Jeff Rense EXPOSED!!

[Laura]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Thought I would add a post I wrote this morning in a different forum, but which directly relates to this present issue:

If you need to hire a server to provide you with the opportunity to exist on the www , and they have the ability to turn your site on and off as simple as you describe, who does the 'server' apply to for access to the web?

From a backbone, people who own and resell internet connections. Mainly the phone companies or other companies that install the connections, i.e. corporations.

Ultimately, is there one source of access and control that has the power to turn one or all of the servers off and shut down a portion of, or the entire www ?

Sure. The U.S. government controls the routers, nodes, etc. The alphabet soup people have complete access to all traffic.

Are you aware of or do you perceive that there is an entity or 'superpower' in this world with the ability to literally "pull the plug" ? If so, who are they, or who is 'it'?

See above.

If not , how can any governing body or law enforcement agency threaten to deny people of their basic freedom of expressing their 'undocumentable' thoughts?

They've been doing it for years, it's just becoming more overt of late. There's a reason for that, also. Obviously, for a long time it was done somewhat carefully and covertly utilizing paramoralisms and paralogic. Why? Well, obviously, until the ground - the psychology of the masses - is adequately prepared.

You see, if the masses were not in a "special state" to accept certain things, they would rise up and revolt. So creating that state has been part of a long, slow, programming process. You could say that it is similar to the process of hypnotic induction.

But keep in mind that even under hypnosis, a person will not do anything that goes against their "belief center." So, changing beliefs has also been part of the process.

In the process of hypnosis, there are little tests applied along the way. For example, at a certain point, the hypnotist will ask the subject to TRY to open his/her eyes. This will come after being told that the eyelids are so heavy that the subject cannot open them. So, the subject tries, and finds that he can't, and this sudden awareness that he cannot serves only to deepen his trance and the control of the hypnotist over the subject.

The Kennedy assassination was one such test... 911 is a bigger one.

The traumatic effects of 911 were part of the induction. The media constantly repeated to the shocked populace: everything has changed, everything has changed, there are evildoers in our midst, and so on.

In the middle of this, little mainstream media blurbs that the government knew and allowed 911 to happen were flashed on the screen so as to "test" and secure the trance state. This was equivalent to asking the subject, after he has been told that the eyelids are too heavy to open, to open his eyes. It served to deepen the trance even more.

Now, all the disturbing facts are coming, little by little, into the open as more "trance state" tests. These things are risks that the Controllers take, but they do it for a reason: to deepen the trance. That is mostly why they allow many of the things they allow.

There is also the reason that they want to leave the traffic open so they can know everything about everybody and "make their lists and check them twice... gonna find out who's naughty or nice..." Because, of course, there ARE people who are un-hypnotizable.

For example, consider the following:

There are large individual differences in response to hypnosis. Hypnosis has little to do with the hypnotist's technique, and very much to do with the individual's capacity, or talent, for experiencing hypnosis. Most people are at least moderately hypnotizable. However, while relatively few people absolutely cannot be hypnotized, by the same token, relatively few people fall within the highest level of responsiveness (so-called hypnotic virtuosos).

There is some controversy over whether hypnotizability can be modified. Some clinical practitioners believe that virtually everyone can be hypnotized, if only the hypnotist takes the right approach. However, there is little evidence favoring this point of view. Similarly, some researchers believe that developing positive attitudes, motivations, and expectancies concerning hypnosis can enhance hypnotizability. However, there is also evidence that such interventions may only affect behavioral compliance with suggestions, not the subjective experiences that lie at the core of hypnosis. As with any other skilled performance, hypnosis is probably a matter of both aptitude and attitude: negative attitudes, motivations, and expectancies can interfere with performance, but positive ones are not by themselves sufficient to create hypnotic virtuosity.

Hypnotizability is measured by standardized psychological tests such as the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale or the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility. These instruments are work-samples that are similar to other performance tests. Hypnotizability, so measured, yields a roughly normal (i.e., bell-shaped) distribution of scores.

Source: Institute for the Study of Healthcare Organizations & Transactions

I once heard that information posted or transmitted online was not valid evidence in a court of law, I'm sure that is changing.

Yup, it's changing. Personal experience. We recently won a suit regarding material transmitted via the web.

Who draws 'the line' that this forum and many others are not willing to risk crossing?

We draw our own lines here. These lines consist first of all of not doing what is illegal, period. The second set of lines is variable. We do not like to be, nor do we wish to put others, in physical peril. We've had enough experiences along this line to know who's on first in that respect.

I know that's a bunch of questions, but I'm asking because it would be nice to KNOW if the threats being made towards our ability to share our personal thoughts are supported by laws that are already written and/or enforced, or if all of the concerns we share about our security exist only because we haven't identified with and questioned the source of intimidation. Because some ONE either has the ability to manipulate and restrict the flow of data and information throughout the entire world and the www, or not.
Which is it? (that's my only question)

No, most of what is being done to suppress is not legal. But unless you have a LOT of money and a lot of time to spend fighting such battles, don't even go there. They can do what they have the money to do. It's that simple. ATS types get away with the illegal stuff they pull inside the US because they have their good buddy, Wayne Jaeschke, to back them up with legal threats. The US is highly hystericized, (Canada, too), and all it takes is a psychopathic threat of a lawsuit to get most people to fold up completely. It doesn't work as well in other countries.

Identifying and questioning the ultimate source of the intimidation is a matter at a whole different level. Certainly there is a "Cryptocracy." And no doubt, some of those folks are into nasty stuff, maybe even including secret society black magick mumbo jumbo, ritual abuse, sexual perversion, and so on. You can name all kinds of groups: Skull and Bones, OTO, Enochian Magick, Kaballah, Masons, etc. It all amounts to the same thing: Pathocrats. These are psychologically deviant people attracted to ideologies that they either believe in themselves, or promote to attract adherents like themselves.

The bottom line is: it's all a load of horsehockey, not any different from the folks that believe that Jesus is gonna rapture them from catastrophe. One side believes in Jesus, the other side believes in Satan (or whoever). The Enochians identify the character as "Choronzon" honored as "that mighty devil" by John Dee's buddy, Edward Kelly.

The plain fact is that all of this nonsense are really distorted (subjective and unscientific) ways of talking about hyperdimensional energy exchanges.

Is there a hyperdimensional entity who thinks he is the Devil? Probably, but it doesn't make it so. The rules of the game are still the same, like gravity on earth: they can't take over people without their willing acceptance and to show their hand too soon would turn everyone against them thus foiling the possibility of them being able to achieve their ends.

Now this is theoretical, but seems to fit the facts. It seems that what the higher levels are after is "loosh," or consciousness in a particular state. For the entropic side, fear and horror are quite delectable. So, if a planetary cataclysm is in the works, (as seems to be the case and only the higher echelons know this), then it is desirable for them to keep everyone as ignorant as possible so that when the facts DO become obvious, they will still be in a state of hypnosis, only waking up at the last instant to be completely permeated with the requisite spice of horror at the extraordinary betrayal. That would then lock all that energy into a whole new cosmic cycle of feeding and loosh providing. In the end, from the purely mechanical point of view, it is only about energy exchanges... and can be succinctly explained via physics and mathematics.

Psychopaths and other deviants represent, in our reality, physical manifestations of the entropic, or "off" energy state. Understood in this way, you don't have to go into some kind of terror state that posits all kinds of weird hierarchies of demons and devils or secret societies that sacrifice virgins and are trying to take over the world. Sure, sick people like that exist and they do that kind of stuff somewhere at some time. But that is only evidence of their deviance, their sickness, their membership in a larger grouping of pathological elements. And the fact is, these elements only make up about 6% of humanity, though they have an extraordinary effect on the rest of us, just like a tiny, virulent bacteria has an effect on a human body and can make it sick or even kill it.

 

[anart]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Now, all the disturbing facts are coming, little by little, into the open as more "trance state" tests. These things are risks that the Controllers take, but they do it for a reason: to deepen the trance. That is mostly why they allow many of the things they allow.

OHHH - so, people aren't 'waking up' about 911 at all, then - at least in the general sense. The Charlie Sheens/Ed Asners/BYU professors/et al are simply being allowed their fifteen minutes to deepen the trance of everyone else. The facts get placed out there in the sun, nothing changes, the trance deepens for the masses. Wow. I had not considered that aspect at all, Laura, thank you for pointing it out.

 

[Joe]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Now, all the disturbing facts are coming, little by little, into the open as more "trance state" tests. These things are risks that the Controllers take, but they do it for a reason: to deepen the trance. That is mostly why they allow many of the things they allow.

