PSY-OPS Web Forums: Book of Thoth

[John G]

Letting members dictate content too much could fit with Laura's comment about being naive and given SOTT's history, SOTT being too associated with Thoth's overly unedited member content does not seem like a good idea.

 

[OCKHAM]

Thoth site is built on the urban legend of a book? 8|

Mr. Thoth [Michael] stated his book goals as:

To bring a respectability to the subject, and of course to provide a wealth of resources for others to find their truths.

I subject this means each individual has a different truth?

And if they don’t have one in place, they can find one?

That’s brain washing! Respectability left the building.

How can you be the god of wisdom with no respectability?

How can you be the god of wisdom period?

Your goal is to fill a book? Where is the quest for truth?

I agree with Anart, I don’t think he has read anything. He must not be ready.

And he is posting propaganda thanks to Tigersoap’s detective work, which sucks!

Nice looking site, but it has the flavor of a shopping center, no offense intended.

I think you'll see that you aren't going to be censored, just like all the other members that we have.

If you don’t censor the junk, you can never see the truth, attributing John G’s comment and evidence of a big difference between goals.

Censoring of the junk was a problem for me once, and of course, still is, yet the Thoth sites may be just adding to that very problem.

 

[OddThings]

Letting members dictate content too much could fit with Laura's comment about being naive and given SOTT's history, SOTT being too associated with Thoth's overly unedited member content does not seem like a good idea.

Different strokes for different folks. I like free speech. I like to read what everyone has to say and then make up my own mind. That's why I've spent so much of my life reading and learning. I like to think I do a pretty good job of it, too. I have a pretty good idea who's coming from where and what their intentions are. Post whatever you want, within reason, in our forums, and it'll get discussed. Sometimes people will like what you have to say and sometimes they won't. We have a pretty highly educated, intelligent member base(for the most part ;) ). We like it that way. We like to hear what everyone has to say. Some of it's BS, for certain, but some of it's not. Pick and choose what you believe and what you don't. That's what the information age should be all about, IMHO.

Rather than being the from the site which always seems to be on the defensive, let me ask you all a question. Please understand that I am coming from ignorance of your site, and this is not intended to be confrontational in the slightest.

It seems to me, from reading this thread, that you all are basically saying, "We will control what you see and read so that we can stop others from controlling what you read and see. Trust us." You accuse others of being fundies, but that's basically what I'm seeing here. A bunch of people who believe everything they read on this site and distrust everything else.

Apologies if I have it all wrong. I'm really not trying to cause trouble. I'm quite curious as to the members and staff here and what they believe so that I can understand how in the world you got the idea that BoT was set-up as psy-ops. I mean, really, a lot of what you have to say seems to center around Gardiner and Reality, but we had the site running for years and years before we ever ran into them.

 

[OCKHAM]

It's not controlling. It is presented with an open mind. The last two words are important.

If what you see here is fundy, then you haven't read any of it, because it would be necessary to understand what is being expressed here. The reading is required before the comprehension.

 

[OddThings]

Thoth site is built on the urban legend of a book? 8|

Mr. Thoth [Michael] stated his book goals as:

To bring a respectability to the subject, and of course to provide a wealth of resources for others to find their truths.

I subject this means each individual has a different truth?

And if they don’t have one in place, they can find one?

That’s brain washing! Respectability left the building.

How can you be the god of wisdom with no respectability?

How can you be the god of wisdom period?

Your goal is to fill a book? Where is the quest for truth?

I agree with Anart, I don’t think he has read anything. He must not be ready.

And he is posting propaganda thanks to Tigersoap’s detective work, which sucks!

Nice looking site, but it has the flavor of a shopping center, no offense intended.

I think you'll see that you aren't going to be censored, just like all the other members that we have.

If you don’t censor the junk, you can never see the truth, attributing John G’s comment and evidence of a big difference between goals.

Censoring of the junk was a problem for me once, and of course, still is, yet the Thoth sites may be just adding to that very problem.

OCKHAM, I'm led to believe by the beginning of your post that you know all the truths of the world in every subject? You're welcome to believe that you are the be all and end all of knowledge and that you know it all. I, personally, wouldn't be arrogant enough to think so. Everyone has to find their own way and learn, and if you've managed to complete that task and know everything there is to know, in absolute terms, then I envy you my friend. You have reached nirvana then, I assume. Congratulations. As for me, I will continue to seek and learn.

