I can follow Lobaczewski intellectually - I am not able to do this practically!

Now the honest question needs to be: Am I suffering a character disorder as well?
The fact that I am "sucked into it" again and again seems to imply that. Because Lobaczewski says:

Anyone with certain psychological deviations...[]....perceives the second layer to be attractive and significant; after all, it was built by people like him.

I can report that I do not suffer from sleepless nights, runaway thoughts that give rise to a paranoid changed view of human reality. And I don't have violently revolutionary ideas. I may have gently naive ideas but than again that is a very loose term.
There is also the probability of a certain psychological manipulation in my childhood, however the term 'psychological terror' seems too strong.

As you Laura telling us that you came to the conclusion that such people can't be helped to overcome whatever problem they have - even that you have to distance yourself from those that display such psychological anomalies, I would logically at this point like to know whether you are viewing me to be in that camp?

Or could it be that my dyslexia has anything to do with it? Naturally I was (despite serious efforts by my parents to counter this) very much discriminated for being basically too stupid by a long list of schoolteachers. That of course resulted into an inferiority complex that is probably still alive and well today as I am trying to be a writer.

I think this may be why I sometimes tend to try to defend the ones that seemingly, on first sight, have a problem expressing themselves.

Also, when you point out how people use the wrong words as clues for some psychological anomalies I wonder whether that also applies to people who may express themselves in a second or even third language, not their mother tongue.

I use sometimes $2 words not quite correct. The reason for that may be that from my own language (German in this case) a word I am totally familiar and comfortable with and which would be the correct one to use can be translate directly into English without knowing it, as it is a word with a Latin root i.e. diametral = diametrically. At the same time, in English there very well may be a word that is significantly better suited but as it is complete different from the German word I may not know it and hence appears a mistake.

In such a case there would be absolutely no psychologically anomaly nor would there be some hidden agenda trying to imply some great intellect. I would just be speaking (writing) the best I could.

I think there is the probability that the combination of a.) dyslexia (which is wide spread), b.) a second or third language and c.) "spell check" (that gives you the feeling of orthographic security but sometimes corrects the words the wrong way in the context) may be creating such "apparent" clues that can be misdiagnosed as a case of aphasia!?

Or are dyslexia and aphasia somehow related. I would think not but am not schooled enough to know.

I totally trust you that you have great experience and insight for those language anomalies from your professional work, but aren't those insights only based on a purely native English speaking environment while you now face and international group which should increase the complexity in terms of language problems or patterns?

So again, of course I am hoping:
Maybe because of that - my own shortcomings - I subconsciously tend to defend the one's that I suspect (admittedly undiscerning) to have the same shortcomings as well.

But maybe it is not so!
Naturally the possibility of a psychological and pathological anomaly that I may be suffering from with no hope to fix it, freaks me kind of out!

I would like to stress that I am not refereeing at all to UB's message, his content that you exposed! There I totally agree. And to try a little bit of 'high density statement' myself I think UB's bottom-line is this:

There is not truth, so it can't be found and even if there were some, your mind would prevent you from finding it. Therefore: All you "Truth Seekers" stop what you are doing and go back to sleep. Better even, go and investigate some nebulous occult forever.

Feedback would be very much appreciated.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Laura, actually I often wondered why if STO "helps all those who ask" that they would limit their contact with STS FRV, and the more the FRV is out of sync with STO, the less chance communication between the beings. My thought at first was, if STO is really STO - why would they judge or differenciate whom they help? Isn't it selfish to help only those that are like you and not those who are different? (actually that's a question that pathocrats use as well because it has a manipulative twist that manipulates those who are good but uncritical, as I later discovered)

So if an STS asked an STO being for knowledge, knowledge that will be used for control of others, what does an STO being do? And I think this touches on 2 things. First, what does "ASK" mean in the sense that the C's refer to it, can an STS being ask at all? But also, another thought I had is, if you're STO and you give STS beings knowledge that you know will be used for control of others - do you then not support STS in the process? So then, how can you be STO if you're a tool used by STS to control? How can you serve others if for every 1 person that you serve, 10 others are controlled by the STS beings to whom you gave knowledge?