OHHH - so, people aren't 'waking up' about 911 at all, then - at least in the general sense. The Charlie Sheens/Ed Asners/BYU professors/et al are simply being allowed their fifteen minutes to deepen the trance of everyone else. The facts get placed out there in the sun, nothing changes, the trance deepens for the masses. Wow. I had not considered that aspect at all, Laura, thank you for pointing it out.

Seems to be the case for a majority of humanity, although there does seem to be a very small few who are not, or not fully, in a trance and the revealing of the disrturbing facts provides them with at least a chance of waking up fully, i.e. it shocks them. But of course they are also being bombarded with the propaganda from the media etc. So we are fighting a battle here to get the shocks of the truth in front of as many people as possigble. We are fighting for those people who can, if they can be woken up, possibly effect a quantum shift in the collective awareness of all of humanity of the Reality of what is going on on the planet. We don't know how much it will take, but we gotta keep pushing.

Joe

 

[Fifth Way]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Laura:
Once again thank you for in depth comment and further Lobaczewski excerpts (I'm counting the day until publication of his book). I think what I appreciate the most about this web-site/forum, apart all the knowledge made available, its the chance for self-analyses. Not only under the thread "The Work" but everywhere. Very well educated feedback, that comes from so many forum members and in such a respectful an above all refined manner.

Thinking longer and more focused about it there is something (after all) that starts to untangle in terms of my own psyche after the whole John/Durant/Dimitris "case study". As I wonder why I - with now psychopathic tendencies (luckily, I too, was subjected to second hand smoke in childhood :D ) or programming - respond so obviously gullible to such types initially. I thought that maybe my fondness of flowery expression was to blame. But after reading the whole Paranoid character disorders stuff and also Eso's comment to connect this to the European cultural programming of intellectual up-man-ship, the penny suddenly dropped.

When you are, in the eyes of your peers, dominated intellectually the result is similar to the feelings a traditional Japanese or Chinese may have when "losing face"

And, as you are suggesting, only by differentiating further all the

participation of various pathological factors in these processes

I naturally did discovered this subtle but clear proramm that I was exposed to growing up.

Quit some revelation.

Thanks.

 

[Dimitris]

What Rense.com is not talking about

I am curious to see if this person will respond to all this, and if so which among the predictable responses will be chosen? One is almost tempted to make a few wagers.

Had a good chuckle over that one!

Couldn't help having a good chuckle over that one myself, dear Laura, as I'm fast losing count of the psychiatric 'checklist' labels poured on me in this Forum.

Suffice it to say that it takes a long acquaintance with your 'voluminous writings' to understand - from a strictly clinical perspective of a professional psychotherapist - why such a hysterical response was triggered by a mere disagreement about the ethics (to say nothing about the Politics) of publicly branding as 'assets of Cointelpro' people we dislike or differ with on matters of opinion. When, in the case of Rense.com the targets of this vicious invective include, not only Jeff Rense himself, but also hundreds of guests and regular contributors to his 'portal' of alternative news - to say nothing of its thousands of indexed hyperlinks and Archive entries - if this is not a textbook case of Sectarianism, what else is it?

Here is how Wikipedia expands on Webster's dictionary definition of Sectarianism:

The ideological underpinnings of attitudes and behaviours labelled as sectarian are extraordinarily varied. Members of a religious group may feel that their own salvation requires aggressively seeking converts from other groups; adherents of a given faction may believe that for the achievement of their own political or religious project their opponents must be purged. Sometimes a group feeling itself to be under economic or political pressure will attack members of another group thought to be responsible for its own decline. In all cases, there is a real or felt opposition between 'Us' and 'Them', between insiders and outsiders. Sectarianism may take the form of hatred and fear of an outside sect or group. In such cases, sectarianism does not require a strong sense of religious belief, as much as a sense of group belonging.

Note that the highlighted terms suggest a strong element psychological Violence engendered within the sectarian group from shared feelings of extreme Self-Doubt and a frantic effort to ward off the psychotic Depression triggered by such internalized violence. No wonder that the selective abuse of psychiatric jargon as defensive 'weapons' against 'outsiders' appears to encompass every conceivable personality disorder, except for the one that prevails within the sectarian milieu, namely Depression.

Sometimes, the self-prescribed use of SSRI anti-depressants like Fluoxetine (Prozac) without proper medical supervision can aggrevate the same symptoms. Aside from ameliorating the extremes of anguish associated with the depression cycle, SSRIs can also have incidious side-effects on all sorts of cognitive, behavioural and psychological faculties to which the children of depressives are particularly susceptible. You can brand me and bash me anyway you like, Laura, Ark et al - but please, PLEASE, spare your children of this deranged form of 'soul-searching'!!!

Lobaczewski's "Ponerology", however, is literally a gold mine of such insight, and the more we explore it the more 'weapons' we can forge to address what amounts to a pathocratic outbreak of epidemic proportions in our turbulent times.

This is no Freudian slip: You are all playing with 'weapons' here! And weapons are the tools of war - NOT means of adult communication 'forged to address' concepts, theories, hypotheses or questions of Truth and Deception in a civil, calm, caring and rational debate. Needless to say, the repressive and divisive consequences of such 'weaponization' of thought cannot be disentangled from its professed motives of combating 'thought-disease epidemics' by striving to verbally exterminate the infected 'carriers'.

More specifically, when the concepts and techniques of diagnostic psychiatry are actually deployed as 'weapons' by disturbed laymen, they become double-edged swords. In the abusive hands of amateurs, they turn into Aboriginal boomerangs, capable of delivering a far more lethal blow to the untrained attacker than to his targeted victim.

The point to remember is that no path of truth-seeking or soul-awakening can be inherently immune to the trappings and pitfalls of Deception. And all deception ultimately boils down to Self-Deception, regardless of its 'source' within or outside the deceived individual. It takes a lot of conscious effort, lateral thinking, human caring and self-critical evaluation of diverse sources or experiences to draw those lessons best suited to one's personal inclinations for spiritual advancement.

Therefore, I have made it clear from the outset, that I value and respect Lobaczewski's work as one of the most courageous attempts by a veteran clinical psychologist behind the 'Iron Curtain', to stir the murky waters of Soviet-style 'psychiatry'. His underrated achievement was the result of a gifted person's revolt against the straight-jackets encountered in the Communist Gulags. He was one of the few professionals caught in the tentacles of this demonic apparatus, who tried to inject it with some moral, philosophical and political concepts that could supplant its official function in Orwellian 'social engineering', brainwashing, surveillance and mass repression.

However, the strictly practical implications of Lobaczewski's methodology, as set out by the author in the Introduction to his book, still lean towards a form of Psycho-eugenics, which is - to put it mildly - problematic. Under this implicit agenda, an informed and well-meaning group of clinical psychologists would be empowered to search for, monitor, and track down socio/psychopathic characters who supposedly comprise "1-6 percent of the population" (or more, according to Laura). Their task would be to identify or distinguish 'soul-less' from 'souled' persons and thereby 'isolate' potential pathocrats at an early stage of their psychopathic development, to prevent them from gaining the power to harm others.

It may sounds reasonable to the layman but, in fact, this is a recipe for state-sanctioned or 'voluntary' stereotyping, witch-hunts, incrimination or stigmatization, which psychiatry has often condoned and espoused in the past.

Fortunately, Western psychiatry has been purged of such 'psycho-policing' inclinations through the institutional reform movements of the 1960s and 70s, especially in Europe. But there's always the danger of a 'blowback' from the new wave of mass surveillance techniques, human-rights violations, crisis management or mind control schemes unleashed by the PTB on a global scale in the aftermath of 911.

Above all, Lobaczewski admits that the blunt tools of Ponerology, tend to over-psychologize Politics and over-politicize Psychology in a manner that suits deviant amateurs in either discipline. They can thereby wreak havoc in a fledgling Truth Movement whose Internet fringes are infested with borderline and dissociative characteropaths. Striving to keep their Mask of Sanity intact, the latter will abuse the jargon of Ponerology as a Medusa's Head of derisory labels and pigeon-holes, which they will brandish in front of everything that moves, hoping to turn every imaginary 'foe' - and a few undeserving 'friends' - into stone.

The ethical imperative to refrain from such Psycho-Gestapo tactics has not escaped the attention of Laura a few years ago, when she confronted the swings and U-turns of a much younger but no less talented and erudite fellow 'truth seeker'.

