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

[Hildegarda]

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. [..]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.

cultural context is another reason, and probably a main one in the situations you describe.

Beside a simple meaning and an energetic signature, words mean a lot in relevance to a sounty and culture-specific situations you lived through, the books you read, the jokes you grew up laughing at. A lot of our communication is subtle quoting / referring to this shared cultural heritage.

This gives depth taht is otherwise missing. Lazyness per se IMO has little to do with choosing a more 'comfortable envronment'. It is more like 'birds of a feather flock together'.

 

[Hildegarda]

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!

we are a bilingual family; my oldest is learning her third language now.

IMO is is impossible to keep all the languages EVENLY present. The main language of the environment, the one your kids hear when they go to activities and play with friends, will be absorbed better by them and used more actively.

But, you CAN make the best effort to speak the other two languages in the family, have your kids speak those languages to other family members, and once in a while do a total immersion thing visiting family and other native speakers of those other languages. That will ensure that your kids have a lot of active vocabulary and still more of a passive vocabulary. Then, this passive vocabulary can always turn active under proper conditions.

More important still is to familiarize the children with the cultural context of the languages you speak in the family. Read classic books, listen to songs, talk about and celebrate national holidays and traditions. These make language alive. Esperanto, a seemingly great invention, didn't catch on precisely because of the lack of such cultural traditions.

I have heard people say say that their kids are equally proficient in such and such languages, but found that to be either only true for younger children with limited vocabulary and conceptual awareness, or simply a bit of self-kidding. I personally can probably be considered by now to be 'equally proficient' in English and Russian, yet the two will never be the same for me. I too was under illusion that my 6 y.o. is equally proficient in both languages, until we visited grandparents, where it became pretty obvious that her command of Russian is not the same as that of English. While she speaks well and expresses her ideas, bot abstract and concrete, with minimum mistakes, the local kids picked up on her accent and grammatical idiosyncrasies and gave her a hard time at first. Things improved dramatically after only 2 weeks there; and a few month extended stay would have made her forget English, I am positive. But all I can do now is to lay a proper foundation through exposure and cultural enrichment.

Another thing to keep in mind is that kids do have minds of their own. While my daughter spoke both languages fluently by the age of 3, my son, a late talker, completely refused to speak Russian, even while we were in Russia. So go figure.

 

[Guest]

In my case, the bilingual equalization of two languages occured because of constant changes in culteral environmnets. I was going to a school in one country one year and a school in another country another year for several years before puberty, and a few after. I also found that the effect of a culture on language (at least for me) tends to be much greater than the effect of family, which is just one variable.

What a family can provide is a certain foundation to the child who can then attain bi, tri or more linguistic proficiency when in respective environments corresponding to the language. My grandmother spoke four languages like a native (Greek, French, German and Turkish) and another three quite well (Serbian, Bulgarian and Armenian).

Even so, she loved to socialize, but was never a deep thought type of person, and has to have the inclination to exercise that perspective. Knowing several languages provides the opportunity for widened perspective, but one also needs to want to develop it in depth. My grandmother was an infamous gossip among her peers, but not much more.

My grandfather also spoke several languages fluently, was an athlete in his youth and played three musical instruments, but he never really applied that potential in his life except to be the "life of the party" when he had the chance. So I guess what you do with what you have is even more important than what you have in a sense.

 

[Frai Jonah]

I am a non-native English speaker myself and I speak English with other non-native speakers of varying proficiency all the time. I will offer some comments from this perspective.

I sometimes get to edit technical text written in more or less faulty English before it gets published. Errors of grammar and the writers' disregard for presenting things in proper sequence have a different taste from the nonsense of Unbeliever.

It is quite easy to skip incorrect grammar and get to the meaning if the thinking behind the text is not twisted and if words are used consistently.

I have also sometimes edited really bad writing by native English speakers. The context precludes intent of manipulation.

You do not deliberately write nonsense syntax and grammer in a technical white paper, there is absolutely no gain in this for anyone, nor is there great damage as such will never pass review and are quickly fixed. So, even when deliberate ill intent or characteropathy is improbable, there are cases where continuity is absent, concepts are used wrongly, non-sequiturs abound etc. Also this condition can be limited to written expression.


What makes UB et al specially tedious is the flakey use of concepts. Sometimes truth is used where belief would have been appropriate, sometimes "intelligence" where "will" would have been right. So I find myself mentally correcting the text to get some meaning out of it. This holds the danger of added error via projection. The projection can work towards giving the benefit of the doubt or in the direction of seeing devils where there is just less malicious confusion.

