What Rense.com is not talking about
Ruth said:
Like, where is 'the truth' coming out from? Was it always hidden? I think not. Perhaps it was always there to begin with. Because we live in the world we do, forces that control it, swing into action and try to suppress, or hide truth, be it facts, connections, awareness or knowledge etc. This actually takes a lot more energy to do than simply letting people discover stuff or telling them the truth.
Truth/objective reality is always there, and there's always some way to find it. But it always takes effort to do it. That's a lot of alwayses! Even if it's not purposely hidden it takes effort to find and understand. But in this world, and to some degree practically everywhere, there's either some distortion of reality/deception or there's the potential for same. Even if no deception exists in a world, work must be done to guard against potential deception , even if it is unintentional etc. There's no free lunch.
Don't forget the source and direction and purpose of energy. Entropy is one source, Creativity is another. STO is one purpose, STS is another. Sometimes source can indicate purpose and vice versa.
This appears to be the case on an individual level, as well as on the macro level as well. Cover-ups cost money, time and 'try' everyones patience. Especially when the Matrix Control System has to swing into action in order to supress stuff.
Lizzies cannot control us unless we submitted to the entropic potential that was already within us in the first place.
My point here is that, even if there was no control system or lizzies, there still is no free lunch, still the truth does not come out by itself, still we must consciously exert effort to not submit to entropy and be conscious.
The weird thing is, this means that 4D sts is actually putting energy INTO the system, in order to create the bugs, glitches or barriers for people looking for the truth (or some part of it).
Well we also grow and cook our food so we can eat it later. But we still eat it and so get all that energy back, and more really. We exert energy for STS purpose, and from entropic source. Both, creativity and entropy take energy and effort. Just different kinds of energy and effort and for different reasons, coming from different sources. One is a conscious source, another more mechanical.
The question I would have is, does 'the truth' really 'come out' or was it always there, all the while? And we chose to engage in energy using methods of avoiding it or suppressing it.
Truth always there, illusion also always there in potential. Takes effort to "know" either one. On this world though, lies are the default, truth takes far more energy and effort to find since it contradicts our default state. On another world maybe truth is the default, and lies take far more energy to create and believe. So seeking lies also takes energy, it's just done mechanically and already programmed into our minds to do it all the time, so in a sense, it is "effortless" cuz we're so good at it. But we're not good at seeking truth, and it contradicts our entire state of being and this world at large, so it takes lots of effort, like swimming against the current. But current also has energy, otherwise it wouldn't flow in any direction. Just has entropically-produced energy.
I take it from your request that you think 'the truth' (or any part of it) never, ever, ever, comes out and is not and will never be within the grasp of the ordinary human being.
Keyword being grasp. Human still has to extend his hand and grasp it. That's what SOTT does - finds a way to grasp the truth. But SOTT is human beings. If you define "ordinary" as someone who is comfortable with illusions and lies, then you are correct, "the truth" (or any part of it) will never, ever, ever be within the grasp of the ordinary human being. Why? Because ordinary human being doesn't grasp. When starts grasping, will become extraordinary?
That must be very depressing.
Doesn't have to be, but the terror of the situation can be very depressing. If we're to seek truth, we must face reality as it is, no matter how depressing. One possible solution is to inspire all ordinary humans to choose to become extraordinary. Maybe one way is to make them all depressed about it too by consistently telling it as it is?
So, how do you feel when the Signs people or members of the forum do reveal the truth (or some part of it)?
I feel like they're making truth easier to grasp for everyone else, thus greatly increasing potential for different future, one that based on grasping truth. How do you feel?
Mind you, it has occured to me that you want me to be 'seen' as inconsitent, lying and/or 'difficult' in the other threads too, that I am supposedly 'bannished' to, as well as the in the ones that have anything to do with 'the work' (however you define 'work'- its a bit like 'truth' don't you think?).
It has occured to me that you've accepted that you are not inconsistent, lying and/or 'difficult' in lots of threads, and so, in your mind, the only reason someone may say this about you is because they WANT you to be seen as such. A question occured to me - why have "you" accepted the above as a given?
If you're confused about the definition of "the work" and of truth, this may be a bad sign. Check the SOTT glossary. Mind you, it probably won't help. But you don't seem to mind at all, that's why it may not help. (gotta love english).
Being inconsitent means being wrong and it gives out the impression that where-ever I go, I should be roundly ignored and everything I say rejected and dismissed as unimportant.
I think it's important, but not always in the way you intended it to be. This thread is important in that way too.
That's perfectly ok, if people want to do that. It never was a problem. Lucy has already stated that's how people should react to what I say on any thread that deals with 'the work'.
For a few seconds there I felt pity after I read that, felt like you were being treated unfairly, almost victimized. Wow. See I told you this thread was important :P
Did you really have to go about doing the same thing in such a round about way? Especially as its totally uncessary. People have the right to exercise their free will and that includes forming their own opinions and testing their own hypotheses (about people too).
Ok I'm going to quote what Laura said in another thread, as it relates to what you just said. It will be out of context, but I think it fits with the context of this thread as well, and it reflects what I wish to say but Laura already said it very well so I'll use that instead.
Laura said:
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."
Lobaczweski said:
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.
This is from: http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=395&p=19
May be helpful to read that thread in full if you find time (or at least the rest of the post being quoted from), I thought it was a fascinating discussion, literally gold in terms of helping me and others learn to SEE.
And please correct me if I'm wrong, but what Ruth just said struck me as very similar to what I just quoted, especially the parts about free will and her "rights". Ruth, I'm not sure that every little bit of that quote is describing you, but most of it seems to match what I'm seeing in this thread. Especially the parts about free will.
P.S. - I have the free will to kill people if I want, but it doesn't mean that I won't be thrown in jail for it. Throwing me in jail is violating MY free will though, isn't it? How dare they. Drastic example but makes the point?
