Jeff Rense EXPOSED!!

[Laura]

What Rense.com is not talking about

I ask again: Who did it and why?

Could have been me (ark). I do not see my own post. So, either someone deleted my own post as well or, what is more probable, by mistake, instead of replying, I edited your post. Nothing evil. Just my error. If so, I realize I did it again ( I did it once before). My sincere apologies. You can repost - if you remember what was it.

I have to admit that I have done the same thing a time or two. I click the "edit" button instead of the "quote" button and since, as administrators, the edit button works no matter who wrote the post, if you click submit before you realize what you have done, you have screwed up somebody else's post and can't get it back. And of course, since you THINK that you have clicked the "quote" button, the fact that the post appears there is the "way it should be."

Anyway, I can assure you that it wasn't done deliberately. (checking to make sure that I have clicked the right button again now... )

 

[Laura]

What Rense.com is not talking about

FW, I can understand why you think that Ruth is a psychopath because it was only after a long period of studying psychopaths that I came to the idea that there was something "else" in our world that was not quite a psychopath, but was most definitely a "softer" version of it. That's when I had the idea about "garden variety psychopaths." It was as though the characteristics of the psychopath existed in a "watered down" form in a LOT, LOT of "ordinary" people.

In this respect, I am reminded of M. Scott Peck's book: "People of the Lie" where he talks about "mundane evil" and describes a number of cases that are along the same line of the "garden variety psychopath." Such a person isn't actively doing anything with any intent to harm anyone, it just happens as a by-product of who they are and what they do in the normal course of their daily lives, conducting their affairs with that extraordinarily shallow an UN-empathic way.

I think what we are seeing in Ruth is a complete lack of psychic/psychological empathy, though certainly I think that Ruth has what I would call "genetic body empathy." I'm sure that if she saw - or knew of - anyone being bodily injured, hearing about torture, war, and related evils, it would affect her and she would feel "sorry" or sympathetic.

This lack of psychic/psychological empathy consists in: 1) an inability to "be" in another person's experience, and 2) an inability to "be" outside yourself as if you were another person. In other words, there is no observer.

I also don't think that I can agree with the item from the "psykopath" article that says:

At the very heart of their psyche, where you and I have a soul, they have only a pit of despair. Despair at having been cheated of the human experience. But this is a despair they cannot acknowledge. I have no doubt that the Soulless Ones, Rumsferatu and Cheney, Prince of Darkness, would, and very well might, kill millions to protect themselves from this awareness. It is very important that one not make the vast neediness of a path one's own.

...because I think it is a further projection. A peson with an observer/conscience self is projecting the same "organ" onto an individual who just doesn't have it. I don't think that psychopath's have a "pit of despair." I don't think they feel that they have been cheated of anything. I don't think they do anything to protect themselves from this awareness.

It's like Cleckley said: it is just simply like color-blindness: If you are born that way, even if someone tells you about colors, you can never, EVER grok that you aren't seeing things as they really are even if you can't tell the difference between green and red.

I think that this quality - this total lack of consciousness of any lack whatsoever is what is so troubling to SAO and others in this discussion. It is almost impossible, from our side, to really grok the LACK of this "organ" that makes us capable of not only shifting into another person's skin, but shifting out of our own and observing ourselves "from the outside," so to say.

So, we tend to want to project on someone who just doesn't have it that they MUST have something there... something that tells them that they lack something that is so darned important to us, the thing that makes us capable of incredible experiences and contact with other humans like ourselves. We know how rich it makes our "inner life" and we just can't imagine anyone else not having access to that range of emotions and experiences.

But here is the important thing: as I was trying to convey in the Organic Portals thread, just being an OP doesn't make one "bad" or useless or worthy of contempt. It also doesn't make a person completely without "feelings" - even if they are somewhat limited (from our perspective only).

As all of you have seen, Ruth is quite capable of having discussions on many things that do not touch on matters that involve this "organ" of higher sensing. She is decent, respectable, her brain works just fine and she can make many excellent assessments.

This is the thing I was trying to describe, the conclusions I came to after a long time of daily observation of someone quite similar to Ruth. You can have conversations about so many things with such a person: art, literature, politics, child-rearing, even psychology. But you can just never go beyond a certain depth.

For some of us, what is inside us is limitless, like a cosmic ocean. For some others, what is inside is just a shallow lake and that is all it will ever be. It is landlocked and will never be an ocean. Period.

But it doesn't make them "bad." In fact, I think that there ARE OPs that are working on individuating.

