Jeff Rense EXPOSED!!

[Fifth Way]

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...

See! Beautiful!

 

[Dimitris]

What Rense.com is not talking about

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.

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

See! Beautiful!

What's so beautiful about a triple non-sequitur?

Seems it's not your sensibilities that I overestimated, but your Aesthetics.

Sorry, Fifth Way...

 

[Fifth Way]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Seems it's not your sensibilities that I overestimated, but your Aesthetics.

It hurts me deeply that I can't live up to your expectations. And I really would love to talk some more about this but I got to run.

PS .. a triple non-what? Is that Greek?

 

[ark]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Seems it's not your sensibilities that I overestimated, but your Aesthetics.

It hurts me deeply that I can't live up to your expectations. And I really would love to talk some more about this but I got to run.

PS .. a triple non-what? Is that Greek?

In fact it is Latin, not Greek.

non sequitur - a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it

or

non sequitur - (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises

Example:

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

Another example:

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

That conclusion certainly does not follow from the premisses.

Example:

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

It does not sound like a conclusion. But it does sound like a deliberate (though not so smart) manipulation.;)

 

[atreides]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Whatsa greek?

 

[Fifth Way]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Quod errat demonstrandum.

Thanks for getting it, atreides :D

 

[ArdVan]

What Rense.com is not talking about

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.[...]

In the light of what was discussed here, there is a new BBC series called "THE CENTURY OF THE SELF". It was very interesting to look at this documentation with some knowledge about ponerology and psychopaths. I didn't know how much influence Freud really had in the US.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtml

You can see part 1-3 here:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12669.htm

 

[Guest]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Allow me to do a brief recap of the flow of this thread, just off the top of my head. It seems to have two parts: pre-scratch and post-scratch. First: enter Dimitris with much fanfar, drumrolls and blaring of trumpets. Dimitris presented his case from a perspective that was apparently meant to awe and amaze.

It amounted to a strong opinion, getting stronger all the time, that Ponerology is given too much emphasis, and that Occult analysis of the alleged Cryptocracy should take precendence. Well, it IS an opinion. But this opinion, if taken seriously, would have stripped from SOTT a perspective that not only makes it unique among organizations questioning the status quo, but also makes it an example inspiring people to remove the tin hat the PTB forces on any truth seeker.

Effectively, Dimitris was requesting SOTT castrate itself in the name of esoteric ideology, like mad Origen did to be closer to God. It is a testimony to the sanity and groundedness of the SOTT team and forum members that they essentially realized what Dimitris was asking of them and made the ONLY rational choice, which was to reject such a ludicrous proposition.

Then a member posted an article that to me was sound and interesting, but not so much more so then many such postings. Yet, I could feel there was more to this article than just what was worded. It intruiged me because it carried a certain energy, like an undercurrent that could sweep away a lot of dirt. I was at first hesitant to affirm this to myself because the article simply questioned the credibility of a popular alternative site.

Although we may not live in a democratic planet, we still believe in democracy and because of this questioning ANY authoritative direction is a healthy and valid choice. We may agree or disagree with the questioning, but all it really asks is that we THINK and evaluate the situation for ourselves.

The forum member questioned why Rense emphasizes certain topics and de-emphasizes or outright ignores others. We must be discerning. We must be careful. We must not swallow every tid bit thrown at us. And in this land of mass hypnosis, we must constantly be reminded to question at every opportunity.

And so I saw two posts of the same topic, and one on SOTT page: Very good. Rense is taken too much for granted as it is, and it's high time his site was approached with a very critical eye. All of the sudden something happened. You could almost hear the sound of the record needle scraping accross an album. And Voila! Just as members of the forum answered Dimitri's rebuttal to their rejecting his sickle poised over their vital organs, Dimitris was scratched, spontaneously and synchronistically! The phenomenon of organismic networking never ceases to amaze me, I'll tell ya.

