I want to bring to everyone's attention certain anomalies in UB's posts that are clues:
So, why would UB use such a word? Is he not aware that most people don't even know what it means? If so, is he using it deliberately to create the impression that he is a "great intellect"? Or, is he not aware that most people don't know what it means? If so, then he is sadly out of touch with reality. And if he is out of touch with the reality of ordinary people, then he is also likely out of touch with reality in general.
Yes, in a certain sense, this word also is used properly, strictly speaking. Befit: To be suitable to or appropriate for: formal attire that befits the occasion.
However there is a certain awkwardness in the phrase that is jarring to the experienced reader or writer. Most people would select the word "behoove." Behoove: be appropriate or necessary; "It behooves us to reflect on this matter"
So we have here a subtle clue of a certain difficulty with using words precisely in accepted contexts.
Further, the above paragraph reveals a certain aphasia. (Aphasia: Difficulty understanding the speech of others and/or expressing oneself verbally.)
Any of you who know how to diagram a sentence, please diagram that one. First of all, we have a plural noun - truth - that morphs into a singular noun - any truth - (or is that supposed to be any "system of truth" ?) which then is referred to by the plural pronoun "they" and the plural verb "are".
Then there is the final non-sequitur: "interpretations of a psychological mind."
(Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.)
So, not only is it a non sequitur, it is a syntactical bit of nonsense. A "psychological mind" ??
The clues are adding up. Moving on now:
Of course, we CAN get a certain meaning out of this nonsense by projecting richer concepts onto what is actually a syntactical hodgepodge. Basically, what UB seems to be saying is that as long as we look at things with our intellect, we have no hope of moving toward truth because our mind FORCES us to fragment and filter everything. In short, MIND is the enemy. We can never hope to understand anything at all as long as we use our minds!
Then he says: "Because truth is a polarized aspect of reality, it would reject its opposite..."
Say WHAT???!!!
Since when did Truth become a "polarized aspect of reality"??
Polarized: a state of opposition.
The question is: what is Truth OPPOSED to in UB's mind? The only thing that Truth can be opposed to is LIES.
So, UB is saying that Truth would reject lies which would "therefore mask another very present aspect of that same reality."
In other words, his argument is that by searching for Truth, you will reject Lies, and this will result in the "masking" of those lies... Or, is he saying that LIES are the very present aspect of reality that one should not seek to unmask??
Most confusing, and certainly evidence of a certain deterioration of logic that is leading us to an interesting conclusion.
Moving on...
Again we ask: what is a POLARIZED Truth???
But, to be fair, that may not be what UB meant. Maybe the problem is, as Frai Jonah has suggested, that UB does not have a good working definition of Truth, that he is talking about "beliefs"?
Even if this is the case, is does not lessen the problem that such as UB are not suited to such discourse either because of self-importance, some sort of pathological condition as evidenced by the aphasia, or because they have a definite agenda. It's hard to tell sometimes, but all these little word clues are leading us somewhere.
So, does UB equate Truth with Beliefs and Will with Intelligence? If so, then he has a serious problem of aphasia.
Convinced: persuaded of; very sure.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I am pretty sure that staying open to anything is a good thing. But there does come a point in everyone's life when probability is so high that they can safely say "I am persuaded" or "very sure" of this or that. There is always going to be that small percentage of possibility that must remain open. Perhaps there ARE some things about which a person should be convinced? Certainly, it is not that "People should never be convinced of anything."
Again, aphasia.
It's not about OPs or psychopaths or anything that can be reasonably discussed and understood with the mind, and by the masses of human beings: it's this vast Occult Network that is composed of people who are possessed by evil spirits, and we only have to battle these evil spirits with rituals and beliefs in the efficacy of said rituals and go back to sleep. That way, we won't notice that the planet is being taken over by genetic psychopaths and we are being replaced by them because they are creating wars to kill all the normal people off.
Now, what have we learned in this thread about the Paranoid character disorder?
And here is where we come to the problem: We don't want the forum to deteriorate into a food fight, and we intend to preserve the free will of those who want to discuss and not be inundated with schizoidal and paranoid nonsense.