And no offense intended, Ruth. I truly appreciate you for who you are and what you are capable of doing. I understand, even, how you must feel with all this talk that just goes round and round and does not make any sense to you whatsoever. I understand (Finally) that, for you, it really is "from another strange reality" that is simply not part of yours. It's not that you lack the brain power either because, clearly, you are very intelligent. You just don't have that "organ".

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

What Rense.com is not talking about

I agree with all your observations Laura.

However, Ruth, I just want to add that the concept of OP's is still a working hypothesis in many ways. So while what has been said about your inability to "grok" certain things remains true as it is supported by massive amount of evidence, I personally think that your future does not absolutely *have* to be "and unto dust thou shalt return". What I mean is, there *may* be potential to "grow" an individuated consciousness, though I cannot say with certainty whether there is or there is not. But who knows? This may even be a self-fulfilling prophecy if you take this as a sign of no hope and simply give up. I wouldn't recommend that because if there is a chance that you can learn and develop those "higher" organs, you won't know until you do develop them, and you won't ever develop them without constant effort and work, to the best of your ability.

And it doesn't mean that all the observations made about you are simply hot air - they're not, they remain true - but your future may still be open. Laura did bring up an example of people she knows that exhibit the same limitations in certain areas as you do Ruth, who may be in fact growing a consciousness already.

And bottom line is, if you don't try, you won't know if you can or cannot. C's said that Laura's cats may advance to 3rd density and this may be in part because of them hanging around Laura and others with similar "vibrations". So one possibility is that just by interacting with those who are developing that higher organ, your own growth could be greatly accelerated, and so the effect of this network could sort of "rub off" on you in a very real way. Although I cannot know whether your "organ" is in fact developing or not (I see no indication that it is, but then again, I don't know), but I do think you've learned a lot by interacting with this network. You really are smart, observant, and sometimes do make very well thought-out posts that really make me think.

And I know that I have been conditioned to believe that everyone has hope, and so in part I may even be speaking strictly from that program, and my inability to accept that some people are indeed utterly hopeless, and really have no possibility of ever developing and growing. I do think there are people like that, but the bottom line is that it is very very difficult if not practically impossible for us, on this level, to be absolutely certain about anyone's future potential. There is definitely much evidence and indication that may suggest that progress may be highly unlikely, but I think the bottom line is - we do not have the luxury of absolute certainty.

Therefore, I can only say that, despite all that this thread has uncovered, you HAVE made tons of progress Ruth in many areas, and you are contributing to this forum in many ways and are not useless or dumb or should be ignored. However, while some of your higher organs are either dormant or not there at all, it would be foolish to pretend that you are able to "grok" concepts that require those organs to be active. Pretending otherwise would be entirely counter-productive for not only all members of the forum who interact with you, but for you as well. First step to growth and knowing yourself is to question such assumptions about ourselves, and being able to accept ourselves as we really are, with no delusions. In part that means accepting our limitations wherever they might be. We could work on expanding or removing those limitations later, but if we never accept that they exist, we can never ever break free from them, osit.

Right now it seems you're incapable of doing this - but who knows, maybe in the future you could? Maybe I'm wishfully thinking, but if you never try, you'll never really know, osit.

 

[Fifth Way]

What Rense.com is not talking about

This is the thing I was trying to describe, the conclusions I came to after a long time of daily observation of someone quite similar to Ruth. You can have conversations about so many things with such a person: art, literature, politics, child-rearing, even psychology. But you can just never go beyond a certain depth.

The "garden variety psychopath" - I have to admit that I have not sufficiently looked into this particular type (on the forum and otherwise). The concept in context with your quote above makes a lot of sense in regards to a number of people I know. People I am always at odds with in terms of their clearly existing "genetic body empathy" and at the same time clearly totally non-existing "psychic/psychological empathy".

This lack of psychic/psychological empathy consists in: 1) an inability to "be" in another person's experience, and 2) an inability to "be" outside yourself as if you were another person. In other words, there is no observer. [...]

A peson with an observer/conscience self is projecting the same "organ" onto an individual who just doesn't have it. I don't think that psychopath's have a "pit of despair." I don't think they feel that they have been cheated of anything. I don't think they do anything to protect themselves from this awareness.

I think this also explains why I feel that Ruth is NOT "threatened". There is just nothing there to threat. So anything which has been said to her can only offend her or maybe "disgust" her at the most - but nothing reaches a point of real impact.