In light of that it makes sense that STO would limit contact with STS, otherwise the so-called STO being would be hurting others, indirectly, probably more than he can even directly assist himself. And as I understand it, serving others indirectly counts as well, because when you guys asked the C's why they don't communicate with everybody on earth - they said they do, through you. So STO would take responsibility, in part, when his actions indirectly hurt others - and would do his best to avoid this by serving only those that are also most likely to use that knowledge to serve even more. Otherwise his effort is wasted, osit, and he ends up contributing more harm to the universe than good. And that may explain why when you were asking personal questions they mentioned something about that narrowing the conduit (I don't remember exact wording) and although they answered, they preferred questions the answers to which can benefit all. So I think their intent is to serve as many as possible with as little effort as possible in all situations. If they can figure out the best way to accomplish this, then of course if they spend 100% of their energy serving others, it would maximize the totality of their service. And they could always be in contemplation about what they may be doing wrong, where they could serve better and how, and what needs adjustment etc. This could actually be part of their lessons - possibly.

But also, I think this relates to what you said about lying. Sometimes telling the truth can not only hurt you and other truth seekers and render them unable to continue their way, but it can hurt everyone else as well as a domino effect. So it would in fact be more STS to tell the truth, because in those circumstances the only reason NOT to lie would be your own irrational programming that keeps saying "lying is wrong, period". Then you'd be acting out of programming, not out of conscious thought and reason.

Knowledge protects, but also knowledge is power. And I think we're all responsible for whom we give power to. This is also why the C's did not divulge some things to you I think, because although it WAS knowledge and you did ask, it would not benefit you and you could hurt yourself and others in the process - and so the whole point of this contact would be jeopardized for no good reason, which would of course effect the entire planet and the future of humanity as well in a huge way.

So for example telling you where the "Ark" is could be an example of such dangeous/unnecessary knowledge at this time.

Just some thoughts.

P.S. - Fifth way, I also too often understand things on an intellectual level, but when it comes to spotting them in real world, I fail, and end up being suckered in. I think that's because when you're reading it purely intellectually, you may not be influenced by those programs that kick in when you are subjected to the actual real-world scenario of the same things happening. But, if you do follow him intellectually, I think that's already a good step in the sense that - at least you grok it, and now you just need to work on (as do we all really) the actual programs that prevent us from SEEING the same things in real situations.

I say that because some people cannot even get this intellectually, because certainly it is not easy - it takes critical thinking and openness - but it is even harder to not only get it, but apply it. I personally find Laura's analogies and examples very useful to getting what Lobacewski is saying in more formal language. Interestingly, Lobacewski does not use too many "huge words" himself, so it's not the vocabulary that gets me, it's grokking just what is being said. In light of that, I think his material needs to be read very slowly and carefully, and often many times with constant stopping to contemplate before moving on. It's just sooo dense with invaluable information it's practically impossible to read it and get it the first time, or even the second time.

I think threads like this are absolutely invaluable in terms of helping us learn - people like Angelo and Unbeliever provide great opportunity to apply what we've been reading and discussing. This reminds me of petty tyrants, only the internet kind. What I realised about myself though, when I was reading unbeliever's comments and then writing my own reply, at every step I had to stop and think if I'm way off base here, if I'm completely misunderstanding it. Laura is braver than I am, or at least more confident in what she sees due to her experience because at many occasions I just wanted to say "ok, this is a nonsensical word salad" but I was afraid to say it - what if I'm entirely and utterly wrong about my impression? And his stance against truth was either really confusing or shocking, again, I was wondering if anybody could really be this confused or I'm just misunderstanding him and he's really saying something intelligent.

So I picked out what I WAS sure of, and said that.

 

[Ruth]

I don't believe that STO would ever give STS something that would hurt others, whether that be information, technology, well, help in any way, to do a destructive act. STS can only get 'help' from others in that way from STS.

If someone really was hell bent on taking the path of entropy, they might help them along a bit, I suppose, but it would be their own path and it would probably consist of helping that person's 'victims' to right a wrong that had been done to them, or minimise the wrong.

As far as the Ark of the Covenant goes, that's just dangerous to 3D, probably because its a 4D technology. The same way a car is dangerous to a cat, especially when it runs in front of it... It's most especially dangerous in STS hands, whether that be 3D or 4D. Interesting piece of technology. It must have been made by 4D STO, or originated from them.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Given the fact that I am continuously being "sucked into it" shows that - even though I think I can follow Lobaczewski intellectually - I am not able to do this practically!

Now the honest question needs to be: Am I suffering a character disorder as well?

[...]

Feedback would be very much appreciated.