As for censoring the junk, I guess that goes along with what you just said. To censor only what is definitively not true, you must know everything. Or you might accidentally just censor based on your beliefs and give a slanted view of the world based on said beliefs. Over at Book of THoTH, we admit that we don't know all and tell all, so we have just decided to not censor people's beliefs. Like I said, different strokes for different folks. I would be very happy to learn how you manage to only filter the junk and not just truth that doesn't fit your beliefs, though. That could come in very handy in the future.

 

[OddThings]

It's not controlling. It is presented with an open mind. The last two words are important.

If what you see here is fundy, then you haven't read any of it, because it would be necessary to understand what is being expressed here. The reading is required before the comprehension.

But, OCKHAM, if I may, you said that you only filter the junk. Tell me how you know that. Because, it seems to me that you're filtering out what doesn't fit your belief system, and then calling everything outside of your belief system BS.

 

[OddThings]

Censoring of the junk was a problem for me once, and of course, still is, yet the Thoth sites may be just adding to that very problem.

And, please be so kind as to let me take issue with one more thing. I'm sure I'm pressing the limits of your patience as is...

There are no "Thoth sites". It's one site, and an impostor set up by a banned member. It's much like me setting up a "the-signs-of-the-times.org" site this evening, making it look identical, and then posting content the exact opposite of what you believe. People would eventually get confused, and you'd be upset that your site was being dragged in with that other stuff. We have one site, and one only. The one run by Isis is the one you folks should be keeping an eye on.

 

[henry]

It seems to me, from reading this thread, that you all are basically saying, "We will control what you see and read so that we can stop others from controlling what you read and see. Trust us." You accuse others of being fundies, but that's basically what I'm seeing here. A bunch of people who believe everything they read on this site and distrust everything else.

Are we agreed that there is a lot of garbage on the Internet?

There are many sites where people can go to hear all the different points of view. It is not our goal here to either represent all points of view or to permit the expression of all points of view. It can be done elsewhere.

Our goal here is to weed through the garbage to find the pearls. Part of that means that when a newbie arrives, we expect them to do the work of catching up themselves by reading through the archives. We do what we can to help newcomers out, but they are expected to be able to get up to speed themselves. We don't have the time to handhold. Sorry, but that's how it is. The world is on fire.

The people who "trust us" don't do it because we tell them to, it is because over the years, they have learned to trust us because of our work. They have read our research, have done their own, and have decided that our conclusions, so far, are correct and that our working hypotheses as to the functioning of the world have a high probability of being close to the truth. Yes, they can be improved, and we are doing that every day. But they don't take what we say at face-value. They do the work they need to do in order to decide for themselves whether they agreement with our analysis or not.

There are certain questions where we have more or less made up our minds. It would take some substantial new data to have us rethink our positions. But if that data were shown to us, we would look at it. Trouble is, most people don't come here with data, they come here with their opinions. Opinions aren't worth a damn. If you want to know why, you can search on the subject in the forum.

There are certain teachings and ideas that we have, through our many, many years of research, been able to put in the box of disinformation. If someone comes here and starts putting forward those ideas, they will be asked to do the research necessary to understand why we have moved beyond those topics and why we don't talk about them any longer. They need to do the reading and research to understand what we have to say about it. Then, if they have some new data that we are not aware of, they are welcome to contribute, but if they want to rehash old topics that we have already been through, we don't have the time.

This is a forum for active and ongoing research. It isn't a debating society.

Apologies if I have it all wrong. I'm really not trying to cause trouble. I'm quite curious as to the members and staff here and what they believe so that I can understand how in the world you got the idea that BoT was set-up as psy-ops. I mean, really, a lot of what you have to say seems to center around Gardiner and Reality, but we had the site running for years and years before we ever ran into them.

We do not know or care if BoT is set up as a conscious disinfo front, or whether it serves as a site to propagate disinfo. In either case, it is serving the function of misleading people. Without a thorough understanding of the way cointelpro works, sincere people will be co-opted and misled, and they won't even know it.

We would suggest to people to read BoT with caution. Magic and Crowley are huge warning signs. Bad stuff. We have investigated the subjects and have no interest in it. But we aren't going over to the BoT forum to convince people of our views. If that is what you or others wish to discuss, that's fine with us.