However I also like very much SAO's attitude:

I do think there are people like that, but the bottom line is that it is very very difficult if not practically impossible for us, on this level, to be absolutely certain about anyone's future potential. There is definitely much evidence and indication that may suggest that progress may be highly unlikely, but I think the bottom line is - we do not have the luxury of absolute certainty.

...as it strikes me as a position that comes from a point of expansion rather than restriction. Nevertheless in Ruth's case (and the case of many others I know) I think it is up to them to grow or not grow "organs". I'd rather spend my time on people who's networking towards increase of knowledge bears fruits. Just my two cents.

 

[Guest]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Ruth is a nurse, and I've read some of her posts in the health section. She definitely exhibits organic empathy, empathy for the sufferings of the body. I think there is a good degree of emotional empathy there as well. The empathic organ, however, seems to completely shut down when matters of depth are addressed. Instead it seems to be replaced with the "I have no tolerance for that crap" organ.

It is, furthermore, difficult to feel empathy when one feels strong dissonance from being unable to absorb certain meanings. I think the analogy of color blindness is apt here. What happens if we try to force a color blind person to see colors by flashing, for example, bright lights in their face until we think they have had enough?

If I was color blind, I'd be irritated by the brightness. Light has attributes of brightness, color and contrast because our brains can distinguish those qualities out of the stimulus. Words, and thoughts are also processed in our cognitive centers, and meanings are correlated. If those centers cannot process a quality that quality does not exist, and other qualities may seem exaggerated instead.

When we try to make colors more vivid for the color blind, we only succeed in making them brighter and more irritating. The deeper one tries to go with Ruth, the more irritating one probably seems to her. Anyone ever read the H.G. Wells short story "Valley of the Blind"?

An explorer reaches a village in the mountains cut off from civilization where for generations inhabitants were born blind. Their whole world-view was conditioned by blindness. The explorer in vain tried to describe sight to them. They only became frightened of him, and thought him insane. In the end they tried to operate on him by force and remove the "bothersome lesions" on his face that seemed to be the source of his "troubled state".

To OP's the symptoms of individuation seem pathological. In fact many psychologists have described them as pathology, and people undergoing inidividuation crises have been incarcerated. And even though those with individuation potential can know better, they may also view the OP as pathological, especially when the OP inhibits their individuation process, or generates dissonance by denying it.

That is why it is a constructive strategy for an individuating person to be able to act in a way that puts the OP at ease when there is no other choice but to interact with them, on their own turf, and on their own terms. However, those who are individuating through a network cannot be expected to stop doing so because one OP (whether she has individuation potential or not) feels uncomfortable with it.

Ruth seems to want to prove to herself she is not an OP, and that can only create more dissonance in her. Not only that, it can encourage the forces that seem to be adverse to networking out of principle (the non-physical ones) to lend her a hand, and exacerbate the situation.

Psychopathic symptom-inducing stresses can result from this dissonance. Unlike congenital psychopathy, which is most likely due to neurological structure, "garden variety" psychopathy can be due to biochemical imbalance. It might also be congenital or due to stress. The fact is that threads of certain subjects stress Ruth out, and she goes a long way not to show it, IMO.

The danger is that this can leave her open to other influences that can create more acute psychopathic stresses if she does not come to term with the fact that some things will always seem "crazy" to her, and stick to where she CAN grow.

I don't think it pays to keep giving her the benefit of the doubt, and I don't think it is realistic to go to the other extreme, because both cases deny the reality that Ruth is allergic to certain stimuli that come through in certain deep discussions. We are given an opportunity to understand OP behaviour first hand, and Ruth is given an opportunity to come to terms with the OP concept, because she is an example of it.

But if an OP is constantly stressed to be what they cannot be, they will become a failed OP and start acting like a psychopath. I personally think that with all these years of participating in dicussions, and reading material, if Ruth did have individuation potential, it would have been stimulated by now at least to a rudimentary degree. Apparently, it was not. That's my assessement after reading all the previous.

 

[Fifth Way]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Prompted by the mentioning of the "Garden Variety Psycho" I started to read the appropriate thread on this forum http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=527
And when I just think that I am already amazed to the max. - ther is always more:

I see OPs as people who will deliberately seek out programs which provide them with guidelines on how to behave in order to have their needs met. They are incapable of looking deep into anything, 'behind the curtain' or 'outside the box' and do not understand why anybody else would chose to do so. Their first question when asked to do something like that would be.... "why?"

I think that the majority of programs OPs chose to use are aligned with STS and OPs do not have the capability to discern their part in anything, or look behind the scenes at who benefits. It may have to do with a reduced sense of awareness in comparison to that of a non-OP.