Fifth Way, you can coherently communicate your thoughts, Unbeliever seemingly cannot. While some of your language usage is noticeably awkward, it reads like you're just a non-English-speaking writer. For example:

..freaks me kind of out!

Should read: kind of freaks me out! However, Unbeliever's posts read like they're coming more from word-salad-on-the-brains than any real language differences (I notice that UB lists his location as Montreal, so I assume he is a native French speaker, however, he does speak really good 'bad English'!). I think that realizing you are susceptible to this phenomenon should motivate us all (and you particularly) to really be on the look-out for it. Psychic vampires are experts at pulling the pity trick. Now, this does not mean we should automatically assume that any 'pitiful' person is faking it. We should, however, keep a safe distance, I think. If we get hooked in EVERY time because we don't want to be cold to a person who really is wronged, we are sure to become hooked by an expert manipulator. So, keep your distance; don't immediately fight for the underdog, as it may be a wolf in chihuaha's clothing.

 

[Guest]

I'd like to provide a perspective regarding language. This is an international site, where many forum members may be well-versed in English, but they think in another language. The disadvantages to this are not just related to expression, but to the ability to semantically absorb the communications of others. Language entails semantic organization, and every language has at least subtle differences in such organization than any other.

If your primary language is not English, you do not think in English (even if you use English cognitive constructs), and so must translate not only the language but the organization of its meaning to your own. This is not so much difficult as it is tiresome.

There is an exception to this, and it is the case of bilingualism. In that case, you have command of both languages to the extent that you can cross-link between their semantic constructs, and have a much wider semantic field, which ideally you can then express in terms of one or the other language.

This is my advantage, due to the fact that I grew up going from an American school one year to a Greek school the next and back again until my teens. This was rough on my childhood, but it forced the necessity of constant semantic adaptation upon me.

Later, in discussions with friends, I learned that I could view any topic from more perspectives than those who were semantically limited to one language (even if they could speak two or more). I realized I was thinking differently than my peers, and also knew I could easily manipulate conversations going through semantic backdoors they could not access.

I realized that it does not take a rocket scientist to learn to manipulate, just the desire to do so and a bit of objective observation. Basically, the manipulator relies on the listener being inhibited from close examination of his/her intended purpose in the conversation.

I got no pleasure from manipulation, not so much because I was empathic toward others, but because I saw it as a waste of time. Manipulation demands you sacrifice any sincere desire for truth on its altar. It's as simple as that.

I realized, however, that anyone could manipulate regardless of linguistic capabilities, and with rudimentary cleverness. As language is a path to truth, it has a certain sacred quality to it IMO, and manipulators are profane blasphemers in that sense.

And I realized that manipulating language is a bona fide hypnotic technique. Sophists made a profession out of these techniques of semantic suggestion. Modern disinformation tactics are based on them.

Being subjected to semantic manipulation is essentially being subjected to hypnotic induction. In one college writing class, a very knowledgeable professor would tell us to never underestimate the power of language. It is not WHAT you say, but HOW you say it that matters.

When you string words together, you create a rhythm. The whole point of learning to use short sentences with distinctly structured syntax is to generate a rhythm that minimizes the readers need to try to figure out what you are saying while they are reading. Trying to unravel the meaning of a sentence, while your eyes have already gone to the next one is HIGHLY taxing, and decreases the focus of the reader.

The whole point of commas and using short sentences is to align the meaning of the words with the most efficient cognitive absorption possible. These pauses provide brief periods of time where the reader can add what was said to his/her total array of understanding regarding what is read.

The communicator is a chef of words that must provide as palatable a plate as possible for the receiver in order for his/her intended meaning to be digested. The mark of the proficient communicator is, therefore, response-ability and consideration toward the reader/listener.

Like anything, however, this learned methodology (that only requires diligent practice of its basic principles, and no particular degree of talent), is a double-edged blade. As such, the principles of response-able communication can be twisted to generate controlled confusion in the reader.

This confusion can allow the manipulator to "lead" the receiver to accept ideas they would not accept if the same ideas were presented in a clear manner. Semantic meanings are, instead, garbled within the context of a hypnotic rhythm of expression.

Rather than placing the words in a context of cognitive meaning as these are read, the reader is simply bombarded by them and is pressured to absorb them just to get to the end of the presented text.

All readers feel this pressure, and there are two basic "gut" reactions: acceptance and rejection. These are both sane and normal reactions, and what they have in common is that they are both immediate responses to the cognitive dissonance generated when you cannot readily cognitively "digest" what is being "fed" to you.