When we began researching the issue of Organic Portals, the owner [of Montalk.net] was one of the first to pick up on our research and attempt to extend it... The owner's approach is, we believe, very dangerous. It leads to the quick judgment and labeling of others, pigeonholing people, something we work very carefully to avoid. We think that life is much more complex than the simplistic "check-list" analyses on montalk.net would like to suggest. Our interest in this issue has never been that of "spot the OP"... It is with great regret that we announce the fact that there are extremely important philosophical, political, and ethical differences, differences of a profound character, between the authors of the articles published on montalk.net and the owners of the cassiopaea.org site... It is one of the certainties of this world that any perceived difference between people, be it visible or invisible, real or imagined, will be used by someone to discriminate against "others", to force them into hierarchies where the "others" are made subservient. Our intent in researching this issue was not to add more grist to this "us against them" mill. Our interest was the greater understanding it brought us in seeing how the world actually works... In the internal discussions of the Quantum Future School, we made it quite clear that we were not interested in making checklists to be able to play the game of "Spot the OP!".
This was, for us, a matter of the utmost ETHICAL importance.
Singling out individuals as OPs DOESN'T MATTER in the grander scheme of things. It doesn't matter because until one begins the hard work of actually developing the soul, we all may as well all be OPs! The work on this subject has just begun. The work is intended not as a foundation upon which to base checklists, but rather as a point from which to begin to work on oneself.
To assume the "Spot the OP" stance is to assume the stance of someone who believes they already have a soul. This is the same error of arrogance as those who would have us believe that "We are all One", and that we should therefore not look at the evil in the world.

I don't think any sensible person past the age of 50 can disagree with any of the above remarks and their immense ethical, political and philosophical importance. But then, alas, something changed yet again for Laura, in the past 18 months:

As of October 21, 2004 we removed our 'Disclaimer' from here, as the situation and circumstances have changed in the meantime, our position and differences are now known to the readers of our sites, and also the world is entering a different phase and we are entering a different phase together with the rest of the world.

I dare not fathom what 'phase' the world is entering to prompt such radical volta-face from the SOTT.org truth-seekers. But knowing that young Tommy is probably the ONLY fellow-seeker whose website Montalk.net has taken Laura's channelled material seriously since he was 16, I suspect that his recent allusion from his article entitled 'Methods of Deception' hits the nail on the head:

Some paths are more circuitous and painful than others. Knowing what to watch for can save you lots of unnecessary trouble. This comes down to matching enthusiasm with discernment and seeking out the wisdom needed to navigate a clear path... That a body of material contains identifiable truths does not necessarily make it valid... Preoccupation with lower truths can distract from the pursuit of higher ones... Just because something contains convoluted trivia, complex jargon, and voluminous pages, it does not necessarily contain profound truths. The illusion of profundity sends people on a wild goose chase for grand truths better found elsewhere. Positive sources are complex only for the sake of accuracy and conciseness.

 

[atreides]

What Rense.com is not talking about

In my limited and humble experience, "professional" psychotherapists tend to attempt to establish something the french call 'rapport'...wait, we call it that too. You seem hellbent on confuddling me with your fancy words, and I must say you have succeeded because again, I have no idea what you are babbling about. I guess us simple non-PSYCHOtherapists will just have to give up the ghost and name you the all time winner!

Though I don't have the obvious extensive clinical experience that you do, I think I'll take a stab at a few of your remarks, just to clarify things for myself.

Couldn't help having a good chuckle over that one myself, dear Laura, as I'm fast losing count of the psychiatric 'checklist' labels poured on me in this Forum.

So you do see how your behaviour matches a number of the criteria for psychopathic personality disorder? Or not? I am not really sure what your comment here means, are you laughing because it is TRUE, or because it is NOT?

Suffice it to say that it takes a long acquaintance with your 'voluminous writings' to understand - from a strictly clinical perspective of a professional psychotherapist - why such a hysterical response was triggered by a mere disagreement about the ethics (to say nothing about the Politics) of publicly branding as 'assets of Cointelpro' people we dislike or differ with on matters of opinion. When, in the case of Rense.com the targets of this vicious invective include, not only Jeff Rense himself, but also hundreds of guests and regular contributors to his 'portal' of alternative news - to say nothing of its thousands of indexed hyperlinks and Archive entries - if this is not a textbook case of Sectarianism, what else is it?

So it's okay if you label someone or some group sectarian (y00 potty mouth) because you are a psychotherapist, but others are not allowed to 'label' people COINTELPRO when they study Ponerology? It seems to me that you are using a double standard, you want to be a psychotherapist, and a ponerologist at the same time, while excluding others from the practice of forming judgments in these arenas? Sorry, I am not clear on your motivation, do you mean to say that no one is COINTELPRO, or only those we say are are not, or are you saying that you are the ultimate decider guru of whether or not someone is COINTELPRO or not, but also that you aren't saying that what we are saying is wrong, only that you don't agree coz you know more that we know, even though we say that we know that you know less than you know on the topic at hand, that is saying that we think you are fullashit, but you don't think you're fullashit, so that's how this all got started?

When did it become unethical to take a list of criteria, match it to someone, and then make a judgment? Any psychotherapist worth his salt would say thats the way we all do it. Though I am sure a man of your clinical experience is far beyond such petty model processes, but you don't need to throw your weight around the sandbox with us preschoolers.

However, the strictly practical implications of Lobaczewski's methodology, as set out by the author in the Introduction to his book, still lean towards a form of Psycho-eugenics, which is - to put it mildly - problematic. Under this implicit agenda, an informed and well-meaning group of clinical psychologists would be empowered to search for, monitor, and track down socio/psychopathic characters who supposedly comprise "1-6 percent of the population" (or more, according to Laura). Their task would be to identify or distinguish 'soul-less' from 'souled' persons and thereby 'isolate' potential pathocrats at an early stage of their psychopathic development, to prevent them from gaining the power to harm others.

You said it, not us. Is this something you desire? I know you are trying to admonish us youngsters, but it appears more and more like you are simply looking for an outlet to your holocaust/genocide fantasies. Do you think your kind of violent sexual fixation on death is healthy?

Just because something contains convoluted trivia, complex jargon...it does not necessarily contain profound truths.(Next week on friggin obvious...)

I send that one right back to ya, mister Fluoxetine.

So, just to recap for those who got lost, am I the only one feelin tha heat from homeboy up north? Coz it seemz to me hes straight playa hatin n dis peece, bringin some whack ol ish up in here like sug, talkin bout bustin sum mind caps up this here work, when he just frontin, g wanna defikate on tha mic, but wena brutha wana bring tha heat rite back, he all like, yo use sum baseheds.

 

[Laura]

What Rense.com is not talking about

I am curious to see if this person will respond to all this, and if so which among the predictable responses will be chosen? One is almost tempted to make a few wagers.

Had a good chuckle over that one!

Couldn't help having a good chuckle over that one myself, dear Laura, as I'm fast losing count of the psychiatric 'checklist' labels poured on me in this Forum.

Suffice it to say that it takes a long acquaintance with your 'voluminous writings' to understand - from a strictly clinical perspective of a professional psychotherapist - why such a hysterical response was triggered by a mere disagreement about the ethics (to say nothing about the Politics) of publicly branding as 'assets of Cointelpro' people we dislike or differ with on matters of opinion. When, in the case of Rense.com the targets of this vicious invective include, not only Jeff Rense himself, but also hundreds of guests and regular contributors to his 'portal' of alternative news - to say nothing of its thousands of indexed hyperlinks and Archive entries - if this is not a textbook case of Sectarianism, what else is it?

Paramoralisms: The conviction that moral values exist and that some actions violate moral rules is so common and ancient a phenomenon that it seems to have some substratum at man's instinctive endowment level (although it is certainly not totally adequate for moral truth), and that it does not only represent centuries' of experience, culture, religion, and socialization. Thus, any insinuation framed in moral slogans is always suggestive, even if the "moral" criteria used are just an "ad hoc" invention. Any act can thus be proved to be immoral or moral by means of such paramoralisms utilized as active suggestion, and people whose minds will succumb to such reasoning can always be found. ...

Paramoralism somehow cunningly evades the control of our common sense, sometimes leading to acceptance or approval of behavior that is openly pathological.

Paramoralistic statements and suggestions so often accompany various kinds of evil that they seem quite irreplaceable. Unfortunately, it has become a frequent phenomenon for individuals, oppressive groups, or patho-political systems to invent ever-new moral criteria for someone's convenience. Such suggestions often partially deprive people of their moral reasoning and deform its development in youngsters. Paramoralism factories have been founded worldwide, and a ponerologist finds it hard to believe that they are managed by psychologically normal people.