Laura had expressed once that she or other members of her team usually set up scratch tests when a new contrinbutor seems to exhibit signs of having an agenda. Well, I guess the natural flow of events beat them to the punch this time. It's an important observation, IMO, because it indicates that poneric immunity is being established over a group dynamic, like a morphogenic pattern, a counter-matrix dynamic or even a guardian thoughtform. And if it can be done in THIS group it can be done in any group of sincere truthseekers following similar patterns of discernment.

I think here that we have witnessed "knowledge protects" in action. A small example, yes, but a very noticeable one.

And if Dimitris goes back and reads the Rense critique, if he is objective, he will see his reaction was way out of proportion to what it expressed, like a priest ranting damning the "flock" to hell for daring to question doctrine with conviction.

In the post-scratch portion, Dimitris presents the badge of professional authority, addressing what he perceives to be more impressionable members of the forum as well as Laura. He now goes to present the forum as indulging in "Psycho-Gestapo" tactics, and implies that the desire to look at the psychological roots of the Pathocracy is a result of anti-psychotic drug side-effects.

Now really, let me get this straight: the desire for scientific understanding is a sign of mental instability, while the pressure to go an an occult wild-goose chase is a sign of rational integrity? That's like me going to a physics conference, demanding that scientists start drawing pentagrams and sacrificing chickens. And when they start shaking their heads, calling them all deluded psycho-Nazis if they refuse to "see reason"! Do I hear someone calling the kettle black here?

It seems to be certain people want to keep the focus on the impracticle. As soon as something immediately effective and universally empowering comes along, these persons object, as if they want the rest of us focused on what doesn't work. Ponerology is a work compiled in the 50's and 60's, written in the 70's and early 80's, and only now well into the first decade of the next century is being published and promoted. THIS is a weapon (yes, a weapon) against the Pathocracy.

Dimitri, before you take my words out of context research your definitions:

1. weap.on \'wep-*n\ n [ME wepen, fr. OE w-pen; akin to ON va-pn
weap]on 1: an instrument of offensive or defensive combat : something to
fight with 2: a means of contending against another
2. weapon vt : ARM

Ponerology is, thus, a MEANS of condending with the Pathocratic phenomenon that threatens to overwhelm us. Learning the how's and why's of virgin sacrifices and pulling gold nuggets out of one's hat is NOT.

The question here is: does Dimitri really believe in occult solutions? If so, it is a major point for the home team.

...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...

If THAT'S what they think, if they are still looking for the fabled "dragon hoard" then they are nothing but retarded fools, who have no clue as to the true meaning of the word treasure, a paltry crowd of misfits for those who are AWAKE, but still realistically intimidating in their Halloween masks for those still lost in Matrix-nightmares.

Even so, the have an instinct for what truly threatens them, and that is a de-hypnotized populace for whom the emperor's nudity is plain as day. And as ArdVan pointed out, it seems no coincidence that the science of psychology has been manipulated and promoted so that the sleepers never bump into the truth that can awaken them, and blow away both Halloween and Science Fiction costumes from the actors in the psychopathic theater like so much smoke.

All in all, it seems that Dimitris, setting out to place a group of seekers along a path of his (or his trans-3D masters') choosing has inadvertantly fallen into an ever strengthening organismic network, and cannot help but keep spilling beans any way he twists and turns. Keep it up sir! Your pockets may not be empty yet!

 

[Laura]

What Rense.com is not talking about

Laura had expressed once that she or other members of her team usually set up scratch tests when a new contributor seems to exhibit signs of having an agenda. Well, I guess the natural flow of events beat them to the punch this time. It's an important observation, IMO, because it indicates that poneric immunity is being established over a group dynamic, like a morphogenic pattern, a counter-matrix dynamic or even a guardian thoughtform. And if it can be done in THIS group it can be done in any group of sincere truthseekers following similar patterns of discernment.

I think here that we have witnessed "knowledge protects" in action. A small example, yes, but a very noticeable one.