If the reader chooses to accept the communication, whether through a sense of giving the benefit of the doubt and being fair, or just to get to the end of the text and be done with the dissonance of reading it, they may find themselves submitting to a form of subliminal persuasion if the intent of the writer is to manipulate them.

And the insidious thing is that this manipulation, if existent, need not be to accept certain conclusions, but to undermine the foundation of all previous conclusions. Without even realizing it, the reader can begin to doubt all that has been examined, and critically accepted before, and not even understand why he/she doubts in the first place.

All they know is that they are giving the writer the benefit of the doubt, and that from reading the writer's viewpoints they are, in turn, doubting all they thought to be true.

We have to consider, in addition, that the same acceptance of ideas can occur when the reader is presented with a clear and coherent view. In that case, however, they have cognitively digested the new idea and made the appropriate comparisons and contrasts with current beliefs. The difference is the presence or lack of cognitive dissonance in the writings in mention.

If the reader recognizes the cognitive dissonance, yet avoids it because of the discomfort it creates, the immediate reaction is rejection of the text. Sometimes the reader can provide specific reasons as to why the text is rejected.

If the dissonance itself isn't directly addressed, however, the response may be referenced on the discomfort instead of the causes behind it, even if the text is referenced. This kind of response can include dissecting the text in terms of specific logical points, definitions etc. instead of identifying the overall pattern of semantic manipulation involved. This pattern is identified by the questions: what is the manipulator trying to sell, and what are the implications on US if we "buy" into it?

Those who have accepted the text may then come to believe that the rejecters are acting in a defensive manner, since they have absorbed the semantics of the text as givens, and questioning generates cognitive dissonance in them.

So the manipulator has effectively succeeded in dividing the networking group into two camps: acceptors and rejecters, and the next step is to play them off of each other. There is another reason why the acceptor can feel dissonance when others reject the text. This is because those rejecting it do not focus on the semantic pattern in specific enough a manner, or their specifics may be focused on secondary semantic points and not address the foundational sematics that cause dissonance.

To those who have accepted the text, this looks like the others are simply attacking it. Again, the conclusion may be due to the fact that arguments do not place focus on the specific causes of dissonance that have caused the text to be so easily absorbed by some and rejected by others. These causes can be understood as the manipulator's primary "agenda" in writing the text.

To simply come out and try to describe these causes is still not satisfactory (and these description may also come off as accusations), because there is still a gap between the motives of the manipulator, and how those motives translate into the patterns of information designed to cause dissonance and impose suggestions.

I am afraid one post cannot do justice to this topic, and I realize long posts can tire the reader. In addition, discernment cannot be learned in a day. For now, what is important is to observe one's own responses very closely when reading a text that cannot easily be absorbed.

The reader needs to form an inner checklist regarding such texts. The first point is to acknowledge dissonance, and know that dissonance does not necessarily imply manipulation on behalf of the writer, but a lack of consideration for the reader. The first point is, therefore, to beware (be aware) of dissonance when reading.

Experienced dissonance may also mean in some cases that the reader's ideas are being challenged, and that the resistance is in the reader. This is a matter for the reader to decide, which is why honesty with self and clear self-observation are prerequisites before even taking the first step toward discernment.

On the other hand, the necessity for reader consideration is paramount on a forum where English is not the first language for many of the participants. And all those participating know this. So if the writer is NOT a manipulator, they either are incapable of writing clearly or they simply don't care.

If they don't care, they are not taking networking seriously, and need to make some choices. If they do care, but have communication problems they need to simply think very hard about every posting. In other words, it is not enough to be "theoretically" considerate, to feel for others. You have to move in any way you can to apply that consideration when you are called to act.

If you have some disadvantage in being able to communicate coherently in writing, you have to write shorter posts, you have to consider, and write your main idea or thesis beforehand, and write short sentences and short separated paragraphs. You have to read your post and ask yourself how easily another could understand it. In short, you have to counter laziness.

If one is NOT a manipulator, but simply disadvantaged and writes that way, there is no manipulative rhythm. In that case, however, even if the post is "accepted" by the reader, it becomes garbage in/garbage out, and a waste of everyone's time.

I do not want to pose as teacher here, but I believe that to discern you have to organize your thoughts and expressions as best you can, because in effect it is your thoughts that are being manipulated (if that is the intent of the communicator), and your thoughts that are being garbled even if manipulation is not intended.