It comes down to the purpose of the forum. The purpose of this forum is for people to work together to uncover the truth about this world. That means a critical and scientific spirit. It means that at a certain point, a decision is taken about the value of certain ideas. A judgement is made. It doesn't mean a free-for-all of ideas, which is an enviroment where no serious work can be done.

People either "get it" or they don't. If people get it, they are happy to contribute to our work. If they don't, then their participation here will only prevent others from doing that work.

If people don't like the rules, they can go elsewhere. Nothing is forcing anyone to come here.

 

[OCKHAM]

Like Henry said, you get it or you don't. When you get it, you begin to understand. Then, you see where open minds are required and easily recognized, and when there not, they are controlled.

We are bombarded and on fire. Obtaining the truth is now crucial. ;)

Thanks Henry for your comment, like your avatar.

Phi, 4 lines through? Interesting.

 

[Ryan]

It comes down to the purpose of the forum. The purpose of this forum is for people to work together to uncover the truth about this world. That means a critical and scientific spirit. It means that at a certain point, a decision is taken about the value of certain ideas. A judgement is made. It doesn't mean a free-for-all of ideas, which is an enviroment where no serious work can be done.

I find it quite interesting that visitors to this site (especially with websites of their own) who take a different approach tend to, at some point, accuse the SOTT forum admins & mods of censorship. The reason given is always that "everyone is not allowed to express their point of view regardless of the views of others", or as OddThings put it, "We will control what you see and read so that we can stop others from controlling what you read and see."

The underlying argument boils down to what psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski calls a "paramoralism" - the framing of an illogical statement in moral terms so as to render it more acceptable. In this case, the statement is, "It is immoral to exclude people from a public discussion". Like all paramoralisms, it is a "simplistic and doctrinaire" concept that substitutes a receipe or directive for a true moral evalution which always includes the specific situation (context).

Anyone who runs an internet forum would generally agree that people who sign up to advertise (usually questionable) products and services regardless of the forum's purpose, are acting immorally. The spammers, on the other hand, would no doubt say, "Hey, this is a public space, therefore I have the right to present my opinion about what products and services are worth buying".

Is it immoral to ban such users because they refuse to respect others rights to discuss a topic of common interest without seeing advertising of some description? Of course not. The spammers are not paying for the server space hosting the forum, or the outbound data traffic (or the valuable time of the people distracted by their advertising).

In the context of spamming, the statement, "It is immoral to exclude people from a public discussion" is illogical.

In this forum, the context is clearly described in the forum Vision, Mission, Methodology, and Rules, to which all users must agree when signing up. The essence of that context is Objectivity/Truth. Thus, if people were to sign up and start posting about how 2+2 = 5 and refused to look at the facts of basic arithmetic, disrupting every discussion about higher mathematics on the basis that basic math is wrong, then how is that different to spamming?

The context is the same, and thus it becomes illogical to NOT exclude such individuals.

The problem, as Lobaczewski observed, is that paramoralisms are "psychologically contagious", possibly because morality is considered to be such a "grey area" in human experience. Another reason is that the paramoralism is "not even wrong" - if placed in a suitable context. If for instance, the public discussion was about payment of taxes and certain taxpayers were excluded from it based on arbitrary criteria like sex or skin colour, then it most certainly WOULD be immoral.

However, the act of excluding people from a public discussion touches a very deep part of the psyche of a normal, decent person, and if they have absorbed paramoralistic programming (as a result of their upbringing, faulty/illogical reasoning, and/or inability to understand the context of the matter), they will tend to side with the excluded. "Oh those nasty clique-y types!", they say. This reaction is nothing more than the result of an error in judgement.

This is just the "tip of the iceberg" when we also consider that the situation may be additionally complicated by people who have various inherited and/or acquired disorders of the psyche, and may be incapable of making moral evaluations in the same way as normal people. So, it's not just as simple as "censorship" or "double-standards" which is usually the simplistic, fallback argument.

And additionally, at the end of the day, nobody here is having their free-will to decide for themselves perverted, because:

If people don't like the rules, they can go elsewhere. Nothing is forcing anyone to come here.

I hope that helps OddThings and others to better understand the ways in which this forum works.

 

[Miss Isness]

The underlying argument boils down to what psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski calls a "paramoralism" - the framing of an illogical statement in moral terms so as to render it more acceptable. In this case, the statement is, "It is immoral to exclude people from a public discussion". Like all paramoralisms, it is a "simplistic and doctrinaire" concept that substitutes a receipe or directive for a true moral evalution which always includes the specific situation (context).