You can say that again! Couldn't have set that up if I'd tried. It almost gives me hope that awareness is spreading in the air...

If THAT'S what they think, if they are still looking for the fabled "dragon hoard" then they are nothing but retarded fools, who have no clue as to the true meaning of the word treasure, a paltry crowd of misfits for those who are AWAKE, but still realistically intimidating in their Halloween masks for those still lost in Matrix-nightmares.

That's it pretty succinctly. Not a week passes that they don't try, one way or another, to set another trap. (Well, once in awhile I have two weeks running without an attempt, but not too often.) If I had the time, I'd write a book about it.

Even so, they have an instinct for what truly threatens them, and that is a de-hypnotized populace for whom the emperor's nudity is plain as day. And as ArdVan pointed out, it seems no coincidence that the science of psychology has been manipulated and promoted so that the sleepers never bump into the truth that can awaken them, and blow away both Halloween and Science Fiction costumes from the actors in the psychopathic theater like so much smoke.

On that subject, I've pulled out some quotes from Ponerology that lay the whole thing out in chilling, clinical language: (emphases, mine)

As already pointed out in the chapter introducing some indispensable concepts, an understanding of human instinct is a key to understanding man; however, a knowledge of said instinct's anomalies also represents a key to understanding pathocracy.

Although used ever more rarely in psychological practice, dream analysis shall always remain the best school of psychological thought; that makes it dangerous by nature. Consequently, even research on the psychology of mate selection is frowned upon, at best.

The essence of psychopathy may not, of course, be researched or elucidated. Darkness is cast upon this matter by means of an intentionally devised definition of psychopathy which includes various kinds of character disorders, together with those caused by completely different and known causes. This definition must be memorized not only by every lecturer in psychopathology, psychiatrist, and psychologist, but also by some political functionaries with no education in that area.

This definition must be used in all public appearances whenever it is for some reason impossible to avoid the subject. However, it is preferable for a lecturer in such areas to be someone who always believes whatever is most convenient in his situation, and whose intelligence does not predestine him to delve into subtle differentiations of a psychological nature.

It is also worth pointing out here that the chief doctrine of said system reads "Existence defines consciousness". As such, it belongs to psychology rather than to any political doctrine.

This doctrine actually contradicts a good deal of empirical data indicating the role of hereditary factors in the development of man's personality and fate. Lecturers may refer to research on identical twins, but only in a brief, cautious, and formal fashion. Considerations on this subject may, however, not be published in print. [...]

We return once more to this system's peculiar psychological "genius" and its self-knowledge. One might admire how the above mentioned definitions of psychopathy effectively blocks the ability to comprehend phenomena covered therein. We may investigate the relationships between these prohibitions and the essence of the macrosocial phenomenon they in fact mirror.

We may also observe the limits of these skills and the errors committed by those who execute this strategy. These shortcomings are skillfully taken advantage of for purposes of smuggling through some proper knowledge on the part of the more talented specialists, or by elderly people no longer fearful for their careers or even their lives. [...]

We need to understand the nature of the macrosocial phenomenon as well as that basic relationship and controversy between the pathological system and those areas of science which describe psychological and psychopathological phenomena. Otherwise, we cannot become fully conscious of the reasons for such a government's long published behavior.

A normal person's actions and reactions, his ideas and moral criteria, all too often strike abnormal individuals as abnormal. For if a person with some psychological deviations considers himself normal, which is of course significantly easier if he possesses authority, then he would consider a normal person different and therefore abnormal, whether in reality or as a result of conversive thinking. That explains why such people's government shall always have the tendency to treat any dissidents as "mentally abnormal".

Operations such as driving a normal person into psychological illness and the use of psychiatric institutions for this purpose take place in many countries in which such institutions exist. Contemporary legislation binding upon normal man's countries is not based upon an adequate understanding of the psychology of such behavior, and thus does not constitute a sufficient preventive measure against it.