High standards of networking communication are also important, as Laura mentioned, because some of the participants here may find themselves in positions of transmitting important knowledge to others, formally and/or informally.

Regardless of intelligence and/or education level, receivers of ideas can digest them, and make choices that are much more coherent with their free will if communicators learn to apply these standards. And regardless of eduction and/or intelligence, those that receive ideas in this manner KNOW that consideration is being payed them, they know they are respected and so can be motivated to respond sincerely to the one presenting the ideas.

The American people, and the people of the world at large are being manipulated by their medias because they do not have high standards of organized communication between them. And we know that the PTB are deliberately creating these conditions to make their work easier.

By recognizing and confronting cognitive dissonance, raising our own standards, and applying consideration in our communications we can strike at disinformation at the root of its strategic maneuvers, and give CoIntelPro a run for its money.

 

[Fifth Way]

...we can strike at disinformation at the root of its strategic maneuvers, and give CoIntelPro a run for its money.

...and we sure do.

Thanks for breaking it down for us/me.

...you can coherently communicate your thoughts...

Thanks. Suddenly I had serious doubts.

 

[vinny]

I haven't got much to add to this thread at the moment (am struggling to absorb it), except to say wow, its looking like the most important one on the whole forum. There is a lot to digest here, and I think everyone should read it!

One thing occurs to me. I am 'mono-lingual' myself so I don't have any great insight into the matter, but is there any possibility that having English as a secondary language may actually be USEFUL in some sense. In several ways:

1. when posting: requires a more deliberate use of language

2. when reading: provides an extra level of 'protection' from the hypnotic and dissonance-inducing effects that can be used, as EQ describes. If the language used is not the 'primary' language then is it 'less immediate' and so these fairly subliminal effects would be less pronounced because they go through an extra level of filtering and reconstruction into the native 'language of thought'?

 

[noise]

Taking some of this in I have some questions and comments. Some things that were being said I was under the impression that UB was making sense, in fact I would 'have' even said it resonates with me. In the simplest form I can put to words I got this from his posts: "UB's whole post was a thesis that the truth is not relavent cause everything that goes through the mind is based on polarity." That was in the fewest words I could muster. Back in my Crowley like days I would have totally agreed. These days for me everything just kind of brushes off. It is easy for me to take everything with a grain of salt these days, I feel like I have no beliefs at all.

I guess this (though it may be illusion) is a form of Spiritual Bankruptcy. I think I also contradict that alot as well. The programs I run or seem to have plugged in when it merits them to decipher a biblical reference or some mental archetype seem to slowly be fading. I like to think that is a good thing so that I can unplug from the subliminal fear tactics I was raised on - IE.. hell fire and damnation. Reading over all this I find it strange that, though I grasp syntax (likely at a kindergarten level), I had no idea that my conformity with UB's opinions or illusions, that I was fully conformant with his train of thought, for the most part. I did see something in his opening statement:

"Well, a lot of points made and questions. Thank you for such. I will go quickly through them.."
I did not understand why he would go quickly, instead of indevour to fully try and answer them. Given a few sentences into the rest of his writing I stopped questioning it. I may not be, and with my anti-biblical mindset (I see the bible as having alot of triggers that get me back in the fire and brimstone mindset), fully cognizant of even the bulk of the terms used, but using one, I feel so blessed and thankful that some door in my mind/self has been left open for me to learn. I certainly have sacred cows I have however found that at times even without someone pointing them out to me I can find the information that allows me to Identify them and get rid of them or accept new information and learn.

I 'imagine' this is an absolute nessesity as without this (in my own case prior to reading The Wave and Adventures with Cassiopaea) I think my mind would still be locked. In a wierd way, and this could easily be taken wrong, I have actually benefited from 9-11. I had lived, up until I saw Pentagon Strike, believing everything my senses took in, at least within the obvious, and never did nor would have questioned the Government, the ready made Religions.. It could be some occult cabal or whatever but I think that is just the tip of the ice-burg in a strange religio-politico-spritual way. This of course could be me stating some my own many illusions.