Good call, Ryan!!! I'd like to suggest that OddThings deepen his/her knowledge of this site through exploration, in order to get a closer look at what's really happening here. If you really want answers about how to tell the difference between the junk and the truth, there's plenty of information on just that. I would recommend reading the Wave, which is available free on-line, if you haven't already, as well as The Secret History of the World.

As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Unfortunately, it's not enough to want to do the right thing. One must develop discernment to stay on the narrow path that leads to enlightenment.

 

[OddThings]

Since my last reply to you has mysteriously disappeared, I'll assume that you didn't like debating me. I'll try once more just for laughs, though, and see what happens.

Are we agreed that there is a lot of garbage on the Internet?

Yup, there sure is. Allowing people to debate and read and make up their own mind is really a better way to go than force feeding people one point of view, IMHO. Assuming that people need you to censor their information input is assuming they're too stupid to decide what's true and what isn't themselves.

There are many sites where people can go to hear all the different points of view. It is not our goal here to either represent all points of view or to permit the expression of all points of view. It can be done elsewhere.

Much like someone else here said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I truly believe that, most of you, at least, believe that you're censoring the garbage out for the good of the people who read your stuff here. However, I do think that you're simply taking out many of the truths of the world and hiding them from your readership. Thus, the question really becomes this. Are you doing it because you really think you're giving the best information possible? Or are you doing it because you want to control what people see and read?

Our goal here is to weed through the garbage to find the pearls. Part of that means that when a newbie arrives, we expect them to do the work of catching up themselves by reading through the archives.

Do you really think that's an attainable goal? I mean, to only give the truth, and filter out only the junk means that you know everything there is to know.

We do what we can to help newcomers out, but they are expected to be able to get up to speed themselves. We don't have the time to handhold. Sorry, but that's how it is. The world is on fire.

I see that as arrogant. Not trying to be a jerk, but it is what it is. What you're saying is, "We know everything, and so we filter all information in the world and give the all the truth and none of the other stuff." There's no way you can know everything, so, you must be filtering out some good info with the bad, and/or giving false information with the truth.

The people who "trust us" don't do it because we tell them to, it is because over the years, they have learned to trust us because of our work. They have read our research, have done their own, and have decided that our conclusions, so far, are correct and that our working hypotheses as to the functioning of the world have a high probability of being close to the truth. Yes, they can be improved, and we are doing that every day. But they don't take what we say at face-value. They do the work they need to do in order to decide for themselves whether they agreement with our analysis or not.

There are certain questions where we have more or less made up our minds. It would take some substantial new data to have us rethink our positions. But if that data were shown to us, we would look at it. Trouble is, most people don't come here with data, they come here with their opinions. Opinions aren't worth a damn. If you want to know why, you can search on the subject in the forum.

There are certain teachings and ideas that we have, through our many, many years of research, been able to put in the box of disinformation. If someone comes here and starts putting forward those ideas, they will be asked to do the research necessary to understand why we have moved beyond those topics and why we don't talk about them any longer. They need to do the reading and research to understand what we have to say about it. Then, if they have some new data that we are not aware of, they are welcome to contribute, but if they want to rehash old topics that we have already been through, we don't have the time.

This is a forum for active and ongoing research. It isn't a debating society.

Why do you have a forum? Since I know that you were wrong on book of thoth, I can only assume that your research methods aren't foolproof. You might get it right most of the time, I don't know. You might be wrong most of the time. However, at the very least, you give a wrongly skewed view of the world that you then call the truth. You tell people that they have to believe it, and that debating isn't allowed. You exclude other people's point of view, and tell everyone that you're right all the time. You don't allow people to think for themselves by censoring what they read down to one viewpoint. That's a functional cult. So, my question again. Why have a forum? Just put out a newsletter and you won't have any pesky people asking questions and telling people to think for themselves. It's easy to make people believe you're right when you only give one side of the story. That's not unique at all. It's control.

We would suggest to people to read BoT with caution. Magic and Crowley are huge warning signs. Bad stuff. We have investigated the subjects and have no interest in it. But we aren't going over to the BoT forum to convince people of our views. If that is what you or others wish to discuss, that's fine with us.