Of course, after finding their various programs (which work very well for them), they absolutely can't work out why a non-OP would chose to question their need for a program.

This is very frustrating but does not make them 'portals of attack' especially if a person knows how they function and does not expect an OP to be a non-OP. Reducing your expectations when dealing with Ops may be one way of dealing with them.

I find it absolutely incredible how Ruth is able to make this analysis, which seems right on target, which describes herself to a T - and at the same time to be completely ignorant to the fact that that is what she does.

As a matter of fact I think this total blind spot, when issues start to concern oneself, is a great lesson for ALL of us. No matter what kind of OP/nonOP we are.

 

[Laura]

COINTELPRO in Action - Rense's Response?

We received the following email today:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Welcome to Signs of the Times Forum!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:39:20 +0000
From: Bruce W <allthatspam@hotmail.co.uk>
To: sott forum



I've uncovered some disturbing facts about you guys.

Giving you a heads up, your members are being informed.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search!
http://join.msn.com/toolbar/overview

Not a surprise since we have been going after the disinfo people in our articles and podcasts lately. It will be interesting to see what kind of crap they come up with now.

Added: seems that the sender is associated with this website: http:(2 slash)www(dot)exoticsmoker(dot)com

 

[lovebunny1]

Superman Returns: WING TV repels Pathological Pirates AKA Rense & Co

I have been watching devolpments on the internet for some time, especially 911 and the NWO, which tie in perfectly. I think it is great that you addressing this issue of who is counteintelpro. I have been observing carefully and trying to figure it out, nevermind. It would appear, or look like WINGTV duo are agents because they are constantly on the attack against the alternative media. Now with Laura and you guys joining the fray you look like counterintelligence too. I honestly don't know who to trust and you had better not trust anyone without crosschecking. I do now like your podcast, but at first I didn't, it really gave me the creeps and I have been exposed to the information for some time. I am looking forward to this weeks podcast because of your guest from WINGTV.
One interesting note, there appeared briefly, this weekend a spoof on the Jeff Rense website making fun of the Cassiopians, read Laura, with a cartoon putting you down. I haven't seen it lately, but it would appear that last weeks podcast stirred up the Jay weidner attack team with backing from Rense. It'll all come out in the wash.

The foundation of my philosphy is that "There are no accidents" I wonder if Laura or someone would care to comment on that. It operates on many levels and I thought it might be worth exploring. You can take it from the level of coutnerintellpro to cause and effect, to past lives, to divien guidance. I really would like to hear Laura's take on this. I have at times recieved incredible guidance with this prinicple. AT other times I have gotten into trouble with it.

 

[Ben]

Superman Returns: WING TV repels Pathological Pirates AKA Rense & Co

One interesting note, there appeared briefly, this weekend a spoof on the Jeff Rense website making fun of the Cassiopians, read Laura, with a cartoon putting you down.

Why wouldn't they respond with a coherent counter-argument which preserves their credibility?

Perhaps they CAN'T? :o

 

[j0da]

Superman Returns: WING TV repels Pathological Pirates AKA Rense & Co

Now is it only me that finds appearance of this post strange just after Laura posted most recent "warning" which we received from Bruce W ? It's a gut feeling, but lovebunny's post is formulated in a weird way, not mentioning the choice of the nickname..

 

[Bholanath]

Superman Returns: WING TV repels Pathological Pirates AKA Rense & Co

Following the podcast/cointelpro dramas here. Rense makes me sick. But one thing bothers me about WINGTV: they seem to be (and refer to often) very connected to the "patriot community". Personally that scares the crap out of me, and I hear "patriot" and I run the other direction, have since Vietnam days. To me, patriotism is sick STS neanderthal MK. Still reserving judgment, and trust Laura's sense and wisdom, but....Could Laura bring this up with those folks?
Thanks and praises.
Thinkin bout movin to France...