It's going to take me alot of learning to get up to speed as I can see several people are. I have to say thanks for showing me how the method works, though I don't quite have the knowledge, I appreciate the way it was shown point for point, how the illusion(s) were exposed. It may be my own idiocy which I don't mind exposing but if UB is trly seeking I hope he can overcome his pride and grasp at getting that door to open (which I metaphorically referred to above) as he seemed in some way to be searching for truth even though he does not believe in it. Strangely having typed the previous sentence, maybe it is the search for truth he is out to attack or mislead, as was pointed out. Hmm.. then if I was working to get him pity I would have just exposed myself, well if that is the case then I would hope that if I did/do expose my own programming and agent(s) that I can get that sh*t the heaven out of me and find the truth.
I want to write more but am having some confusion. I've never felt so emotionally hollowed out. Not so much toward the context of the above, but in my/the quest. Back to the books,
Salutes!

 

[Keit]

1. when posting: requires a more deliberate use of language

I can relate to that.

Although I know several languages (russian, english, hebrew), none of them on a desired level.
It's a result of different periods in my life, when I was forced to use only one of the languages, without developing enough skills for another. Only today I learn how to master all of them simultaneously, and can't find more optimal technic then "practice, practice, practice" :) But simply reading or writing is not enough. You have to "feel" the language, to catch the structure and general flow of the the words.

That's why I find EQ advises very useful. There is a saying here in Israel, that emigrants can speak Hebrew better then natives. Because when you learn a new language, you put an effort on proper spelling and grammar.
You pay attention to any small nuances, because you try to understand what is said or written. It takes a great effort and very time consuming. This is why, unfortunately, most of the Russian speakers prefer to "hang out" on russian forumes. If you don't have any specific and important reason to develop sufficient communicative skills with other people, you prefer "more comfortable" environment. It's can be labeled as a general lazyness
and probably, in most cases, this is a true reason. But I think that we all prefer to talk in our "mother tongue" because by translating ideas from one languadge to another, we miss part of the meaning or energy.
Words carry more then simple meaning, they carry intent or some sort of energetic signiture that can help other person to understand it more easily. It's also carry the "unspoken meaning"/semantic meaning that can be understood only by natives/mother tongue speakers.
But when my mind is busy to pay attention to a proper structure of the sentence or proper spelling, it loses most of it intention energy, I have to be always aware in order to sustain it.

2. when reading: provides an extra level of 'protection' from the hypnotic and dissonance-inducing effects that can be used, as EQ describes. If the language used is not the 'primary' language then is it 'less immediate' and so these fairly subliminal effects would be less pronounced because they go through an extra level of filtering and reconstruction into the native 'language of thought'?

I think you are correct.
As I said before, because reading long and complex posts is time and energy consuming, I've noticed that when I encounter "blurry" posts like those you are analyzing in this topic, I simply skip to the next, hoping that the next poster will clarify some of those writings with his responses.
It's not laziness, but simple necessity. When it will take 5 minutes for you to read this post, it can take half an hour for me, because I try to comprehent something from this word salad. And still, after reading it, I am left with a question: "What?...".
But it also creates a "problem". Because I am unable to catch the flow (so to say) of the words, I can't exercise discernment. I feel it as a "fog" or a "smoke screen", but have a lack of language skills to "spot" the suspicious parts. That's why I rely on general feeling that I get from a poster or the post itself. I listen to my inner sensations, trying to understand poster's frequency or energy. Does it create some sort of resistence? Or does it appeal to me?

Use of complicated/sophisticated words doesn't indicate higher iintellect, on a contrary.
In my opinion, this is a "disease" of most of the so called scholars, that try to "rise" their writing in the eyes of the readers, by using "high" words. But they just throw sand to the eyes of the readers.

According to my observations, "clear" writing indicates clear thought. The goal is to learn how to write down you ideas in a simple and comprehensable manner, without using "smoke screens". Because that mean that you have a deep understanding of the matter. And when you do, words indeed will carry more then just a meaning.

 

[Guest]

I am 'mono-lingual' myself so I don't have any great insight into the matter, but is there any possibility that having English as a secondary language may actually be USEFUL in some sense. In several ways:

1. when posting: requires a more deliberate use of language

2. when reading: provides an extra level of 'protection' from the hypnotic and dissonance-inducing effects that can be used, as EQ describes. If the language used is not the 'primary' language then is it 'less immediate' and so these fairly subliminal effects would be less pronounced because they go through an extra level of filtering and reconstruction into the native 'language of thought'?

I agree. And I'd like to add that the advantage can also be called an effect of "beginners mind" with respect to communicating in a language in which one is not very fluent. The subject is aware that they do not know enough, and the need for extra effort makes this person extra focused, or they give up in frustration.