I thought thoth explained this pretty well, but I'll try again since it seems to be really hard to get people here to actually read what you say. We are not associated with magic and Crowley at book of thoth. It's named after the ancient Egyptian god and his book of knowledge. Crowleyites come around from time to time, and generally just cause trouble. We are not called book of thoth to pay homage to Crowley in anyway. If you've never heard of the original book of thoth, once again, I would say it's a problem with your research methods. If you took the time to look through our site, you'd see that we really don't discuss Crowley at all. It's been the subject of a thread or two here or there, but it's not what we discuss. Once again, your "research" seems to be fatally flawed.

It comes down to the purpose of the forum. The purpose of this forum is for people to work together to uncover the truth about this world. That means a critical and scientific spirit. It means that at a certain point, a decision is taken about the value of certain ideas. A judgement is made. It doesn't mean a free-for-all of ideas, which is an enviroment where no serious work can be done.

People either "get it" or they don't. If people get it, they are happy to contribute to our work. If they don't, then their participation here will only prevent others from doing that work.

If people don't like the rules, they can go elsewhere. Nothing is forcing anyone to come here.

I really do appreciate the purpose of your forum. I think you have good intentions. I just think you've taken the route of "We know what's right and what's wrong, and we're only going to give everyone one side of the story and insist it's the truth." That's the easy way out. You don't know whether you're right or wrong. You don't know everything, and assuming that you do is grossly arrogant. If you opened up everything you believe for debate, I bet you'd find out that you've been wrong from time to time, just like when you called book of thoth a psy-ops site. Or when you said it was backed by Reality Entertainment or Philip Gardiner, etc. Or that we had multiple sites. Practically nothing you posted about book of thoth is true, but, you continue to put it out there as if it were. That tells me that your "research" is fatally flawed in this case, and probably is throughout your site.

So, in the end, you're simply doing exactly what you claim to be against. The people in charge are hiding the truth from people here and controlling what they do and don't get to read. It's extremely easy to convince everyone that you're right when you only show one side of the argument. It's only when you open that up to debate that you learn whether or not you're truly correct.


I'm going to go ahead and give up for the moment. My first post was really much better, but, I guess that's why it was deleted, eh? This little spot on the 'net just isn't ready to debate their viewpoints openly and honestly. Tells me you have something to hide. ;)

 

[Laura]

Among the very first of the statements in the rules of the forum is the following:

You also need to understand the philosophy of the owners of this forum and the associated websites.

This is further elucidated:

to create an environment for the stimulation, development and then the alignment of objective consciousnesses as defined and described by Georges Gurdjieff.

That's pretty clear and simple and defines the parameters of the forum. But, more than that, it is followed by quoted that makes this activity crystal clear. Yet, "OddThings" wrote:

I'm quite curious as to the members and staff here and what they believe ....

At one point, OddThings wrote:

Different strokes for different folks. I like free speech.

This is written, of course, as though free speech does not exist on this forum. As Ryan pointed out,

The underlying argument boils down to what psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski calls a "paramoralism" - the framing of an illogical statement in moral terms so as to render it more acceptable. In this case, the statement is, "It is immoral to exclude people from a public discussion". Like all paramoralisms, it is a "simplistic and doctrinaire" concept that substitutes a recipe or directive for a true moral evalution which always includes the specific situation (context).

The specific situation in this case is the rather lengthy description of what this forum was created for and the ways it operates. It was never intended to be a "free speech food fight" and posts that are noise or insulting are deleted unless there is a good reason to leave them in place for the purpose of using them as an example.

Clearly "Thoth" is completely unfamiliar with the work of G. I. Gurdjieff, P. D. Ouspensky, Boris Mouravieff, and ancient esoteric tradition which was the original form of Christianity before Christianity ever was "invented." If he had been familiar with that tradition and how it works, he would have understood the comments and reactions to what he was writing.

But he didn't.

And the fact that he didn't have a clue - even after reading the statement in the rules (which he quoted part of, quite out of context) simply highlighted the fact that, even though he is claiming to be searching for 'esoteric' answers, there is a huge field of study of which he is ignorant - and it is this material that most people with deep esoteric interests end up studying after they have discovered that all the "popular" and popularized ideas lead nowhere.

Further, his lack of knowledge of the true ways and means of cointelpro, disinformation, even that extending into this reality from other realities, suggests again that he is a naive amateur.

But, more than this, what we find rather curious is that this small forum in a remote corner of the internet, where certainly our discussions and assessments really can't matter that much to anyone, is bugging you two guys so much that you feel that you must come and "set us straight." As Henry pointed out:

There are many sites where people can go to hear all the different points of view. It is not our goal here to either represent all points of view or to permit the expression of all points of view. It can be done elsewhere. [...]