Within the categories of a normal psychological world view, the motivations for such behavior were variously understood and described: personal and family accounts, property matters, intent to discredit a witness' testimony, and even political motivations. Such defamatory suggestions are used particularly often by individuals who are themselves not entirely normal, whose behavior has driven someone to a nervous breakdown or to violent protest. Among hysterics, such behavior tends to be a projection onto other people of one's own self-critical associations. A normal person strikes a psychopath as a naive, smart-alecky believer in barely comprehensible theories; calling him "crazy" is not all that far away. [...]

The abuse of psychiatry for purposes we already know thus derives from the very nature of pathocracy as a macrosocial psychopathological phenomenon. After all, that very area of knowledge and treatment must first be degraded to prevent it from jeopardizing the system itself by pronouncing a dramatic diagnosis, and must then be used as an expedient tool in the hands of the authorities. In every country, however, one meets with people who notice this and act astutely against it. [...]

The pathocracy feels increasingly threatened by this area whenever the medical and psychological sciences make progress. After all, not only can these sciences knock the weapon of psychological conquest right out of its hands; they can even strike at its very nature, and from inside the empire, at that.

A specific perception of these matters therefore bids the pathocracy to be "ideationally alert" in this area. This also explains why anyone who is both too knowledgeable in this area and too far outside the immediate reach of such authorities should be accused of anything that can be trumped up, including psychological abnormality. [...]

Psychopaths are conscious of being different from normal people. That is why the "political system" inspired by their nature is able to conceal this awareness of being different. They wear a personal mask of sanity and know how to create a macrosocial mask of the same dissimulating nature. When we observe the role of ideology in this macrosocial phenomenon, quite conscious of the existence of this specific awareness of the psychopath, we can then understand why ideology is relegated to a tool-like role: something useful in dealing with those other naive people and nations. [...]

Pathocrats know that their real ideology is derived from their deviant natures, and treat the "other" - the masking ideology - with barely concealed contempt. [...]

The main ideology succumbs to symptomatic deformation, in keeping with the characteristic style of this very disease and with what has already been stated about the matter.

The names and official contents are kept, but another, completely different content is insinuated underneath, thus giving rise to the well known double talk phenomenon within which the same names have two meanings: one for initiates, one for everyone else. The latter is derived from the original ideology; the former has a specifically pathocratic meaning, something which is known not only to the pathocrats themselves, but also is learned by those people living under long-term subjection to their rule.

Doubletalk is only one of many symptoms. Others are the specific facility for producing new names which have suggestive effects and are accepted virtually uncritically, in particular outside the immediate scope of such a system's rule. We must thus point out the paramoralistic character and paranoidal qualities frequently contained within these names. The action of paralogisms and paramoralisms in this deformed ideology becomes comprehensible to us based on the information presented in Chapter IV. Anything which threatens pathocratic rule becomes deeply immoral. [...]

This privileged class of deviants feels permanently threatened by the "others", i.e. by the majority of normal people. Neither do the pathocrats entertain any illusions about their personal fate should there be a return to the system of normal man. ...

If the laws of normal man were to be reinstated, they and theirs could be subjected to judgment, including a moralizing interpretation of their psychological deviations; they would be threatened by a loss of freedom and life, not merely a loss of position and privilege. Since they are incapable of this kind of sacrifice, the survival of a system which is the best for them becomes a moral imperative. Such a threat must be battled by means of any and all psychological and political cunning implemented with a lack of scruples with regard to those other "inferior-quality" people that can be shocking in its depravity. ...

Pathocracy survives thanks to the feeling of being threatened by the society of normal people, as well as by other countries wherein various forms of the system of normal man persist. For the rulers, staying on the top is therefore the classic problem of "to be or not to be". ....

Thus, the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of the majority of normal people becomes, for the pathocrats, a "biological" necessity.