But that leads to the issue: how do we do this without acting like paranoid characteropaths ourselves?
We have had to give thought to this problem for a number of years now, especially after the interactions with Vinnie Bridges and gang. When we booted them from the list, of course they began to rant "cult" and "totalitarian" and "violation of free speech" and so on.
Well, at the time, we didn't understand what was happening in terms of ponerization. But we certainly understood that OUR free will to be free of manipulation was being violated. We also understood that these rants were attempts to manipulate others into agreeing with them that WE had no rights at all.
Over time, as we observed this behavior, we began to get a glimmer of just how the "giving" tendencies of individuals could be so easily manipulated by liars using what are generally accepted as "truths". That later led to understanding of "the cult of the plausible lie." And so on.
At the same time, we could see how this same approach of the liars and manipulators was exactly that: cultic, "totalitarian" and a "violation of free speech." (Not to mention Free Will.)
Well, we certainly knew that, in our case, we were not a cult, nor were we being totalitarian nor violating anyone's right to Free Speech. But, we could see how it could easily TURN that way if we tried to establish hard and fast rules about it.
Every time the same issue came up with various early cass discussion group members who tried the manipulation game and ended up on the outside, either because we exposed them and they unsubbed, or because we unsubbed them for violation of our very liberal "rules," the whole "cult" rant would begin again. What's more, we could see that this appeal - "my free speech has been violated! Don't I have rights, too?! - to the giving nature of the normal person had a strange affect on people's minds.
We started thinking about social and cultural rules in general and saw how so many things that are accepted as "normal" were used AGAINST normal people in the hands of psychopaths, pathocrats, etc.
We now have a much better understanding of this from Lobaczewski and descriptions of the Ponerization processes. Well, as noted above, we have given a LOT of thought to this for a LONG time now.
As mentioned above, there is the issue of ideological terms and moralistic statements extracted from a positive ideology being used by liars to manipulate and control "normal" people. Here is an excerpt from Ponerology about this:
Note: a "primary ponerogenic association" is one that begins, from the outset, with evil intentions, like a mafia or a criminal gang that makes no pretense of being "good." They are generally easily spotted. It is the "secondary ponerogenic associations" that are more problematical. This is a group that starts out with a positive ideology (whether perfect or not, at least there are good intentions and some good ideas) and is gradually subverted to the use of evil. One example is Christianity and how it has been coopted for control and to justify wars and murder. Another more recent one is the republican party "revived" by the "Neocons."
Lobaczewski talks about the fact that groups that are susceptible to ponerization are groups that are formed to "right social wrongs," etc. This means that the members are people who are "fighting for the underdog" to begin with, and because of this, are already willing to give up standardized and accepted social "principles" which makes it even easier for them to give up more and more and justify everything they do in the name of their ideological goal: righting social wrongs.
For example, not too long ago on the cass list, we had a long discussion about true conscience and whether or not people who are acting based on "social rules" are really acting out of conscience or just because they are programmed.
Again, a network is invaluable. The subject can be researched, the problems identified, etc.
Another example is the subject of lying. Now, Mouravieff has a long section on lying and Gurdjieff talks about it at length as well. But then, Gurdjieff makes the remark that "sincerity with everyone is weakness." He also points out that the teacher can lie to the students, but the student must not ever lie to the teacher. There is an obvious reason for this. Very often, the teacher may have to put a student in a certain situation in order for them to learn something crucial. That may require a lie. But if the student lies to the teacher, there is no possibility that the teacher can help such a student because he will be working with incomplete data.
Then, of course, there is the very important issue of what Mouravieff calls the "strategic enclosure," that a person, who begins the work, must "pretend" and "play a role" - as Gurdjieff calls it - toward the outside world in order to forestall attacks from the General Law which he is not yet prepared to defend against. This is certainly lying of a special sort.
The ONE thing that is certain about this is that lying to the SELF is the major no-no. If you lie to yourself, and worse, if you believe the lies you tell yourself, (which is pretty common for most people running on programs), then you are a hypocrite and, according to everything we can observe, as well as statements made in esoteric work, a hypocrite has no hope for spiritual advancement.