The conversive features in the genesis of paramoralisms seem to prove they are derived from mostly subconscious rejection (and repression from the field of consciousness) of something completely different, which we call the voice of conscience.

Here is how Wikipedia expands on Webster's dictionary definition of Sectarianism:

The ideological underpinnings of attitudes and behaviours labelled as sectarian are extraordinarily varied. Members of a religious group may feel that their own salvation requires aggressively seeking converts from other groups; adherents of a given faction may believe that for the achievement of their own political or religious project their opponents must be purged. Sometimes a group feeling itself to be under economic or political pressure will attack members of another group thought to be responsible for its own decline. In all cases, there is a real or felt opposition between 'Us' and 'Them', between insiders and outsiders. Sectarianism may take the form of hatred and fear of an outside sect or group. In such cases, sectarianism does not require a strong sense of religious belief, as much as a sense of group belonging.

Note that the highlighted terms suggest a strong element psychological Violence engendered within the sectarian group from shared feelings of extreme Self-Doubt and a frantic effort to ward off the psychotic Depression triggered by such internalized violence. No wonder that the selective abuse of psychiatric jargon as defensive 'weapons' against 'outsiders' appears to encompass every conceivable personality disorder, except for the one that prevails within the sectarian milieu, namely Depression.

Reversive blockade: Emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between the truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. If the counterfeit of the truth is the opposite of a moral truth, at the same time, it simultaneously represents an extreme paramoralism, and bears its peculiar suggestiveness.

We rarely see this method being used by normal people; even if raised by the people who abused it; they usually only indicate its results in their characteristic difficulties in apprehending reality properly. Use of this method can be included within the above-mentioned special psychological knowledge developed by psychopaths concerning the weaknesses of human nature and the art of leading others into error. Where they are in rule, this method is used with virtuosity, and to an extent conterminous with their power.

Sometimes, the self-prescribed use of SSRI anti-depressants like Fluoxetine (Prozac) without proper medical supervision can aggrevate the same symptoms. Aside from ameliorating the extremes of anguish associated with the depression cycle, SSRIs can also have incidious side-effects on all sorts of cognitive, behavioural and psychological faculties to which the children of depressives are particularly susceptible. You can brand me and bash me anyway you like, Laura, Ark et al - but please, PLEASE, spare your children of this deranged form of 'soul-searching'!!!

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 force 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.

Lobaczewski's "Ponerology", however, is literally a gold mine of such insight, and the more we explore it the more 'weapons' we can forge to address what amounts to a pathocratic outbreak of epidemic proportions in our turbulent times.

This is no Freudian slip: You are all playing with 'weapons' here! And weapons are the tools of war - NOT means of adult communication 'forged to address' concepts, theories, hypotheses or questions of Truth and Deception in a civil, calm, caring and rational debate. Needless to say, the repressive and divisive consequences of such 'weaponization' of thought cannot be disentangled from its professed motives of combating 'thought-disease epidemics' by striving to verbally exterminate the infected 'carriers'.

More specifically, when the concepts and techniques of diagnostic psychiatry are actually deployed as 'weapons' by disturbed laymen, they become double-edged swords. In the abusive hands of amateurs, they turn into Aboriginal boomerangs, capable of delivering a far more lethal blow to the untrained attacker than to his targeted victim.

The point to remember is that no path of truth-seeking or soul-awakening can be inherently immune to the trappings and pitfalls of Deception. And all deception ultimately boils down to Self-Deception, regardless of its 'source' within or outside the deceived individual. It takes a lot of conscious effort, lateral thinking, human caring and self-critical evaluation of diverse sources or experiences to draw those lessons best suited to one's personal inclinations for spiritual advancement.

Therefore, I have made it clear from the outset, that I value and respect Lobaczewski's work as one of the most courageous attempts by a veteran clinical psychologist behind the 'Iron Curtain', to stir the murky waters of Soviet-style 'psychiatry'. His underrated achievement was the result of a gifted person's revolt against the straight-jackets encountered in the Communist Gulags. He was one of the few professionals caught in the tentacles of this demonic apparatus, who tried to inject it with some moral, philosophical and political concepts that could supplant its official function in Orwellian 'social engineering', brainwashing, surveillance and mass repression.

Paramoralisms: The conviction that moral values exist and that some actions violate moral rules is so common and ancient a phenomenon that it seems to have some substratum at man's instinctive endowment level (although it is certainly not totally adequate for moral truth), and that it does not only represent centuries' of experience, culture, religion, and socialization. Thus, any insinuation framed in moral slogans is always suggestive, even if the "moral" criteria used are just an "ad hoc" invention. Any act can thus be proved to be immoral or moral by means of such paramoralisms utilized as active suggestion, and people whose minds will succumb to such reasoning can always be found. ...

Paramoralism somehow cunningly evades the control of our common sense, sometimes leading to acceptance or approval of behavior that is openly pathological.

Paramoralistic statements and suggestions so often accompany various kinds of evil that they seem quite irreplaceable. Unfortunately, it has become a frequent phenomenon for individuals, oppressive groups, or patho-political systems to invent ever-new moral criteria for someone's convenience. Such suggestions often partially deprive people of their moral reasoning and deform its development in youngsters. Paramoralism factories have been founded worldwide, and a ponerologist finds it hard to believe that they are managed by psychologically normal people.

The conversive features in the genesis of paramoralisms seem to prove they are derived from mostly subconscious rejection (and repression from the field of consciousness) of something completely different, which we call the voice of conscience.

However, the strictly practical implications of Lobaczewski's methodology, as set out by the author in the Introduction to his book, still lean towards a form of Psycho-eugenics, which is - to put it mildly - problematic. Under this implicit agenda, an informed and well-meaning group of clinical psychologists would be empowered to search for, monitor, and track down socio/psychopathic characters who supposedly comprise "1-6 percent of the population" (or more, according to Laura). Their task would be to identify or distinguish 'soul-less' from 'souled' persons and thereby 'isolate' potential pathocrats at an early stage of their psychopathic development, to prevent them from gaining the power to harm others.

It may sounds reasonable to the layman but, in fact, this is a recipe for state-sanctioned or 'voluntary' stereotyping, witch-hunts, incrimination or stigmatization, which psychiatry has often condoned and espoused in the past.

Sometime during life, every human organism undergoes periods during which physiological and psychological resistance declines, facilitating development of bacteriological infection within. Similarly, a human association or social movement undergoes periods of crisis which weaken its ideational and moral cohesion. This may be caused by pressure on the part of other groups, a general spiritual crisis in the environment, or intensification of its hysterical condition. Just as more stringent sanitary measures are an obvious medical indication for a weakened organism, the development of conscious control over the activity of pathological factors is a ponerological indication. This is a crucial factor for prevention of tragedy during a society's periods of moral crisis.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

Fortunately, Western psychiatry has been purged of such 'psycho-policing' inclinations through the institutional reform movements of the 1960s and 70s, especially in Europe. But there's always the danger of a 'blowback' from the new wave of mass surveillance techniques, human-rights violations, crisis management or mind control schemes unleashed by the PTB on a global scale in the aftermath of 911.

At the same time, America, especially the U.S.A., has reached a nadir for the first time in its short history. Grey-haired Europeans living in the U.S. today are struck by the similarity between these phenomena and the ones dominating Europe at the times of their youth. The emotionalism dominating individual, collective and political life, as well as the subconscious selection and substitution of data in reasoning, are impoverishing the development of a psychological world view and leading to individual and national egotism.

The mania for taking offense at the drop of a hat provokes constant retaliation, taking advantage of hyper-irritability and hypo-criticality on the part of others. This can be considered analogous to the European dueling mania of those times. People fortunate enough to achieve a position higher than someone else are contemptuous of their supposed inferiors in a way highly reminiscent of czarist Russian customs.

Turn-of-the-century Freudian psychology finds fertile soil in this country because of the similarity in social and psychological conditions.

America's psychological recession drags in its wake an impaired socio-professional adaptation of this country's people, leading to a waste of human talent and an involution of societal structure. If we were to calculate this country's adaptation correlation index, as suggested in the prior chapter, it would probably be lower than the great majority of the free and civilized nations of this world, and possibly lower than some countries which have lost their freedom.

A highly talented individual in the USA finds it ever more difficult to fight his way through to self-realization and a socially creative position. Universities, politics, and businesses ever more frequently demonstrate a united front of relatively untalented persons and even incompetent persons. The word "overeducated" is heard more and more often. Such "overqualified" individuals finally hide out in some foundation laboratory where they are allowed to earn the Nobel prize as long as they don't do anything really useful. In the meantime, the country as whole suffers due to a deficit in the inspirational role of highly gifted individuals.