After all the mental editing, a certain world view does emerge. It is formatory, i.e. deals in absolutes of black and white and does not have much contextual awareness, it is subjectivistic, i.e. states that people will see only that which they want to see, it speaks as if it were an authority without giving any grounds for authority, it talks about the limits of knowledge without applying these limits to itself. I imagine such modes of thinking are typical of the self-serving disposition.

As EQ says, the first reaction as a sense of dissonance. The sense of dissonance is produced by a part of the mind that is much faster than than the analytical ability. This reminds me of the statement of 4th Way literature that the feeling function is 30000 times faster than the thinking.

As concerns writing, I have been criticized for not staying on topic, for using big words, for being unclear. I like playing with words, appreciate complex language and do find that many classics have much richer language than is in use today. But playing or experimenting with language or anything too fanciful is clearly inappropriate for this context. Also trying to express too much at a single go is to be avoided. If you take any concept of any depth, it will be associated with many related concepts, cases of application and so forth and even trying to list these will often confuse the line of presentation. One thing I find challenging is to know where to stop. It is nearly always possible to say more or to take analysis deeper but this does not often fit this format of discussion.

I have grown up close to bilingual between French and my native language. At present English is the language I use most, certainly almost all writing is in English. I live in a country where yet a fourth language is spoken and my son is growing up to be bilingual .

This background makes me appreciate that each language has its specific genius, a subject matter or form of discourse where it is at its best, as it were. EsoQuest mentioned distinct semantic fields. I would say such exist. One language will put more emphasis on two-valued, either or logic, one will be more nuanced in its usage, for example. But here we should

stay at the center of such a field, in the parts which are most universal and least culture-specific. There are, it seems,

two dimensions to this. One of breadth, with culture specific meanings and one of depth. The depth axis has to do with what Laura has called the difference of adult and juvenile dictionaries. This difference exists and can be expressed, it seems, without much recourse to culture specific semantics, in fairly common and easily translateable language. It is along this axis of depth that misunderstandings and fundamental differences in world view or intrinsic orientation , such as we have seen withUB, manifest. The same common word such as truth or seeking, may be loaded with entirely different
meanings.

 

[ark]

But here we should stay at the center of such a field, in the parts which are most universal and least culture-specific.

I would add to the above the following: Quite often we tend to "express ourselves", and we tend to assume that "expressing ourselves" is a positive thing by itself. But it is not. I think, this is not the right approach. We should aim at "communicating" our thoughts to others. When we are just "expressing ourselves", we tend to forget that our expression may not be understood by others. When we "communicate" (rather than simply "express"), then it is necessary to be in a different mode - it is necessary to predict how what we say or write will be perceived by others, nad to adjust our vocabulary and our syntax to that of the targetted audience, . It is necessary to take care of the clarity of our message. This is an important part of the "Service to Others" approach. Or so I think.

 

[Adaryn]

I agree with what Ark said. Personnally, due to the fact that English is not my mother tongue, the "obligation" I generally impose on myself to express myself clearly so that everybody should understand what I say, is reinforced when I write or speak in English. The use of English works as a filter and prevents me from writing too "emotionnally" and too spontaneously - which is perhaps pleasant with friends, but useless and out of point on an international forum. I have first to organize my thoughts (which sometimes are a bit messy :/), then translate them into coherent english - thus I'm slower, I can even feel completely dumb or blocked in my train of thoughts ! But it prevents digression. It obliges me to focus on the core, to ask myself : "is what I'm writing necessary, does it make sense, does it help to advance in the discussion, does it raise interesting questions, is it clear enough ? etc."

 

[kenlee]

What makes UB et al specially tedious is the flakey use of concepts. Sometimes truth is used where belief would have been appropriate, sometimes "intelligence" where "will" would have been right. So I find myself mentally correcting the text to get some meaning out of it. This holds the danger of added error via projection. The projection can work towards giving the benefit of the doubt or in the direction of seeing devils where there is just less malicious confusion.

After all the mental editing, a certain world view does emerge. It is formatory, i.e. deals in absolutes of black and white and does not have much contextual awareness, it is subjectivistic, i.e. states that people will see only that which they want to see, it speaks as if it were an authority without giving any grounds for authority, it talks about the limits of knowledge without applying these limits to itself. I imagine such modes of thinking are typical of the self-serving disposition.