 

[Lisa Guliani]

Superman Returns: WING TV repels Pathological Pirates AKA Rense & Co

Lovebunny also goes by the name of (correction to name ) Steve Owens, from Texas, if memory serves me.
"Lovebunny" also happens to be a member of my political forum and from week to week, this person flip-flops in his political ideas and beliefs.
Well, I really appreciate you expressing yourself here about us, Steve.. If I didn't see this, I wonder if you would have just expressed these views directly to me, instead of behind my back to others.
A real cowardly approach to seeking answers to your questions, if I do say so myself.
I can answer your question, Steve.
NO, Victor and I are not "agents" of the government or any other organization or group.
We are guilty of one thing only: we try to get people to THINK for themselves and become proactive participants rather than a fence sitter or one who sits on the sidelines all the time in silence.
Now, if you would like to assert that Thorn and I are agents of some sort, then I fully expect you to cough up some solid evidence of this.
I would very much like to see anyone who has accused us of this b.s. to substantiate what they say for once.
Why is it that you felt you needed to come to this forum to present this "belief du jour", when you could have quite easily emailed us or presented it in the New World order Corner forum?
Our phone number is on the website, if you "believe" that strongly that we are "agents" and are truly worried about this.
For that matter, if you suspect us of such, why in the hell would you ask to join my forum in the first place?
I distinctly remember your high praise of us not too long ago - was this when your "belief du jour" coincided with the things we had to say?
I think so.
It is a cowardly man who has to slither around behind someone's back and gossip, rather than ask or confront the person directly.
Steve, I hope one day you grow up and put your blanky and binky away, once and for all.
Pathetic beyond belief.

If you make any claim about me, you damn well better be able to back it up.
I am waiting, so why don't you go ahead and do that, please.

p.s. I think you can now safely consider yourself a former member of my forum.
I hate to leave things open-ended....

Lisa Guliani
WING TV

 

[Lisa Guliani]

Superman Returns: WING TV repels Pathological Pirates AKA Rense & Co

To the poster regarding WING TV being connected to the "patriot community":

WING TV considers the bulk of the alternative media, "patriot and 9-11 truth communities" to be comprised largely of non-active groups of people. Of these various clusters of "truthseeking patriots", very few are proactive. The prominent spokespeople and so-called leadership of these "movements" are highly questionable and suspect ( to us). they set the tone, they control the message, they shape the public perception, they direct the flow of information, and they use selected individuals to do that.
We have always operated outside the periphery of the 9-11 "truth" movement and "patriot community" - especially after we realized to what extent each has been infiltrated and co-opted.
We are called "loose cannons" by those in the 9-11 truth circles and "whatever name they can come up with on any given day" in the "patriot" circles.
All I can say is, we live outside the safe zone of political correctness, we like it there, and we intend to remain completely independent.
We do not pimp ourselves out to advertisers, we have no paid subscriptions, and we own our own a-s-s-e-s.
Nobody dictates our discussions, our content, or anything else we do.
So, we're not exactly between the yellow lines when it comes to these "so-called movements" and we think we're in the best place we could possibly be.
In order to BE a movement, the movement has to MOVE.
we see no real movement with the above, but rather a lot of keyboard commando stuff.
That is not a movement.
Copying Alex Jones videos is not a movement either.
If these people want a movement, then they better rise up off their a-s-s-e-s and MOVE.
Considering the current state of both the 9-11 and the patriot "communities", I would rather NOT be associated with them.
I'll just keep doing my own thing. At least I have a pulse.
Hey people, you CAN ask me directly if you want to know something.
I promise I don't bite.
I just bite back...

Lisa Guliani
WING TV

 

[Lisa Guliani]

Superman Returns: WING TV repels Pathological Pirates AKA Rense & Co

Don't you love how simply questioning the gurus makes one cointelpro?
Asking questions of the 'wrong people" is perhaps the most taboo activity of modern times...

Lisa G.

 

[Bholanath]

Superman Returns: WING TV repels Pathological Pirates AKA Rense & Co

Lisa,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my bringing up "patriot community". I wasn't suggesting you or associates are cointelpro. There are a lot of folks both on the web, in various art/entertainment media, and even on "progressive" radio who admittedly were, until recently, Repugs/righties, and they're loud, self-righteous, and their knowledge of real history goes back about a decade, if that. Entranced with a glamorous fantasy of a career path to radical-chic-celebrity status. With the volume of info/disinfo out there now, one can waste a lot of time. The youth (our kids) need to get up to speed 'history-wise' pronto. Still, to me, "patriotism" implies allegiance to some abstract group-idea of "our" owned (stolen) little territory in this section of creation and/or "our" infallibly superior govt-style/consumptive-habits (we like our earth-raping pathocracy as it is, thank you), so I just personally don't use the term, with its associations with war and Xtian-manifest-destiny ideologies, etc., nor do I have any interaction with "patriot"-oriented individuals. "Patriots" were wantin to kick our rebellious-youth asses during Vietnam, in our faces with "love it or leave it", left a bad taste, ya know. If you are waking folks up from these communities AND exposing the real disinfo slime, all power to you.