As a result, America is stifling progress in all areas of life, from culture to technology and economics, not excluding political incompetence. When linked to other deficiencies, an egotist's incapability of understanding other people and nations leads to political error and the scapegoating of outsiders. Slamming the brakes on the evolution of political structures and social institutions increases both administrative inertia and discontent on the part of its victims.

We should realize that the most dramatic social difficulties and tensions occur at least ten years after the first observable indications of having emerged from a psychological crisis. Being a sequel, they also constitute a delayed reaction to the cause or are stimulated by the same psychological activation process. The time span for effective countermeasures is thus rather limited.

In Western psychiatry, we've been pre-programmed to believe that people only exhibit problem behaviors when they're "troubled" inside or anxious about something. We've also been taught that people aggress only when they're attacked in some way. So, even when our gut tells us that somebody is attacking us and for no good reason, we don't readily accept the notion. We usually start to wonder what's bothering the person so badly "underneath it all" that's making them act in such a disturbing way. We may even wonder what we may have said or done that "threatened" them. We almost never think that they might be fighting simply to get something, have their way, or gain the upper hand. So, instead of seeing them as merely fighting, we view them as primarily hurting in some way.

Not only do we often have trouble recognizing the ways people aggress us, but we also have difficulty discerning the distinctly aggressive character of some personalities. The legacy of Sigmund Freud's work has a lot to do with this. Freud's theories (and the theories of others who built upon his work) heavily influenced the psychology of personality for a long time. Elements of the classical theories of personality found their way into many disciplines other than psychology as well as into many of our social institutions and enterprises. The basic tenets of these theories and their hallmark construct, neurosis, have become fairly well etched in the public consciousness.

Psychodynamic theories of personality tend to view everyone, at least to some degree, as neurotic. Neurotic individuals are overly inhibited people who suffer unreasonable fear (anxiety), guilt and shame when it comes to securing their basic wants and needs. The malignant impact of overgeneralizing Freud's observations about a small group of overly inhibited individuals into a broad set of assumptions about the causes of psychological ill-health in everyone cannot be overstated.[...]

Therapists whose training overly indoctrinated them in the theory of neurosis, may "frame" problems presented them incorrectly. They may, for example, assume that a person, who all their life has aggressively pursued independence and demonstrated little affinity for others, must necessarily be "compensating" for a "fear" of intimacy. In other words, they will view a hardened fighter as a terrified runner, thus misperceiving the core reality of the situation.[...]

We need a completely different theoretical framework if we are to truly understand, deal with, and treat the kinds of people who fight too much as opposed to those who cower or "run" too much.

Above all, Lobaczewski admits that the blunt tools of Ponerology, tend to over-psychologize Politics and over-politicize Psychology in a manner that suits deviant amateurs in either discipline.

Years ago the publication of the book in the US was killed by Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski in a very cunning way. What was his motivation, I may only guess. Was it his own private strategy, or did he act as an insider of the "great system" as he surely is? How many billions of dollars and how many human lives the lack of this science has cost the world.

I had been recognized as the bearer of this "dangerous" science in Austria by a "friendly" physician who then was revealed to be an agent of Communist Secret Services. All the Red nodes and networks in New York were mobilized to organize a counteraction against the information contained in this book being made publicly and widely available. It was terrible to learn that the overt system of suppression I had so recently escaped was just as prevalent, though more covert, in the United States. It was demoralizing to see how the system of conscious and unconscious pawns worked; to watch people who trusted their conscious "friends" - unknown to them as Communist agents - and performed the insinuated activities against me with such patriotic zeal.

As a result of these activities, I was refused any assistance, and to survive, I had to take work as a labourer when already of an age to retire. My health collapsed and two years were lost.

I learned also that I was not the first such emissary who had come to America bringing similar knowledge; I was rather the third one; the other two had been similarly dealt with.

In spite of all these circumstances, I persevered and the book was finally written in 1984 and carefully translated into English. It was esteemed by those who read it as being "very informative", but it was not published. For the psychological editors it was "too political"; for political editors, it contained too much psychology and psychopathology. In some cases, the "editorial deadline was already closed". Gradually, it became clear that the book did not pass the "insider's" inspections.

They can thereby wreak havoc in a fledgling Truth Movement whose Internet fringes are infested with borderline and dissociative characteropaths. Striving to keep their Mask of Sanity intact, the latter will abuse the jargon of Ponerology as a Medusa's Head of derisory labels and pigeon-holes, which they will brandish in front of everything that moves, hoping to turn every imaginary 'foe' - and a few undeserving 'friends' - into stone.

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.

The ethical imperative to refrain from such Psycho-Gestapo tactics has not escaped the attention of Laura a few years ago, when she confronted the swings and U-turns of a much younger but no less talented and erudite fellow 'truth seeker'.

When we began researching the issue of Organic Portals, the owner [of Montalk.net] was one of the first to pick up on our research and attempt to extend it... The owner's approach is, we believe, very dangerous. It leads to the quick judgment and labeling of others, pigeonholing people, something we work very carefully to avoid. We think that life is much more complex than the simplistic "check-list" analyses on montalk.net would like to suggest. Our interest in this issue has never been that of "spot the OP"... It is with great regret that we announce the fact that there are extremely important philosophical, political, and ethical differences, differences of a profound character, between the authors of the articles published on montalk.net and the owners of the cassiopaea.org site... It is one of the certainties of this world that any perceived difference between people, be it visible or invisible, real or imagined, will be used by someone to discriminate against "others", to force them into hierarchies where the "others" are made subservient. Our intent in researching this issue was not to add more grist to this "us against them" mill. Our interest was the greater understanding it brought us in seeing how the world actually works... In the internal discussions of the Quantum Future School, we made it quite clear that we were not interested in making checklists to be able to play the game of "Spot the OP!".
This was, for us, a matter of the utmost ETHICAL importance.

Singling out individuals as OPs DOESN'T MATTER in the grander scheme of things. It doesn't matter because until one begins the hard work of actually developing the soul, we all may as well all be OPs! The work on this subject has just begun. The work is intended not as a foundation upon which to base checklists, but rather as a point from which to begin to work on oneself.

To assume the "Spot the OP" stance is to assume the stance of someone who believes they already have a soul. This is the same error of arrogance as those who would have us believe that "We are all One", and that we should therefore not look at the evil in the world.

I don't think any sensible person past the age of 50 can disagree with any of the above remarks and their immense ethical, political and philosophical importance. But then, alas, something changed yet again for Laura, in the past 18 months:

As of October 21, 2004 we removed our 'Disclaimer' from here, as the situation and circumstances have changed in the meantime, our position and differences are now known to the readers of our sites, and also the world is entering a different phase and we are entering a different phase together with the rest of the world.

I dare not fathom what 'phase' the world is entering to prompt such radical volta-face from the SOTT.org truth-seekers. But knowing that young Tommy is probably the ONLY fellow-seeker whose website Montalk.net has taken Laura's channelled material seriously since he was 16, I suspect that his recent allusion from his article entitled 'Methods of Deception' hits the nail on the head:

Some paths are more circuitous and painful than others. Knowing what to watch for can save you lots of unnecessary trouble. This comes down to matching enthusiasm with discernment and seeking out the wisdom needed to navigate a clear path... That a body of material contains identifiable truths does not necessarily make it valid... Preoccupation with lower truths can distract from the pursuit of higher ones... Just because something contains convoluted trivia, complex jargon, and voluminous pages, it does not necessarily contain profound truths. The illusion of profundity sends people on a wild goose chase for grand truths better found elsewhere. Positive sources are complex only for the sake of accuracy and conciseness.

Paramoralisms: The conviction that moral values exist and that some actions violate moral rules is so common and ancient a phenomenon that it seems to have some substratum at man's instinctive endowment level (although it is certainly not totally adequate for moral truth), and that it does not only represent centuries' of experience, culture, religion, and socialization. Thus, any insinuation framed in moral slogans is always suggestive, even if the "moral" criteria used are just an "ad hoc" invention. Any act can thus be proved to be immoral or moral by means of such paramoralisms utilized as active suggestion, and people whose minds will succumb to such reasoning can always be found. ...

Paramoralism somehow cunningly evades the control of our common sense, sometimes leading to acceptance or approval of behavior that is openly pathological.