I learned yesterday that it can even get worse then using formatory expressions, undefined concepts and poor word usage. It can get much worse! Yesterday I was talking with my neice and she was telling me how in her high school English class they will ask the students to write papers on various subjects. Specific events relating to History and current world events were examples of subjects they were told to write about. What surprised me was that the students were graded on grammer and word consctruction exclusively, but it didn't matter what they said regarding the factual accounts on the subjects they were writing about. As long as they got all the grammer and syntax right and as long as they expressed themselves properly then they got a good mark. Now, what amazed me was the fact that the students were asked to write about factually based topics and it didnt matter if they got the facts right. They could make the facts up if they wanted to! The only thing that was important was how they used the syntax and grammer! Once again the educational system of the U.S. has taken one more step into 'bizzaroland.' Heck, martial law may not even be necessary. Psychological manipulation of consciousness using skewed educational practices of this kind may be all that's necessary to create willing slaves who never question the enslavers. As long as the prison walls within the mind are properly constructed then, I guess, no one will care to critisize or question the Ultimate Tyranny.
.

 

[Guest]

Heck, martial law may not even be necessary. Psychological manipulation of consciousness using skewed educational practices of this kind may be all that's necessary to create willing slaves who never question the enslavers. As long as the prison walls within the mind are properly constructed then, I guess, no one will care to critisize or question the Ultimate Tyranny.

I get the impression this is pretty much the PTB plan. All the rest is probably mind-numbing fear to lead us into the above scenario. It saves them the risk and collateral damage of their "investment" (apparently the whole world) as well. Perhaps in some way people sense this: as long as you stay stupid, you stay safe (for now).

 

[Fifth Way]

I would add to the above the following: Quite often we tend to "express ourselves", and we tend to assume that "expressing ourselves" is a positive thing by itself. But it is not. I think, this is not the right approach. We should aim at "communicating" our thoughts to others.

The reason I used the term "expressing myself" so often in my posts was because that term was the one inflicting the complex: "He can't even express himself propperly".

However, I agree, the aim should be to "communicate". That also implies that one doesn't take oneself too serious, one doesn't give oneself too much importance.

 

[Fifth Way]

Even-though we established by now that Rense is distributing a considerable amount of disinformation, I still go there from time to time for entertainment purposes (while trying to be a bit more discerning).
And this is what I just found:
(Some fun trivia in regards to our recent discussion on truth)

The Many Faces Of Truth
5-15-6

Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.
-Abraham Lincoln ( 1809 - 1865 ) , letter to Secretary of War Edwin
Stanton, July 18, 1864

There are few nudities so objectionable as the naked truth.
-Agnes Repplier ( 1855 - 1950 )

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
-Andre Gide ( 1869 - 1951 )

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second,
it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-Arthur Schopenhauer ( 1788 - 1860 )

Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
-Bible, John 8:32

Chase after truth like hell and you'll free yourself, even though you
never touch its coat-tails.
-Clarence Darrow ( 1857 - 1938 )

The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth.
-Edith Sitwell ( 1887 - 1964 )

Truth is the only safe ground to stand on.
-Elizabeth Cady Stanton ( 1815 - 1902 )

The truth is more important than the facts.
-Frank Lloyd Wright ( 1869 - 1959 )

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is
to discover them.
-Galileo Galilei ( 1564 - 1642 )

The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men
prefer not to hear.
-Herbert Agar

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the
demand.
-Josh Billings ( 1818 - 1885 ) , 'Affurisms from Josh Billings: His
Sayings,' 1865

Say not, 'I have found the truth,' but rather, 'I have found a truth.'
-Kahlil Gibran ( 1883 - 1931 )

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-Lenin ( 1870 - 1924 )

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.
-Mark Twain ( 1835 - 1910 ) , ( attributed )

Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.
-Mark Twain ( 1835 - 1910 )

The history of our race, and each individual's experience, are sown
thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told
well is immortal.
-Mark Twain ( 1835 - 1910 ) , Advice to Youth

Truth is more of a stranger than fiction.
-Mark Twain ( 1835 - 1910 )

Truth sits upon the lips of dying men.
-Matthew Arnold ( 1822 - 1888 ) , 'Sohrab and Rustum,' 1853

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the
opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
-Niels Bohr ( 1885 - 1962 )

The truth is rarely pure and never simple.
-Oscar Wilde ( 1854 - 1900 ) , The Importance of Being Earnest, 1895,
Act I

Truth persuades by teaching, but does not teach by persuading.
-Quintus Septimius Tertullianus ( 160 AD - 230 AD ) , Adversus
Valentinianos

Truth is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson ( 1803 - 1882 )

I have been truthful all along the way. The truth is more interesting,
and if you tell the truth you never have to cover your tracks.
-Real Live Preacher, RealLivePreacher.com Weblog, January 04, 2004