Many means serve this end, starting with concentration camps and including warfare with an obstinate, well-armed foe who will devastate and debilitate the human power thrown at him, namely the very power jeopardizing pathocrats rule: the sons of normal man sent out to fight for an illusionary "noble cause." Once safely dead, the soldiers will then be decreed heroes to be revered in paeans, useful for raising a new generation faithful to the pathocracy and ever willing to go to their deaths to protect it. ...

Pathocracy has other internal reasons for pursuing expansionism through the use of all means possible. As long as that "other" world governed by the systems of normal man exists, it inducts into the non-pathological majority a certain sense of direction.

The non-pathological majority of the country's population will never stop dreaming of the reinstatement of the normal man's system in any possible form. This majority will never stop watching other countries, waiting for the opportune moment; its attention and power must therefore be distracted from this purpose, and the masses must be "educated" and channeled in the direction of imperialist strivings. This goal must be pursued doggedly so that everyone knows what is being fought for and in whose name harsh discipline and poverty must be endured.

The latter factor - creating conditions of poverty and hardship - effectively limits the possibility of "subversive" activities on the part of the society of normal people.

The ideology must, of course, furnish a corresponding justification for this alleged right to conquer the world and must therefore be properly elaborated. Expansionism is derived from the very nature of pathocracy, not from ideology, but this fact must be masked by ideology.1 Whenever this phenomenon has been witnessed in history, imperialism was always its most demonstrative quality.

And so, yes, we must thank people like Vinnie Bridges and Dimitris since, without such attacks, we would not spend the time we have spent studying and analyzing and comparing. If it hadn't been for Vinnie, we would never have started the psychopathy research project. This section of our website is very popular and we receive an ever growing number of emails from people thanking us for this work, for making it public, and helping them to realize that they aren't crazy.

As Mephistopheles told Faust, "I am he who constantly intends evil, yet does good."

 

[Fifth Way]

What Rense.com is not talking about

If it hadn't been for Vinnie, we would never have started the psychopathy research project.

And that for me closes the circle, as i'd like to refer back to my initial question under this thread:http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=395&p=4

If EVERYTHING has meaning and EVERYTHING is a lesson - I always wondered about the final meaning of Evil.

Is it not to bring out the Best in Good?

...which in turn sort of started the Dimitris case-study as he responded with:

NO-THING has meaning in itself and for itself - that is, apart from the seeker of that meaning for him/herself and his/her own existence(being)-in-the-world.

...and so on ...

And this...

The phenomenon of organismic networking never ceases to amaze me, I'll tell ya.

...I cannot describe with other words than: Beautiful.

This network is truly inspiring.

PS:

The pathocracy feels increasingly threatened by this area whenever the medical and psychological sciences make progress. After all, not only can these sciences knock the weapon of psychological conquest right out of its hands; they can even strike at its very nature, and from inside the empire, at that.

A specific perception of these matters therefore bids the pathocracy to be "ideationally alert" in this area. This also explains why anyone who is both too knowledgeable in this area and too far outside the immediate reach of such authorities should be accused of anything that can be trumped up, including psychological abnormality.

Perfect current example: The Us Administration's "No Child Is Left Behind" program = Double-talk for: "No Child Is Left Alone"!!

 

[ark]

What Rense.com is not talking about

...which in turn sort of started the Dimitris case-study as he responded with:

NO-THING has meaning in itself and for itself - that is, apart from the seeker of that meaning for him/herself and his/her own existence(being)-in-the-world.

...and so on ...

Here I would like to return to this issue and take it apart, somewhat in a scientific way. Let me start with the following observation: we do not even know what "meaning" is. We are trying to discover it. We must even question if "meaning" has any meaning at all. Perhaps we are close to finding a satisfactory answer to this question or, perhaps, we are very far way. Once we realize that this is the case, any autoritative statement about whether "meaning" is of objective or of subjective nature is premature: non sequitur.