Paramoralistic statements and suggestions so often accompany various kinds of evil that they seem quite irreplaceable. Unfortunately, it has become a frequent phenomenon for individuals, oppressive groups, or patho-political systems to invent ever-new moral criteria for someone's convenience. Such suggestions often partially deprive people of their moral reasoning and deform its development in youngsters. Paramoralism factories have been founded worldwide, and a ponerologist finds it hard to believe that they are managed by psychologically normal people.

The conversive features in the genesis of paramoralisms seem to prove they are derived from mostly subconscious rejection (and repression from the field of consciousness) of something completely different, which we call the voice of conscience.

A ponerologist can nevertheless indicate many observations supporting the opinion that various pathological factors participate in the tendency to use paramoralisms. ... When it occurs with a moralizing interpretation, this tendency intensifies in egotists and hysterics, and its causes are similar. Like all conversive phenomena, the tendency to use paramoralisms is psychologically contagious. That explains why we observe it among people raised by individuals in whom it was developed alongside pathological factors.

This may be a good place to reflect that true moral law is born and exists independently of our judgments in this regard, and even of our ability to recognize it. Thus, the attitude required for such understanding is scientific, not creative: we must humbly subordinate our mind to the apprehended reality. That is when we discover the truth about man, both his weaknesses and values, which shows us what is decent and proper with respect to other people and other societies.

~~~

Reversive blockade: Emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between the truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. If the counterfeit of the truth is the opposite of a moral truth, at the same time, it simultaneously represents an extreme paramoralism, and bears its peculiar suggestiveness.

We rarely see this method being used by normal people; even if raised by the people who abused it; they usually only indicate its results in their characteristic difficulties in apprehending reality properly. Use of this method can be included within the above-mentioned special psychological knowledge developed by psychopaths concerning the weaknesses of human nature and the art of leading others into error. ...

Ivan Pavlov comprehended all kinds of paranoid states in a manner similar to this functional model without being aware of this basic and primary cause. He nevertheless provided a vivid description of paranoid characters and the above-mentioned ease with which paranoid individuals suddenly tear away from factual discipline and proper thought-processes. Those readers of his work on the subject who are sufficiently familiar with Soviet conditions glean yet another historical meaning from his little book. Its intent appears obvious. The author dedicated his work, with no word of inscription, of course, to the chief model of a paranoid personality: the revolutionary leader Lenin, whom the scientist knew well. As a good psychologist, Pavlov could predict that he would not be the object of revenge, since the paranoid mind will block out the egocentric associations. He was thus able to die a natural death.

Lenin should nevertheless be included with the first and most characteristic kind of paranoid personality, i.e. most probably due to diencephalic brain damage. Arthur Grossman describes him more or less as follows:

Lenin was always tactful, gentle, and polite, but simultaneously characterized by an excessively sharp, ruthless, and brutal attitude to political opponents. He never allowed any possibility that they might be even minimally right, nor that he might be even minimally wrong. He would often call his opponents hucksters, lackeys, servant-boys, mercenaries, agents, or Judases bribed for thirty pieces of silver. He made no attempt to persuade his opponents during a dispute. He communicated not with them, but rather with those witnessing the dispute, in order to ridicule and compromise his adversaries. Sometimes such witnesses were just a few people, sometimes thousands of delegates to a congress, sometimes millions worth throngs of newspaper readers.

This last definitely describes Vinnie's style, and the style of Dimitris, also, who - though he claims otherwise - was not here to discuss anything with me at all... It was all to be a staged drama for the sake of twisting the thinking of the other readers/observers... and so it goes, true to type.

 

[Joe]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Suffice it to say that it takes a long acquaintance with your 'voluminous writings' to understand - from a strictly clinical perspective of a professional psychotherapist - why such a hysterical response was triggered by a mere disagreement about the ethics (to say nothing about the Politics) of publicly branding as 'assets of Cointelpro' people we dislike or differ with on matters of opinion. When, in the case of Rense.com the targets of this vicious invective include, not only Jeff Rense himself, but also hundreds of guests and regular contributors to his 'portal' of alternative news - to say nothing of its thousands of indexed hyperlinks and Archive entries - if this is not a textbook case of Sectarianism, what else is it?

Dear Dimitris, you continue on this rant about the article about Rense and continue to attempt to ascribe elements to it that are not there for all to see, or rather, not see. Now you saying that we are "sectarian" for publishing this opinion and that we are in the grip of hatred and fear towards Rense. Then you not-so-subtly suggest that Laura is depressed or on anti-depressants and you again try to bring Laura's children into the argument. All of this suggests that it is you that is possessed by some level of hatred and some irrational desire to hurt not only Laura and Ark but her children also. If you are in fact a clinical psychotherapist, I sincerely hope that you are not involved in family therapy.

Lobaczewski's "Ponerology", however, is literally a gold mine of such insight, and the more we explore it the more 'weapons' we can forge to address what amounts to a pathocratic outbreak of epidemic proportions in our turbulent times.

This is no Freudian slip: You are all playing with 'weapons' here! And weapons are the tools of war - NOT means of adult communication 'forged to address' concepts, theories, hypotheses or questions of Truth and Deception in a civil, calm, caring and rational debate. Needless to say, the repressive and divisive consequences of such 'weaponization' of thought cannot be disentangled from its professed motives of combating 'thought-disease epidemics' by striving to verbally exterminate the infected 'carriers'.
More specifically, when the concepts and techniques of diagnostic psychiatry are actually deployed as 'weapons' by disturbed laymen, they become double-edged swords. In the abusive hands of amateurs, they turn into Aboriginal boomerangs, capable of delivering a far more lethal blow to the untrained attacker than to his targeted victim.

Since you know this effect so well, and in light of what I just said, you would do well to 'heal thyself physician'.

The point to remember is that no path of truth-seeking or soul-awakening can be inherently immune to the trappings and pitfalls of Deception.

Indeed, like coming onto a truth seeking forum and attempting to manipulate and deceive.

In you we find a good example of this caveat.

And all deception ultimately boils down to Self-Deception, regardless of its 'source' within or outside the deceived individual.

Exactly. We are all looking at you when you say this 'Dimitris'

It takes a lot of conscious effort, lateral thinking, human caring and self-critical evaluation of diverse sources or experiences to draw those lessons best suited to one's personal inclinations for spiritual advancement.

Exactly, hence this forum. And might I say that your participation on it so far has given us all a great example of the need to engage in conscious effort and lateral thinking to observe subtle attempts at manipulation, for which I personally thank you.

However, the strictly practical implications of Lobaczewski's methodology, as set out by the author in the Introduction to his book, still lean towards a form of Psycho-eugenics, which is - to put it mildly - problematic. Under this implicit agenda, an informed and well-meaning group of clinical psychologists would be empowered to search for, monitor, and track down socio/psychopathic characters who supposedly comprise "1-6 percent of the population" (or more, according to Laura). Their task would be to identify or distinguish 'soul-less' from 'souled' persons and thereby 'isolate' potential pathocrats at an early stage of their psychopathic development, to prevent them from gaining the power to harm others.

'Dimitris', you have not only failed to grasp whatever excerpts you have read of Lobaczewskis work, but you have also failed to grasp the nature of the phenomenon that he describes. If it were within society's capability to remove the psychopaths from power, the psychopaths would not be in power in the first place. It is humanity's state of sleep, itself induced by the tools of the pathocracy, that has allowed the psychopaths to maintain their hold on power. The day that normal 'humanity' reaches a point of maturity where it is no longer willing to simply sit back and give carte blanche to their leaders, is the day that the psychopaths will be removed from power, hopefully never to return. Their removal does not need to involve any diagnosis of 'souled' or 'unsouled' of the young or old as you so hysterically suggest, but could simply proceed in the same way that any criminals are dealt with under a just judicial system in the hands of mature normal human beings.

It may sounds reasonable to the layman but, in fact, this is a recipe for state-sanctioned or 'voluntary' stereotyping, witch-hunts, incrimination or stigmatization, which psychiatry has often condoned and espoused in the past.

Again you appear to have failed to understand the nature of the phenomenon. Previous state-sanctioned or 'voluntary' stereotyping, witch-hunts, incrimination or stigmatization are all hallmarks of the effects of the pathocracy.

Fortunately, Western psychiatry has been purged of such 'psycho-policing' inclinations through the institutional reform movements of the 1960s and 70s, especially in Europe. But there's always the danger of a 'blowback' from the new wave of mass surveillance techniques, human-rights violations, crisis management or mind control schemes unleashed by the PTB on a global scale in the aftermath of 911.