There are certain teachings and ideas that we have, through our many, many years of research, been able to put in the box of disinformation. If someone comes here and starts putting forward those ideas, they will be asked to do the research necessary to understand why we have moved beyond those topics and why we don't talk about them any longer. They need to do the reading and research to understand what we have to say about it. Then, if they have some new data that we are not aware of, they are welcome to contribute, but if they want to rehash old topics that we have already been through, we don't have the time.

Previously, OddThings wrote:

However, one thing that I see people here picking on is the content of the forums and the front page of Book of THoTH. Practically none of that content is from THoTH, as you will notice. It's all member submitted. We don't censor what people want to talk about, unless it's illegal or racist, etc.

We, on the contrary, are extremely careful about what ideas we associate ourselves with and what ideas get posted on our forums and left as "equal evidence" when, in fact, we have researched them and found that the evidence against those ideas is so great that they must be discarded. In short, we are interested in real research and objective truth - as close as we can get to it - and truth isn't democratic - you can't vote on it; it either is or isn't true; it either does or does not "map to reality."

And because of this care we take, we have established a reputation as reliable interpreters and even prognosticators of events in our reality. When we say "you can take that to the bank," you can. And we have proved it time and again. We don't say it often, however, preferring to leave things open, even whether or not Book of Thoth is intentional disinfo or not.

What the members of the site want to talk about, we allow, within the topics of the forums. Mostly that's paranormal kind of materials, but not exclusively.

That's fine if collecting mountains of speculation, conjecture, and subjective ideas is what you are after. That is not what we are after here, and we make that clear right up front.

One thing that I notice about many of the sites that you call psy-ops here is that they, very simply, let their members say what they want.

And here is where the problem arises in any group activity that is operating on so-called "democratic" principles. In any group of individuals where the ideas of "free speech" and "democracy" are touted, the same problem that has existed since the beginning of human society begins to emerge: there is a statistically small, but extremely hyperactive minority of pathological deviants that begin to vector the group toward psychologically deviant perspectives. This is, in fact, one of the ways in which the professional cointelpro operations function. A small group of "vectors" are sent in to do a "tag team" routine that very quickly has everyone in the group convinced that one or another idea is true when, in fact, it is not true. A very simple example is the way the current fascist administration, with the help of the media, has convinced literally millions of people that there is a Muslim Terrorist around every corner or under every bed.

A close and careful study of the ways and means of cointelpro and how it uses (and has historically used) grand idealistic phrases such as "democracy" and "free speech" to take over and vector any movement from the inside, covertly and mendaciously will bring up hundreds of examples.

As Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica, writes about Wikipedia, which also touts "free speech" and "democratic" ideals:

One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth - whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to - is not democratically determined. And another is that talent, whether for soccer or for exposition, is not equally distributed across the population, while a robust confidence is one's own views apparently is. If there is a systemic bias in Wikipedia, it is to have ignored so far these inescapable facts.

All men are NOT created equal, and when you have a majority of ignorant and uneducated people "voting" on what is truth, the only result will be a farce at best, and disinformation at worst.

Are some of the members on each and every one of those sites, including our own, probably psy-ops? Sure. This is the information age and they certainly want to control the flow of information.

Unless you know how to spot them and counteract their effects, they are like a virulent pathogen in the body: the disease process will destroy the health of the system.

However, calling Michael Bourne an agent, or suggesting that our site is set up to be spy-ops is really so far off base it's hard to even comment on in a reasonable fashion, frankly.

Please go back and re-read the thread here and try to re-state the above in more objective language. Also, read over what I have written above. An old saying that carries much truth in it is: "lay down with dogs, get up with fleas."

If you want to pick out some of our members who have submitted content that you feel makes them agents, lets discuss that. I have a few on my own list, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to censor what they have to say.

And this is where YOU have a problem. You are so controlled by the paramoralistic use of "free speech" and "democracy" that you worry more about whether or not someone will think you are not allowing "free speech" than you worry about Truth and objective research. And as a consequence, you are responsible for the propagation of disinformation. Even if you have the courage to really seek truth, you do not have the courage to stand up for it in the face of the kinds of attacks you will certainly be subjected to by those who seek to convert to lies and vector with disinformation.