The whole point of the work is to expose to the self the lies that one tells the self, to ruthlessly eradicate such lies and find the true self, stripped of all illusion.
So we see, from just this short review, that "never tell a lie" is another area that is doubletalk used by psychopaths and pathocrats against normal people.
Certainly, in an STO world, never telling a lie would be the norm. But we are not in such a world, and in a world where liars lie almost constantly in the guise of truth, and telling the truth can expose you to the control and manipulation of liars so that you can never accumulate enough strength to "see the unseen" or do anything else, obviously, a different approach is necessary.
Now, the C's have said: "give the lie what it asks for: the truth." But there is another part to this. When you are being manipulated to tell the truth so that some psychopath can gain control of you, you are almost obligated to tell a lie.
I have often used the example of a resistance movement to point this out.
If a resistance movement is fighting for freedom for all, what would happen if they went around telling the much stronger invaders all their plans, who did this or that, where they meet, when they are going to make their next uprising, and so on, the GOAL of "Freedom for All" would be denied it's necessary support and would fail. Telling the absolute truth in all cases would FEED the STS agenda.
Does that mean that the end justifies the means?
That's another slippery slope that has to be navigated with great care. Obviously, if you go too far with that one, you have become part of the STS reality.
So, where do you draw the line?
Well, that is obviously going to be something that we have to work our way through as each situation presents itself. I don't think that there can be any hard and fast rules. We will always have to remember the Law of the Three Forces: there is Good, there is Evil, and there is the specific situation that determines which is which.
And that is why it is SO CRUCIAL for ALL of you to have a broad and comprehensive knowledge base. When the C's say "knowledge protects," they aren't saying that Laura and Ark and the SOTT team are going to gather all this knowledge and protect YOU... it means that YOU, yourselves, must work as hard as you can to acquire as much as you can. We can help, we can all help each other. No one of us can do all the research and searching needed... it takes a team, a group, myriads of experiences and contributions, to create the kind of knowledge base that protects.
And now we come to the specific problem that concerns us:
That is to say, if we do NOT distance ourselves from those with psychological anomalies, we are permitting the infection. This means that we must examine their writings and produce adequate critiques for the sake of others who come behind us, showing how to recognize such pathogens, and how to deal with them. ]
How to learn what you must learn, how to pass it on to others, how to teach it to children and impress on them that they must teach it to their children... This is a pressing concern.
We do not know what is going to happen in the next few years, but based on the signs, it is going to be interesting. Getting in shape to be able to hold your frequency, to help others acquire knowledge to act colinearly with you, is the goal.
This is the classroom.
Notice first of all the use of the term "concatenate". Now, this is not a usual word... I'm pretty verbose and don't think I've ever used it in my life. Does anyone talk that way, really? Usually not. Try to remember the last time you heard the term. It is used correctly, and it is a useful term, but it is not one I would ever choose to use because most people don't know what it means. I try to write as plainly as possible at all times so that the most people can understand what I am writing and I don't care a whit for whether intellectual snobs look down on this practice or not. I've certainly had quite a few of them attempt to snow me or intimidate me with all their $2 words. You see, I can read them, I understand them, and I'm not impressed. What impresses me is simplicity and being able to write a coherent sentence with what is called "high density." That is, a lot of information is conveyed in the sentence with the fewest number of words. I try to combine that with plain speaking.UB said:
So, why would UB use such a word? Is he not aware that most people don't even know what it means? If so, is he using it deliberately to create the impression that he is a "great intellect"? Or, is he not aware that most people don't know what it means? If so, then he is sadly out of touch with reality. And if he is out of touch with the reality of ordinary people, then he is also likely out of touch with reality in general.
Now, puhleeeeeeze... tell me what information these two paragraphs conveyed? Pay special attention to "it certainly befits well the seeker ..." Here we have a clue that our "great intellect" is not so great after all.UB said:
Yes, in a certain sense, this word also is used properly, strictly speaking. Befit: To be suitable to or appropriate for: formal attire that befits the occasion.