Purged? Hardly, perhaps you just choose not to see it. Blowback? Have you been reading the news? The Bush government has already implemented "mental health screening" for children, and you can imagine the criteria used.

Above all, Lobaczewski admits that the blunt tools of Ponerology, tend to over-psychologize Politics and over-politicize Psychology in a manner that suits deviant amateurs in either discipline. They can thereby wreak havoc in a fledgling Truth Movement whose Internet fringes are infested with borderline and dissociative characteropaths. Striving to keep their Mask of Sanity intact, the latter will abuse the jargon of Ponerology as a Medusa's Head of derisory labels and pigeon-holes, which they will brandish in front of everything that moves, hoping to turn every imaginary 'foe' - and a few undeserving 'friends' - into stone.

Let's dissect this; here you are not-so-subtly suggesting that some of us here fit the above bill, yet no one here has, or ever intends to use Ponerolgy irresponsibly to unfairly label a "foe". In fact, we stress, and have stressed in the past, against ever engaging in such blanket labeling. On the other hand, we see that, in attempting to smear us with this label, you are identifying YOURSELF as one of the "borderline and dissociative characteropaths on the internet fringe who strives to keep his Mask of Sanity intact, and abuses the jargon of Ponerology as a Medusa's Head of derisory labels and pigeon-holes to brandish in front of everything that moves, hoping to turn every imaginary 'foe' - and a few undeserving 'friends' - into stone.

And just to make it clear, t'was you, by your words, that offered the possible identification of yourself as such, not I.

As for the general misuse of the concept of ponerology; it can be corrected if the misuser is simply misguided but otherwise well-intentioned. If not, and the misuse is intentional, then the only defence is to do as we are doing and maintain the very scientific basis on which Lobaczewski has established it.

On the other hand, there are also those "Internet fringe borderline and dissociative characteropaths" who, understanding that Ponerology is an exposure of their own wily ways, and realising that they cannot subvert the solid scientific nature of the message, will no doubt attempt to subvert the messenger. In this case, the messengers are Laura Ark and the Signs Team. Which, as I said above, brings your above attempts to slander Laura and Ark and her children into sharp focus.

The ethical imperative to refrain from such Psycho-Gestapo tactics has not escaped the attention of Laura a few years ago, when she confronted the swings and U-turns of a much younger but no less talented and erudite fellow 'truth seeker'.

As of October 21, 2004 we removed our 'Disclaimer' from here, as the situation and circumstances have changed in the meantime, our position and differences are now known to the readers of our sites, and also the world is entering a different phase and we are entering a different phase together with the rest of the world.

I dare not fathom what 'phase' the world is entering to prompt such radical volta-face from the SOTT.org truth-seekers.

Well then your fishing line does not go very deep, for it is quite clear. This was not an "about face", and your suggestion that it was is more evidence of your subtle manipulative ploys. The point was made quite clear: "our position and differences are now known to the readers of our sites," i.e., there was no "about face", the positions stood and still stand. The high-profile disclaimer was removed because it had served its purpose to make the positions known.

But knowing that young Tommy is probably the ONLY fellow-seeker whose website Montalk.net has taken Laura's channelled material seriously since he was 16, I suspect that his recent allusion from his article entitled 'Methods of Deception' hits the nail on the head:

Some paths are more circuitous and painful than others. Knowing what to watch for can save you lots of unnecessary trouble. This comes down to matching enthusiasm with discernment and seeking out the wisdom needed to navigate a clear path... That a body of material contains identifiable truths does not necessarily make it valid... Preoccupation with lower truths can distract from the pursuit of higher ones... Just because something contains convoluted trivia, complex jargon, and voluminous pages, it does not necessarily contain profound truths. The illusion of profundity sends people on a wild goose chase for grand truths better found elsewhere. Positive sources are complex only for the sake of accuracy and conciseness.

For the record, the claim that there is only one website that has taken the Cass material seriously is a crock, plain and simple. Do a google search and see for yourself.

In any case, I now understand your resonance with Montalk's pursuit of his personal "higher truths" and rejection of "lower truths". It is all very warm, fuzzy and subjective. New-agers like to gaze at their navels, call down "the cube of space", "raise the djed" and raunch around in Arab garb on over-burdened and less than enthusiastic-looking camels in the Egyptian desert. All of it is very nice and self-affirming (apart from the camel business which is just wrong), yet all of it is personal illusion, born of a rejection of reality, as it is. It is essentially a spinelessness, a lack of will to stand firm and fight the encroaching darkness. It is escapism into a personal fantasy world, with the self obviously at the center of it. The defences of this personal fantasy world can be indefinitely bolstered, because after all, the individual is the master of it. There, "anything is possible", all lies and illusions are permissible and can be promoted no-end to fool the many naive onlookers who come idling by. In the end however, such a world must come crashing down.

"No man is an island, entire of itself every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main [...] any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls it tolls for thee."

For Montalk and Dimitris, the daily mass murders of Iraqi men women and children by American, British and Israeli forces, the encroaching global police state and all that it portends for the world, the starvation of millions every day, the evidence that the planet and its people are in for some serious and catastrophic "earth changes", all of these are "lower truths" that annoy and disturb their personal subjective 'communion' (Whitley Streiber) with "higher truths". But in the end, they remain a part of this world. Any man's death diminishes them also, regardless of their attempts to disassociate themselves from it. By rejecting objective reality and retreating to their own fantasy worlds, they are stating that they refuse to play any part in objective reality as it is seen by "the universe". What ultimate fate awaits such people and their subjective worlds? Who knows. What we can say is that, while many traditions talk of "other realities" that are so very different from this that they cannot be described in terms we would understand, that we must wait until we "get there", there is no mention of anyone having progressed to a reality that was entirely of their own making. If anyone ever did, perhaps they simply did not exist long enough to tell anyone about it.

Anyway 'Dimitris', it's lunch time. I think primordial soup is on the menu.

Joe

 

[Laura]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Thought I would add that Dimitris "inaugural post" is here:
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=395&p=4

where he says (emphases, mine):

"The problem always is to be able to study the phenomenon without being infected by it."

Well said, Laura!

Now, a bit of fresh air is probably the best preventive medicine that a psychiatrist - as indeed any general practitioner - would prescribe, before the patient is diagnosed with the infection he/she was trying to ward off.

So, my inaugural post in this forum would appeal for a change of perspective in the discussion - a bit of fresh air.
I agree, of course, that the Truth of 911, in all its depths and shades, its interplay of info and disinfo, fact and conjecture, smoke and mirrors - will teach people more about the nature of Evil in the contemporary world than any philosophical, psychological or metaphysical treatise about IT. "Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" - No doubt about this.

But my question is whether the psychiatric tools of "Ponerology" - if I understand the term correctly - are sufficiently flexible and comprehensive in interpreting all the crucial (non-trivial) facets of the Evil that's confronting us through the Wall of Dust that engulfed Manhattan on that Tuesday of 2001.

When I hear the term "Pathocracy", my mind goes back to the hero of my youthful psychological training, Wilhelm Reich. I remember reading his masterpiece, Character Analysis, his incisive discernment into the defensive layers of the Masochistic Character or the political symptoms of what he called Emotional Plague.

But after another 30 years of research into the varieties of Grand Conspiracy that have (literally) bedevilled our modern world, I believe we need more than just another set of exhaustive psychopathological case studies, symptomatology catalogues and assorted jargon.

Don't we also need to grasp how this Pathocracy turns into a concealed (albeit pervasive) Power over and behind the empirical World - an intractable Cryptocracy, whose actions we see but not its hands or face?

Shouldn't we also discuss how this Cryptocracy, that plays with governments, nations and cultures like pawns on its invisible chessboard, constantly deploys and refines a Matrix of Control for human enslavement, in all its spiritual or psychological, as well as political or cultural ramifications? And how can this Evil bolster its Power (and sublimate its psychopathic malaise) with such ruthless and cunning precision, without availing itself of an Occult arsenal that complements its "black technology" or ("techno-sorcery"), to say nothing of its vast underground treasury amassed from aeons of economic plunder?

Therefore, I truly believe that the real wonder and hope of the 911 Truth Movement is the diversity of viewpoints, methods and concepts - addressing all the above issues simultaneously - with which it seeks to comprehend the Event of 911, this Singular Act of the Adversary in its entirety.

So, yes! Ponerology is useful; but only in the context of a wider cognitive universe activated by the seekers of Truth and Liberation beyond the bounds set by the Cryptocracy and its stifling realities.
Greetings from Greece!

There are many firinge internet characteropaths that try and pass themselves off as psychotherapists, but most of them learned the tricks of the trade as patients... So, atriedes is probably correct in referring to Dimitris' "extensive clinical experience" it probably was an experience, no doubt!