Now, even if we do not know whether "meaning" has any meaning, we can try to formulate some working hypothesis that seems probable when taking into account the present state of development of human knowledge and understanding. Therefore let us assume that to a significant extent "nothing has a meaning apart from the seeker of that meaning" as Dimitris has put it. If we assume this, even if only tentatively, the next question is: what is a "seeker"? Is it a human being in flesh, or is it also something hyperdimensional that the body is connected to? And if it is also something hyperdimensional, then are different seekers conneceted by their "collective consciousness", and does that collective consciousness, assuming that it "exists", participates in discovering/creating meaning of things?

Finally, let us stay close to the Earth, let us disregard hyperdimensional issues, collective consciousness and other exotic concepts, and let us concentrate on "seekers". Do we have one category of seekers or are there several different categories of seekers that give completely different meaning to one thing? It seems, and that is another working hypothesis, that there may be two essential categories of seekers: STO and STS. While STO types seem to agree on the meaning of many important things, and STO also agree on the meaning (or lack of meaning) of many important things, the two categories essentially differ when it comes to the meaning of such things as "free will", "value of life", "creativity".

It seems to me that realizing the above can help some of us to spot "pure relativism" and to avoid it. Let me recall that relativism is: "A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them." Let me quote here from the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski

[...]My main idea was that the Enlightenment, though a necessary stage in the development of mankind, bore very dangerous fruit for our subsequent destiny. It just goes to show --and numerous examples from human history bear this out--that there is no such thing as purely beneficial progress, that we have to pay dearly for anything we achieve. And so today we are perhaps suffering from the baneful effects of the Englightenment. These effects were pointed out as far back as the 19th century by astute minds like Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky and some others, but today they are in plain view of anyone with eyes to see.

In my essay I tried to analyze in particular three milestones in the degradation caused by the Englightenment. The first is general relativism. Of course, the development of humanity would have been impossible without a revolt, at some point in history, against stagnationist tyranny, against petrified forms of thinking. It was necessary that contacts with other civilizations should engender skepticism. Yet that skepticism, by its internal logic, gradually overran all spheres of man's spiritual realm and culminated in various kinds of nihilism. Now that we have come to our senses after a long period when it was so easy to ridicule absolute values, we can see how dearly we have paid for the convenience of skepticism and relativism. This is one of the major reasons, it would seem, why our civilization is so enervated, why it has so much trouble justifying itself.

The second point of my essay is the unclear, uncertain and weak status of the very concept of human personality, which for practical purposes has been stripped of its legitimacy by the naturalistic worldview. As a result, the idea of personal, individual responsibility has been increasingly questioned, until today nobody seems to bear any personal responsibility for anything. The burden is relegated instead to an entity called society, which is charged with responsibility for everything, including each individual's behavior. (Excerpt from "A talk with Leszek Kolakowski" - interview by Mihajlo Mihajlov, The New Leader, Sept 7, 1987 v70 p10(3))

 

[Fifth Way]

What Rense.com is not talking about

1st: I know that the M.O. here in this group is to look at the data and double check everything in a scientific way. Being a member of this forum I am subscribing to that. However, your research also seems to indicate that there may actually be some form of "objective reality".

2nd: I still like to go sometimes by "feeling" or by "commonsense" or by "inner knowledge" for lack of better words.

3rd: This is not a hypothesis (even-though it could be) but its meant to be simply my opinion:

I know that I am. I just know it.

I know it when I am awake. I now it when I am in a dream state. I know it while I am in a comma. I know it in that split second before I come out of total unconsciousness. Even before I can here, see, taste, feel anything my first thought is "I am, but where am I - what's going on?" I know it that moment just before I may potentially, die. I've been there.

I don't know to what levels of my collective consciousness this might be connected. I don't know how it works. I don't really know where it comes from.

I don't even know for sure whether I am STS or STO. I know what I would like to be (and wanting to be something seems to indicated that I am STS, despite the fact that that is not what I want to be.)