However there is a certain awkwardness in the phrase that is jarring to the experienced reader or writer. Most people would select the word "behoove." Behoove: be appropriate or necessary; "It behooves us to reflect on this matter"
So we have here a subtle clue of a certain difficulty with using words precisely in accepted contexts.
Another very poorly constructed sentence with words used that are only slightly "off."UB said:
Even more revealing... "For that MADDER" ?? Now, certainly, this can be a typo and we all make typos. But the fact is, as we read through this post we see a certain deterioration that cannot be attributed solely to typos. We also are entitled to wonder if such a typo is not a "Freudian slip" ?UB said:
Further, the above paragraph reveals a certain aphasia. (Aphasia: Difficulty understanding the speech of others and/or expressing oneself verbally.)
Any of you who know how to diagram a sentence, please diagram that one. First of all, we have a plural noun - truth - that morphs into a singular noun - any truth - (or is that supposed to be any "system of truth" ?) which then is referred to by the plural pronoun "they" and the plural verb "are".
Then there is the final non-sequitur: "interpretations of a psychological mind."
(Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.)
So, not only is it a non sequitur, it is a syntactical bit of nonsense. A "psychological mind" ??
The clues are adding up. Moving on now:
A more striking example of word salad would be hard to come by. "So long as we look at things psychologically..." What does that mean? Worse: "So long as we look at things psychologically speaking, we are forced to use our polarized concepts..."UB said:
Of course, we CAN get a certain meaning out of this nonsense by projecting richer concepts onto what is actually a syntactical hodgepodge. Basically, what UB seems to be saying is that as long as we look at things with our intellect, we have no hope of moving toward truth because our mind FORCES us to fragment and filter everything. In short, MIND is the enemy. We can never hope to understand anything at all as long as we use our minds!
Then he says: "Because truth is a polarized aspect of reality, it would reject its opposite..."
Say WHAT???!!!
Since when did Truth become a "polarized aspect of reality"??
Polarized: a state of opposition.
The question is: what is Truth OPPOSED to in UB's mind? The only thing that Truth can be opposed to is LIES.
So, UB is saying that Truth would reject lies which would "therefore mask another very present aspect of that same reality."
In other words, his argument is that by searching for Truth, you will reject Lies, and this will result in the "masking" of those lies... Or, is he saying that LIES are the very present aspect of reality that one should not seek to unmask??
Most confusing, and certainly evidence of a certain deterioration of logic that is leading us to an interesting conclusion.
Moving on...
Well, we could let this one slide by, but again, the very poor syntax is not in keeping with the deliberate use of $2 words... It's actually starting to sound a bit like George W. Bush and his famous "Put food on your family..." or "fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again."UB said:
Here is this bizarre idea again, that Truth is "polarized mentally." It seems that the most fundamental meaning of all, the definition of TRUTH, is unavailable to UB.UB said:
Again we ask: what is a POLARIZED Truth???
Wow! Glad we cleared that up! Truth is just a "concept" and it has mislead us because it has been held in "high esteem" The idea of seeking Truth is just a trap... a limit.UB said:
In other words, value is rather given to LIES.UB said:
But, to be fair, that may not be what UB meant. Maybe the problem is, as Frai Jonah has suggested, that UB does not have a good working definition of Truth, that he is talking about "beliefs"?
Even if this is the case, is does not lessen the problem that such as UB are not suited to such discourse either because of self-importance, some sort of pathological condition as evidenced by the aphasia, or because they have a definite agenda. It's hard to tell sometimes, but all these little word clues are leading us somewhere.
Then what is he trying to do? He is, in fact, trying to convince everyone of the rightness of his views, and is using all sorts of twisty and turny language to give himself the air of a great intellect who understands things that others do not.UB said:
Another aphasic clue. "imposing one's intelligence"??? What happened to "imposing one's will"? How, exactly, does one "impose one's intelligence" on another?UB said:
So, does UB equate Truth with Beliefs and Will with Intelligence? If so, then he has a serious problem of aphasia.