So, basically, just as Vinnie was really agitating for our group to take up the mumbo-jumbo banner and join him in his Enochian "workings," now Dimitris urges us to consider the Occult Source of the Cryptocracy, and "Occult arsenal that complements its "black technology" or ("techno-sorcery")". (Doesn't sound much like the talk of a psychotherapist, no does it? Not one I'd want to visit, anyway!)

As I posted above:

Identifying and questioning the ultimate source of the intimidation is a matter at a whole different level. Certainly there is a "Cryptocracy." And no doubt, some of those folks are into nasty stuff, maybe even including secret society black magick mumbo jumbo, ritual abuse, sexual perversion, and so on. You can name all kinds of groups: Skull and Bones, OTO, Enochian Magick, Kaballah, Masons, etc. It all amounts to the same thing: Pathocrats. These are psychologically deviant people attracted to ideologies that they either believe in themselves, or promote to attract adherents like themselves.

The bottom line is: it's all a load of horsehockey, not any different from the folks that believe that Jesus is gonna rapture them from catastrophe. One side believes in Jesus, the other side believes in Satan (or whoever). The Enochians identify the character as "Choronzon" honored as "that mighty devil" by John Dee's buddy, Edward Kelly.

The plain fact is that all of this nonsense are really distorted (subjective and unscientific) ways of talking about hyperdimensional energy exchanges.

Is there a hyperdimensional entity who thinks he is the Devil? Probably, but it doesn't make it so. The rules of the game are still the same, like gravity on earth: they can't take over people without their willing acceptance and to show their hand too soon would turn everyone against them thus foiling the possibility of them being able to achieve their ends.

And certainly, exposing this as it really is, a big hoax clothed in the mysterium tremendum of "Techno-Sorcery", is one of the main things that brings on attack.

Because, of course, if you relegate this stuff to fantasies of looney tunes like Vinnie Bridges and Co, or Pat Robertson on the other side, or whoever is creating a mythology, you can just pass it off as total weirdness if you want: no sane person would believe that stuff.

It's an altogether different thing to discuss it in strictly scientific terms - from bottom up - even excluding C's. That brings out the attacks in a big way. After all, keeping the scary mystery going, making it out to be some kind of terrifying force that cannot be dealt with, or, on the other hand, nothing to worry about because it's just nonsense, is the objective.

Does Dimitris believe in all that stuff?

I think he does. The guy really IS paranoid. He took the blue pill. He's just a useful idiot like the rest of them that buy into this hyperdimensional manipulated nonsense.

 

[Fifth Way]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Well, trained psychotherapist or not:

This might be a good time to share that the paranoid programming I detected on myself (as mentioned earlier in this thread) was done by - you guessed it - a European trained psychotherapist and, at the time, a very successful one.

Further, even though I am just a layman, I was under the impression (and have been since about 20 years) that Freud was totally pass

 

[Fifth Way]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Emphasis are mine:

Does Dimitris believe in all that stuff?

I think he does. The guy really IS paranoid. He took the blue pill. He's just a useful idiot like the rest of them that buy into this hyperdimensional manipulated nonsense.

That language feels a little strange?

 

[anart]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Wow, Dimitri, thank you, this is really interesting. In my experience, there can be no greater validation of the truth in a work than to have one such as you fight so mightily against it. Your post stands out in such stark contrast to what is really going on that upon first reading, I kept waiting for the punch line. I also wondered if this post was placed here merely to illustrate the stronger points of Lobaczewski, in 'real time' as it were. As I took a step back from it, I realized that you were sincere in your posting, and I shook my head at how the Universe never hesitates to place lessons before us, if we only take the time to look. You deserve some thanks in the matter, for providing us all with such a stark example of a real life ponerological operator.

 

[Dimitris]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Emphasis are mine:

Does Dimitris believe in all that stuff?

I think he does. The guy really IS paranoid. He took the blue pill. He's just a useful idiot like the rest of them that buy into this hyperdimensional manipulated nonsense.

That language feels a little strange?

It sure does feel strange, doesn't it? More like Agent Smith or Cypher, than Morpheus or Laura in Wonderland!

That's all I wanted to say: use your own mind, trust your feelings and your ears on matters of truth and falsehood.

For what it's worth, I would like to remember Laura's language, as I felt for it BEFORE 21 October 2004, when

When we began researching the issue of Organic Portals, the owner [of Montalk.net] was one of the first to pick up on our research and attempt to extend it... The owner's approach is, we believe, very dangerous. It leads to the quick judgment and labeling of others, pigeonholing people, something we work very carefully to avoid. We think that life is much more complex than the simplistic "check-list" analyses on montalk.net would like to suggest. Our interest in this issue has never been that of "spot the OP"... It is with great regret that we announce the fact that there are extremely important philosophical, political, and ethical differences, differences of a profound character, between the authors of the articles published on montalk.net and the owners of the cassiopaea.org site... It is one of the certainties of this world that any perceived difference between people, be it visible or invisible, real or imagined, will be used by someone to discriminate against "others", to force them into hierarchies where the "others" are made subservient. Our intent in researching this issue was not to add more grist to this "us against them" mill. Our interest was the greater understanding it brought us in seeing how the world actually works... In the internal discussions of the Quantum Future School, we made it quite clear that we were not interested in making checklists to be able to play the game of "Spot the OP!".
This was, for us, a matter of the utmost ETHICAL importance.

Singling out individuals as OPs DOESN'T MATTER in the grander scheme of things. It doesn't matter because until one begins the hard work of actually developing the soul, we all may as well all be OPs! The work on this subject has just begun. The work is intended not as a foundation upon which to base checklists, but rather as a point from which to begin to work on oneself.

To assume the "Spot the OP" stance is to assume the stance of someone who believes they already have a soul. This is the same error of arrogance as those who would have us believe that "We are all One", and that we should therefore not look at the evil in the world.

 

[Laura]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Good try, Dimitris, but strike-out.

The term is used deliberately... I was fishing ... See:

http://cassiopaea.com/archive/wiley6.htm

where you will find, in an email from Bridges good buddy, Jay Weidner, the following:

Is Ark a spy? I don't know. I have known plenty of spies and agents for various agencies and Ark fits into a certain niche I will admit. It is more likely that he is a 'useful idiot' (This is their term not mine). This is someone who is being carefully watched and tapped to see what he is coming up with. They then use the research with out the U.I. ever knowing what is going on. I am sure that I have been a U.I. myself several times, which is why I have gone silent. Hoagland also is an U.I.

As for VB, he has sold a lot of books without paying any taxes as he does not have a tax ID #. This is one of numerous ways to destroy him.

He was trying to get into the satanist club. He turned all of the info on Hendaye into a Satanist working. He thought you had a beeline to the gold of Satan. Do you understand what that means? Do you know why he never reveals the secret of Rennes le Chateau even though he keeps promising to deliver? It isn't the light masters who live in the south of France. It is their exact opposite!!!!!!!

What was it you said in your introductory post?

Shouldn't we also discuss how this Cryptocracy, that plays with governments, nations and cultures like pawns on its invisible chessboard, constantly deploys and refines a Matrix of Control for human enslavement, in all its spiritual or psychological, as well as political or cultural ramifications? And how can this Evil bolster its Power (and sublimate its psychopathic malaise) with such ruthless and cunning precision, without availing itself of an Occult arsenal that complements its "black technology" or ("techno-sorcery"), to say nothing of its vast underground treasury amassed from aeons of economic plunder?

Obviously, you and your masters STILL think I am the only one who can lead you to it...

 

[Fifth Way]

What Rense.com is not talking about

That's all I wanted to say: use your own mind, trust your feelings and your ears on matters of truth and falsehood.

No. That is not really what you wanted to say. Or better what you are saying is not what I am saying. It only seems to you that way because of your condition.

In regards to MY quote: I am hoping to get further insight as to way Laura is taking verbally such a strong position and I am sure I will get that soon.

In regards to YOUR quote: You are trying to cater to my ego (telling me that my feelings and ears are better than those of the ones of all the people on this forum that already disagreed with you , telling me and that only I am right) but at this point, that of course lost its magic (or magik). As previously stated, the penny already dropped. Its not going to fly back up again.

Still you are trying again (despite the fact that it now has already been established, that that is what you do) to twist truth into falsehood and falsehood into truth. However, by now that's not only totally predictable but even boring. At the same time you are absolutly capable to fade out what I said just an inch above the quoted statement you are referring to. (Hint: It does not involve a river).

I still wish you to get better soon, even thought the chance seems slim.