But I DO know that I am and that has meaning for me!

Now what that meaning is, I don't know - yet. Maybe existence exists to find out. Maybe not.

My point is: Personaly, I am 100% sure there is meaning. Because I am 100% sure that I am and that has meaning for me.

 

[Dimitris]

What Rense.com is not talking about

It does not sound like a conclusion. But it does sound like a deliberate (though not so smart) manipulation

No, Ark!
I wouldn't dream of manipulating you or anybody else.
But when I enter into a Dialogue, the least I expect from my interlocutor is answers to questions he (or she) alone can provide.

Believe it or not, I value your scientific and academic work most highly. I have kept a copy of your critique of Valerian and Bearden in my office library as a truly magisterial contribution to the thorny issues of epistemology you raised with them.

And I have also read many articles Laura has written with great interest, respect and gratitude for the insights she has given me over the years.

But I feel sad to see you both descend to a level of entrenched positions and mode of thought that don't do your past work any justice. Moreover, I consider your approach to psychiatry and psychopathology as flawed and dangerous, both for you personally as well as for your friends, whose enthusiasm I can also understand but only from a clinical perspective.

I therefore ask you for a clear answer to the question which you are blatantly evading, as if your past work, opinions, including Statements of Principle (which I still embrace wholeheartedly) are all nothing but worthless mountains of paper!

A DIRECT ANSWER, PLEASE: Do you or don't you endorse the following Disclaimer? If not, WHY not? If it's still valid for Tom's sectarian abuse of your concept of 'Organic Portals' as a means of labeling, mudslinging and discrimination, why isn't it also valid as an honest Disclaimer of your own sectarian approach to Lobaczewski's concept of Ponerology?

This 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.

 

[ark]

What Rense.com is not talking about

It does not sound like a conclusion. But it does sound like a deliberate (though not so smart) manipulation

No, Ark!
I wouldn't dream of manipulating you or anybody else.

We are not discussing dreams here. Results, after all, are all that counts as far as the consequences and possible reasons are concerned. The question is not whether Dimitris (or anybody, for that matter) is "dreaming" about something. The question what is this person (Dimitris in this case) DOING, and why?

But when I enter into a Dialogue, the least I expect from my interlocutor is answers to questions he (or she) alone can provide.

Expecting this or that may be either a part of sincere curiosity, or part of a manipulation. To decide one has always to take into account all the available data. In this particular case all the available data point to manipulation rather than sincerity: for example let us try to reconcile your mention of Laura's children along with suggestions of depression and psychoactive medications - it certainly put into question your "sincere curiosity". It points to deliberate or not, manipulation. There are other data pointing in the same direction, for instance avoiding all essential issues and derailing the dialog into personal issues.

Believe it or not, I value your scientific and academic work most highly.

This I believe. Easy to explain.

I have kept a copy of your critique of Valerian and Bearden in my office library as a truly magisterial contribution to the thorny issues of epistemology you raised with them.

In fact, this is not a very good critique, as I was missing essential data at the time I was writing it. Now these data are available to all researchers, and also the critique, much better than mine, can be easily found.

And I have also read many articles Laura has written with great interest, respect and gratitude for the insights she has given me over the years.

I believe you. Vincent Bridges was, at some point, saying the same - until he decided to unmask himself.

But I feel sad to see you both descend to a level of entrenched positions and mode of thought that don't do your past work any justice.

This is an example of a typical (from a textbook) manipulation. It has no information inside, it is trying to play on standard human reactions (Games people play).

Moreover, I consider your approach to psychiatry and psychopathology as flawed and dangerous, both for you personally as well as for your friends, whose enthusiasm I can also understand but only from a clinical perspective.

See above. If you consider us "wrong" - go elsewhere. If you consider us "dangerous" - join Vincent Bridges (if you did not do it already). But if you are sincerely interested in what is "dangerous" in the world today - read Laura's The Most Dangerous Cult in The World.