And that is the thing: It is vigilance that provides protection, and those who are not familiar with the language are forced to be more vigilant. When you deal with a manipulator, however, you deal with someone who seeks to undermine that vigilance by tiring out the reader with word salad.

This may or may not be a conscious strategy. I believe many manipulators simply stumbled on ways of expression that seem to "work" for them. The danger for the person not well versed in a language is that they will try to fill in the gaps with what they think the writer is trying to say (and regarding trying to comprehend world salads this occurs with mono-linguals as well).

I believe someone can know enough of a language to absorb the general manipulative meaning, but have difficulty in analyzing it. That can actually increase cognitive dissonance. If a manipulator is attempting to undermine the methods of seeking promoted here, a foreign reader might just absorb that general pattern without being able to consciously analyze it, and hence absorb it much deeper than a monolingual.

It is not inconceivable that some people can be affected emotionally by such manipulation without being able to figure out why. They may sense negative feelings toward the ways of this forum, and put in their own interpretations for them, while these were actually absorbed hypnotic suggestions.

Discomfort or dissonance may be caused by the manipulation, but in trying to make sense of it the reader can end up reversing the causality, justifying the manipulator and blaming others, and even feel guilt while doing so. These symptoms do not occur when reading a word salad generated by carelessness alone, because there is no organized pattern of suggestion (and if there is, it is usually quite vague).

An example of this IMO is I-Eye's commentary here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=457&p=11, engendering a discussion lasting from page 11 to page 14 on that thread. I don't think this person was manipulating. I do believe he was out to argue more than discuss because he felt strongly about the "wrongness" of the Organic Portal idea. English was not his first language, and beyond that his thoughts veered all over the place.

This person simply placed clear communication second to the need to vomit out his thoughts, thus tiring the reader. His pattern of expression was rather chaotic, and rather than accept or reject what he was saying I for one was tempted to just ignore him, and I had to force myself to read his posts and reply.

Unbeliever, however, had a totally different pattern. If anyone read his earlier posts they were quite clear, and to me simply an expression of personal views with which I did not totally agree. On this thread, however, his writing style changed, his posts became long rants where he weaved esoteric truisms with confusing platitudes. And all of this was promoting a central persuasive suggestion to undermine critical thought.

As noise said, the truism referred to the potential biases of mind, its conditionings and polarizing tendencies. This would seem congruent with the ideas of Gurdjieff, and most teachers of inner development. Yet UB said:

If you refer to the likes of Gurdijeff for instance, I will not take any of what he may have written as 'truth'.

So he is taking a truth most of us have probably verified and observed in our own researches. He twists it, and takes it out of context. Then he turns around to negate the sources of our learning with the very truth we have derived from them (albeit twisted and warped). If THAT is not manipulation, I don't know what is.

To confuse those proficient and not in the language of a particular communication, manipulators often use truisms.
The definition of the word truism is:

An undoubted or self-evident truth; a statement which is pliantly true; a proposition needing no proof or argument; -- opposed to falsism. "Trifling truisms clothed in great, swelling words." J. P. Smith.

J.P. Smith's words accurately describe a main manipulation strategy. When something is self-evident, it can be expressed simply and coherently. It can stand alone with little or no elaboration because it directly corresponds with the reader's personal experience.

And that is why when such truisms are "clothed in great, swelling words" we need to take note on our mental checklist of probable manipulation indicators. The truism is the "hook" that is designed to create a reflex of agreement, and the rest is the "smoke screen" as Keit said. This smoke screen is a convoluted stretching and warping of the truism.

It is the "line" that reals us in to the primary objective of the manipulator, which is a conclusion that is rarely stated outright, but weaved within the word salad in a way that makes critical observation of it rather difficult.

This is only one strategy of verbal manipulation, but I think it is a basic one and different manipulators apply it in different ways. It is useful, however, to look for truisms, "smoke screens" and hidden suggestions when we sense dissonance when reading.

And this thread provides valuable examples through the various dissonance-generating commentators gracious enough to volunteer for the "lesson".

 

[Guest]

One more comment here. I noticed there are 633 members registered on this forum. That's quite a bit for five months. Many of these have not posted, and many just intermittently. And I wonder how many more are reading the material without registering.

I think this forum is more than just a venue of discussion for those involved in its threads. There are others who are also part of the network, although not actively. This forum is a theater of learning, and far more than just those in its stage of action.