Pathological deviants know the psychology of the normal human being with a conscience very well. They consciously and deliberately use suggestive "moralistic" phrases to control people to do what THEY want, even to allowing the spreading of lies and disinformation. We are told - with righteous indignation - that we are "intolerant" of free speech, and we cringe with shame because we don't want to be thought "intolerant" or that we don't believe in "free speech." God forbid.

And so, in the guise of "tolerance," we are paralyzed to intervene in the actions and opinions of others, even when these actions and opinions are clearly out of line with truth.

We also weirdly indulge the lies and "spin" of those in power. The end justifies the means. And the means are usually lies and psy-ops games perpetrated by psychopaths and other deviants, with the public as victim. As psychologist Marie-France Hirigoyen writes:

To what degree is this acceptable? Don't we, out of indifference, risk becoming accomplices in this process by losing our principles and sense of limits? Real tolerance means examining and weighing values.

This type of aggression, however, lays traps in the psychic domain of another person and is allowed to develop because of tolerance within our current socio-cultural context. Our era refuses to establish absolute standards of behavior. We automatically set limits on abusive behaviors when we LABEL them as such; but in our society, labeling is likened to intent to censure. We have abandoned the moral constraints that once constituted a code of civility which allowed us to say "That just isn't done!" We only become indignant when facts are made public, worked over and magnified by the media. [...]

Even psychiatrists hesitate to use the term "abuse"'; when they do, it's to express either their powerlessness to intervene or their fascination with the abuser's methods. [...]

[Psychopathy] arises from dispassionate rationality combined with an incapacity to respect others as human beings. Some [psychopaths] commit crimes for which they are judged, but most use charm and their adaptive powers to clear themselves a path in society, leaving behind a trail of wounded souls and devastated lives. ... We have all been fooled by abusive human beings who passed themselves off as victims. They fulfilled our expectations in order the better to seduce us. ...

We subsequently feel betrayed and humiliated when, in their search for power, they show their true colors. This explains the reluctance of some psychiatrists to expose them. Psychiatrists say to each other, "Watch out, he's a [psychopath]", the implication being "This could be dangerous," and also, "There's nothing that can be done." We then give up on helping the victim.

Designating [psychopathy] is certainly a serious matter... whether the subject is serial killing or perverse abusiveness, the matter remains one of predatory behavior: an act consisting in the appropriation of another person's life.

The word "perverse" shocks and unsettles. It corresponds to a value judgment, and psychoanalysts refuse to pronounce value judgments. Is that sufficient reason to accept what goes on? A more serious omission lies in not labeling abuse, because the victim then remains defenseless...

Victims are often not heard when they seek help. Instead, analysts advise them to assess their conscious or unconscious responsibility for the attack upon them. ... Emotional abusers directly endanger their victims; indirectly, they lead those around them to lose sight of their moral guideposts and to believe that freewheeling behaviors at the expense of others are the norm. [Dr. Marie-France Hirigoyen, Stalking the Soul]

We let people discuss and make up their own minds, because we feel that people are intelligent enough to do that given the chance.

That is clearly not the case. If you want evidence, just go to the SOTT page here:

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/

and type "wikipedia" into the search box and read the archived articles.

I know that you have banned THoTH, and for what, I obviously don't know. Perhaps he said something worth being banned for.

Quite simply, when attempts to bring up and discuss all of the issues above were made, Thoth thought that the only thing he needed to do was say (in effect) "Wait! I'm a good guy no matter what you read on my site... and you have to take my word for it, and if you don't, you are all a bunch of nutcases." Insulting people who have honest and legitimate concerns about significant issues as described above will get you deleted from this forum yesterday.

I'm assuming you'll also ban me for disagreeing with you,

We don't ban people for disagreeing. We expect, however, that they will know what they are talking about and know what we are talking about, or at least take the time to try to find out. A person who can't get outside of their own ego long enough to see how other people might view them, who thinks that their "word" is all it takes, when clearly, real life is full of people whose word means nothing, and who do not actually address real concerns and discuss them without descending into insults, really has no place here. It also gives us some pause to think that an individual with this type of personality is running a website that purports to be a "portal" of information.

but I hope that you, at least, let this message stay, because I think that you're really barking up the wrong tree on this one my friends.

Again, please re-read this thread, and most particularly what I have written above. Another old saying that carries truth: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Thoth may have good intentions, but without specific knowledge - most particularly an in-depth knowledge of human psychology (not what passes for psychology nowadays, either), history, including the history of how lies have always overcome and buried the Truth, there is no possibility that his "noble sounding" aims will ever bear any nutritious fruit.