I therefore ask you for a clear answer to the question which you are blatantly evading, as if your past work, opinions, including Statements of Principle (which I still embrace wholeheartedly) are all nothing but worthless mountains of paper!

Another textbook manipulation. This time directed towards the readers.

A DIRECT ANSWER, PLEASE: Do you or don't you endorse the following Disclaimer? If not, WHY not? If it's still valid for Tom's sectarian abuse of your concept of 'Organic Portals' as a means of labeling, mudslinging and discrimination, why isn't it also valid as an honest Disclaimer of your own sectarian approach to Lobaczewski's concept of Ponerology?

Here is another evident textbook manipulation. But let me first remove the manipulative part and convert it into a "question". So I will skip your manipulative use of the terms "labeling, "mudslinging and discrimination" and "sectarian". I will suppose you really want to know whether the disclaimer is still valid as opposed to pandering to an audience? Ok, let us take it apart:

This approach is, we believe, very dangerous.

The approach in question is that of Tom Cox and Carissa. Yes, it is very dangerous. Even more dangerous than we originally thought.

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.

Indeed. No labelling should be based on arbitrarily and ignorantly defined criteria.

Our interest in this issue has never been that of "spot the OP"...

Indeed. Our interest in this and other issues was always directed towards searching for Knowledge and for Truth.

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...

This part has been "upgraded" in the meantime. We do not feel "regret" anymore.

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.

Certainly this is the case. However, predicting the posssible manipulation of the above let me stress that while it is true that "differences" will be used in evil purposes, the same differences can be also used, by others, for "good" purposes. This applies as well to "all" differences, for instance to differences between letters in the alphabet.

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...

This explains historically our path. It is the informative part of the Disclaimer.

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!".

That is another "informative part" of the Disclaimer. In this part we are not disclaiming anything. We are providing information about us and our approach. It is still true. We don't play games, we seek knowledge. From our perspective, taking an idea, submitting it to "inspired guesses" and then publishing those guesses as fact, checklists, and denigrating the subject(s) was - and is - not our approach. This subject is one we have been applying ourselves to for over four years of thinking and analysis and testing. And even now, here on this forum, it is a subject of discussion that has not yet drawn any hard and fast conclusions. We are not publishing checklists or telling anyone that they can "figure it out" in ten easy lessons. It is these differences in care and approach that you manipulatively ignore, seeking instead to grandstand and use textbook paralogistics and paramoralisms.

This was, for us, a matter of the utmost ETHICAL importance.

This part is an explanation, and also stressing the "ethical" values, the values that OP's (if they indeed "exist") disregard.

Singling out individuals as OPs DOESN'T MATTER in the grander scheme of things.

Indeed, "the grander scheme of things" does not care about such distinction. They are important only here, in 3D.

It doesn't matter because until one begins the hard work of actually developing the soul, we all may as well all be OPs!

That is indeed a possibility that needs to be taken into account.

The work on this subject has just begun.

Indeed.

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.

Nevertheless assuming a hypothesis that there may be OP's and, with this assumption, trying to anlyze the data in order to see what additional insights can be gained this way - is something new and, even now, brings interesting new ideas.

To assume the "Spot the OP" stance is to assume the stance of someone who believes they already have a soul.

Indeed, I do not know whether I have a soul or not. I do not even know for sure what a soul is. All is a working hypothesis, and all conclusions are based on probabilities (notice however that we do not even know what "probability" is)

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.

Indeed. That is why we stress it again and again: always take into account all the available data, always search for additional data, and always be open to chaniging you working hypothesis when the totality of data seems to indicate that such a change fits better the data on all available levels.

 

[MaskedAvatar]

What Rense.com is not talking about

As a general remark... without putting too fine a point on it... in my opinion... not burying the dog too deeply... (insert more metaphors and chestnuts at will)...

In doing work on ourselves in isolation from others, it is desirable to avoid the path of solipsism.