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
-Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ( 1859 - 1930 ) , ( Sherlock Holmes ) The Sign of
Four, 1890

The truth is always a compound of two half- truths, and you never reach
it, because there is always something more to say.
-Tom Stoppard ( 1937 - )

Love truth, and pardon error.
-Voltaire ( 1694 - 1778 )

Truth is truth
To the end of reckoning.
-William Shakespeare ( 1564 - 1616 ) , "Measure for Measure", Act 5

 

[Laura]

In terms of the more or less "battle" aspect of this type of dynamic, I thought I would quote an odd bit from the Ra Material that might be helpful to examine and consider:

QUESTIONER: You spoke of an Orion Confederation and of a battle being fought between the Confederation and the Orion Confederation. Is it possible to convey any concept of how this battle is fought?

RA: ...Picture, if you will, your mind. Picture it then in total unity with all other minds of your society. You are then single-minded and that which is a weak electrical charge in your physical illusion is now an enormously powerful machine whereby thoughts may be projected as things.

In this endeavor the Orion group charges or attacks the Confederation armed with light. The result, a stand-off, as you would call it, both energies being somewhat depleted by this and needing to regroup; the negative depleted through failure to manipulate, the positive depleted through failure to accept that which is given.

QUESTIONER: Could you amplify the meaning of what you mean by the "failure to accept that which is given?"

RA: ...At the level of time/space at which this takes place in the form of what you may call thought-war, the most accepting and loving energy would be to so love those who wished to manipulate that those entities were surrounded and engulfed, transformed by positive energies.

This, however, being a battle of equals, the Confederation is aware that it cannot, on equal footing, allow itself to be manipulated in order to remain purely positive, for then though pure it would not be of any consequence, having been placed by the so-called powers of darkness under the heel, as you may say.

It is thus that those who deal with this thought-war must be defensive rather than accepting in order to preserve their usefulness in service to others. Thusly, they cannot accept fully what the Orion Confederation wishes to give, that being enslavement. Thusly, some polarity is lost due to this friction and both sides, if you will, must then regroup.

It has not been fruitful for either side. The only consequence which has been helpful is a balancing of the energies available to this planet so that these energies have less necessity to be balanced in this space/time, thus lessening the chances of planetary annihilation.

QUESTIONER: Does a portion of the Confederation then engage in this thought-battle? What percent engages?

RA: ... This is the most difficult work of the Confederation. Only four planetary entities at any one time are asked to partake in this conflict.

QUESTIONER: What density are these four planetary entities?

RA:... These entities are of the density of love, numbering four.

QUESTIONER: Would an entity of this density be more effective for this work than an entity of density five or six?

RA: ... The fourth density is the only density besides your own which, lacking the wisdom to refrain from battle, sees the necessity of the battle. Thus it is necessary that fourth-density social memory complexes be used.

QUESTIONER: Am I correct in assuming that both the Confederation and the Orion group utilize only their fourth densities in this battle, and that the fifth and sixth densities of the Orion group do not engage in this?

RA: ... It is partially correct. Fifth- and sixth-density entities positive would not take part in this battle. Fifth-density negative would not take part in this battle. Thus, the fourth density of both orientations join in this conflict.

QUESTIONER:... I would also really like to know the orientation of the fifth-density negative for not participating in this battle?

RA:... The fifth density is the density of light or wisdom. The so-called negative service-to-self entity in this density is at a high level of awareness and wisdom and has ceased activity except by thought. The fifth-density negative is extraordinarily compacted and separated from all else.

 

[Adaryn]

QUESTIONER: You spoke of an Orion Confederation and of a battle being fought between the Confederation and the Orion Confederation. Is it possible to convey any concept of how this battle is fought?

I haven't read the Ra materials yet, but when reading some extracts, it often talks about a Confederation, as above. The same for the C's, they also talk of a Confederation of Orion vs another Confederation. What exactly is this Confederation ? 4D STO Ets ? 4D emanations of the C's ? Pleiadians ?

 

[Ben]

I found out that all the Ra material is available as pdf from the 'Library' section of http://www.llresearch.org, in case you didn't know

 

[Adaryn]

I found out that all the Ra material is available as pdf from the 'Library' section of http://www.llresearch.org, in case you didn't know

Yes I knew, but I've ordered the Book 1 on amazon, as I CLEARLY prefer to read paper books than internet books!

 

[Fifth Way]

...as I CLEARLY prefer to read paper books than internet books!

If you don't mind my asking: Why is that so clear?