Some have posted suggestions to get more people to read SOTT regarding what to emphasize. I think the greatest call to be involved is the example set by the discussions evolving here. Here we are not just sharing information. We are setting an example of participation, where that participation can lead to profound changes in perspective, in thinking, in attitude and in how one confronts the confusing and overwhelming issues of today, covering a wide paradigm spectrum in doing so.

And those who participate in discussions have response-ability not only to themselves and to their fellow participants, but also to the large audience of observers out there. Next to learning through participating yourself, there is learning through the examples of others, and it's power should not be underestimated.

And those observing can be encouraged to participate when the examples are constructive, and they can spread the word so more can come to observe. THAT dynamic is the magnetic draw that true learning can have on sincere people. And if we consider the 6% conservative estimate of psychopaths in any population, we are also provided with those elements without whom learning would not accelerate as it does.

Given all the above, I think it is important that those participating learn to focus when they read and write. At first this may be difficult because the mind, like any muscle, resists the challenges that can make it stronger. And like any exercise, one should not go to extremes of fatigue or there will be breakdown of capacity rather than build-up.

Eventually, however, such focus can occur without stress or strain, and the mind will have the strength to effectively deal with the many and relentless challenges set before it. And when one is strong in any way, one becomes an example and inspiration for others to overcome resistance and apply themselves as well.

 

[Fifth Way]

I think his [Lobaczewski's] material needs to be read very slowly and carefully, and often many times with constant stopping to contemplate before moving on. It's just sooo dense with invaluable information it's practically impossible to read it and get it the first time, or even the second time.

I think you are totally right!

2. when reading: provides an extra level of 'protection' from the hypnotic and dissonance-inducing effects that can be used, as EQ describes. If the language used is not the 'primary' language then is it 'less immediate' and so these fairly subliminal effects would be less pronounced because they go through an extra level of filtering and reconstruction into the native 'language of thought'?

and...

I agree. And I'd like to add that the advantage can also be called an effect of "beginners mind" with respect to communicating in a language in which one is not very fluent.

I think in my own case it is somewhat more screwed up (complex). In German I had this dyslexia inferiority complex (in regards to writing!), that I tried to compensate for by being particularly skillful in the spoken word. I guess not unlike what Eso describes about his youth.

Later than here in the US I was kind of instantly freed from this complex as nobody took offence in my bad orthography, after all I was not expressing myself in my own language! I was kind of universally excused. People would try to get what I said, not how I said it. What a relief. And in my profession there was always somebody native assigned to proof read my stuff.

But later as I obtained more decision power, the pathocrats, always present in any system, but in a high concentration in media as we all know, would love to hide their own mistakes (on the job) behind some "misunderstandings" - after all I was not speaking "perfect" English - implying that whatever "mistake" happened was in the end due to my insufficient language skill. This bugged me a great deal. In retrospect I think that that probably kicked my inferiority complex regarding 'expressing myself' right back to maximum level.

My point is that I seem NOT to benefit from that EXTRA PROPTECTION - to the contrary. If I see some complicated sounding piece of text I probably accept it more that I reject it as I think I have to prove to myself that I can understand it. I need to "figure it out", prove that I am not "too stupid". To the point where I end up "understanding" word salad.

The subject is aware that they do not know enough, and the need for extra effort makes this person extra focused, or they give up in frustration.

For me it appears to be the first. I'm too stubborn (I guess one can also call this ignorant), determent not to give up in frustration and therefore I end up being too open (kind of a completely misunderstood extra effort).

Discomfort or dissonance may be caused by the manipulation, but in trying to make sense of it the reader can end up reversing the causality, justifying the manipulator and blaming others, and even feel guilt while doing so.

I think you are spot on.

But I think that we all prefer to talk in our "mother tongue" because by translating ideas from one language to another, we miss part of the meaning or energy.

Now that is also strange now as I feel that today I am more comfortable to express myself in English, especially on a professional level. Lately I am forced to write more in German as I work more frequently for German clients and I noticed I keep asking them if what I say makes sense at all. I am always surprised when they say: "Yes totally." Expressing myself in German still seems to work but it doesn't feel natural any more.

Anyway. On the last couple of pages of this thread I learned a great deal (again) and hope with time my skills in spotting the BS-er will improve further.

I also found Eso's comments regarding bilingualism very interesting. How one is able to understand/comprehend different positions much much better. My own children growing up trilingual and it is a big effort to keep ALL the languages evenly present?

But I can see from Eso's many deep and insightful posts;
It is most certainly worth it!