A sound tree cannot bear bad fruit: and the fruit hanging all over the Thoth tree is a bunch of rotten apples.

Keep fighting the good fight, because it is a good fight, but try not to shoot down everyone in the process.

If you will re-read the thread here, as well as many other threads on this forum, you will see that we would like nothing better than to NOT shoot anyone down. But we calls 'em as we sees 'em. If there is a collection of a bunch of nonsense and drivel, it will be so assessed. And please note that it has been repeated a couple of times that no one is saying that Thoth himself is an evil-doer, but that he is ignorant and that is why he, himself, can be so easily used by forces he does not seem to understand to disseminate lies and disinformation with the best of intentions.

If some of you want to join Book of THoTH and start your own threads and discuss what you want to over there, I think you'll see that you aren't going to be censored, just like all the other members that we have. Thanks for letting me say what I wanted to say.

You are welcome. And certainly, if there is anything of interest there, members here might go to discuss it. But it is really not likely to happen. No one is censored here, we simply have a very specific goal and it is miles or years beyond playing in the phenomena sandbox. Been there, done that.

 

[OddThings]

Laura, I respect what you're trying to do, in theory, but that was a lot of barking with no real substance. Like I said, your "research" which everyone here touts, was clearly wrong in the case of book of thoth. As I pointed out, nearly every single thing you said about the site was wrong. The only thing you got right was that Michael Bourne runs it. Beyond that, it was a mishmash of faulty research. Therefore, the topics you "carefully choose" to talk about here are likely wrong as well, I would imagine. Smacks of either disinfo, or a wannabe cult to me, personally.

I'd rather put out the truth and then some, and let people decide what the truth is and what "then some" is, rather than putting out a very narrow, heavily censored, view and being insistent that it's the one and only truth. The fact of the matter is, you've quite well proven here that you don't really know what you're talking about, I'm afraid. Sorry to be so blunt, but as you say, "we calls 'em as we sees 'em." I know what I see here.

 

[anart]

Laura, I respect what you're trying to do, in theory,

No, you don't - you don't even vaguely understand what she is doing - all you see are shadows on a wall of your own self-importance and strong identification with this 'thoth material'

but that was a lot of barking with no real substance. Like I said, your "research" which everyone here touts, was clearly wrong in the case of book of thoth. As I pointed out, nearly every single thing you said about the site was wrong.

No it wasn't - you don't even understand what she is doing or saying - all you see are shadows on the wall of your own self-importance and your strong identification with this 'thoth' material. If you took the time to read Gurdjieff, you might understand what identify means in this context. Also, you could 'point out' that the sky is purple - so what? You have provided not one shred of evidence to back up one word that you've said.

The only thing you got right was that Michael Bourne runs it. Beyond that, it was a mishmash of faulty research. Therefore, the topics you "carefully choose" to talk about here are likely wrong as well, I would imagine. Smacks of either disinfo, or a wannabe cult to me, personally.

Oohhh - shock of shocks - here come the insults and accusations - sheesh - does it ever turn out any other way? You have shown very clearly exactly what type of person you are with this little line of self-impressed, ignorant and accusatory posts. The conclusion reached by this forum on the thoth site was not wrong - it was (at least until this latest attack of yours) still an open issue - you've certainly taken us a long way toward a more certain conclusion however.

I'd rather put out the truth and then some, and let people decide what the truth is and what "then some" is, rather than putting out a very narrow, heavily censored, view and being insistent that it's the one and only truth.

You don't even understand what the truth is - you have no idea what you are talking about - you are watching the shadows on the wall of your own self-importance and are so assured that those shadows represent reality. That is fine - stay in your cave, with your shadows, we will not bother you there - we will not come into your cave, pee on your carpet and call you a cult - funny how that works, eh?

The fact of the matter is, you've quite well proven here that you don't really know what you're talking about, I'm afraid. Sorry to be so blunt, but as you say, "we calls 'em as we sees 'em." I know what I see here.

You can't even conceive of how ludicrous that is. You don't have any idea what you see here because you don't have any idea how to See - that is blatantly obvious in your posts.

You've long ago worn out your welcome here - and you've gone a very long way in proving exactly what sort of web site and material this 'thoth' stuff is - thanks for that.