Say WHAT? To make such a bold and unilateral statement is a bit CONVINCED, now isn't it?UB said:
Convinced: persuaded of; very sure.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I am pretty sure that staying open to anything is a good thing. But there does come a point in everyone's life when probability is so high that they can safely say "I am persuaded" or "very sure" of this or that. There is always going to be that small percentage of possibility that must remain open. Perhaps there ARE some things about which a person should be convinced? Certainly, it is not that "People should never be convinced of anything."
Not necessarily. It seems that UB is describing his own reality, that HE is only convinced by pride. Perhaps it never occurs to him that others can be quite open and observe and collect data, and network and experiment, until they are persuaded that something is, with a high degree of probability, just this or that?UB said:
Say what? Truth is more related to convictions? And convictions as UB has defined them, to boot.UB said:
Again, aphasia.
Very interesting, if true. Seems that if he "got the drift" that he decided that he didn't like that "drift" and it was his job to come save people from their errors of seeking Truth.UB said:
He "got wind" of the forum? Not so subtle "dig" on channeling. Since the discussions do not revolve around channeling, but rather around Knowledge and Truth, one wonders where he "got wind" from?UB said:
No doubt. Especially to "information control specialists."UB said:
This is paramoralistic word salad.UB said:
What happened to discussing things "neutrally"? What happened to not being tied to a particular school of beliefs?UB said:
What happened to discussing things "neutrally"? What happened to not being tied to a particular school of beliefs?UB said:
And finally, we come back to the same old, tired, stuff that Duran and Angelo, and Vinnie Bridges, and a host of others want to impose on everyone... The whole OCCULT network thang!UB said:
It's not about OPs or psychopaths or anything that can be reasonably discussed and understood with the mind, and by the masses of human beings: it's this vast Occult Network that is composed of people who are possessed by evil spirits, and we only have to battle these evil spirits with rituals and beliefs in the efficacy of said rituals and go back to sleep. That way, we won't notice that the planet is being taken over by genetic psychopaths and we are being replaced by them because they are creating wars to kill all the normal people off.
Busted!UB said:
And of course, all human beings have souls, all human beings just want a good life, those that act nasty have been influenced by evil spirits and/or bad childhood experiences. Go back to sleep people! There are no OPs, there are no psychopaths!UB said:
Good job... a little psychological manipulation there... Hitler is always a good one to drag out and use as an example.UB said:
Talking out of both sides of his mouth at once.UB said:
Oh, very nice paramoralistic manipulation. "I'm so good an proper... never mind that I've been doing all the things that I'm saying here I won't do... and let's not miss a chance to get in a dig at Gurdjieff... And let's not forget to add something about black magic to divert the possibility of that coming up... And get in a final shot about it all being about Occult Forces... and how they so easily manipulate poor souled humans... " etc etc.UB said:
Don't hold your breath, UB. You are already busted.UB said:
Paramoralistic BS framed in a particularly empty paragraph with evidence of aphasia.UB said:
Now, what have we learned in this thread about the Paranoid character disorder?
I believe Fifth Way has been caught by this already a time or two. I notice that you were being sucked in this time as well, FW. I think you might need to spend some time reading the very things I suggested earlier for getting a grip on the real world.Lobaczewski said:
For your edification, here is a bit more on the type:Lobaczewski said:
Now, it would be nice if we could, by calmly discussing things here, help such people to overcome such problems, but the fact is, we can't. We have experienced it too many times, in all its variations, to deceive ourselves that we can. You could say that we are "convinced" to a high degree of probability, based on experience, observation, testing hypotheses, and so on, that there is little possibility that a forum such as this is the place for individuals to undertake the kind of disintegration necessary to clean out their thinking circuits even if it COULD be done. And the best research says it can't be done; such conditions can only be "managed," not cured.Lobaczewski said:
And here is where we come to the problem: We don't want the forum to deteriorate into a food fight, and we intend to preserve the free will of those who want to discuss and not be inundated with schizoidal and paranoid nonsense.
But that leads to the issue: how do we do this without acting like paranoid characteropaths ourselves?
We have had to give thought to this problem for a number of years now, especially after the interactions with Vinnie Bridges and gang. When we booted them from the list, of course they began to rant "cult" and "totalitarian" and "violation of free speech" and so on.
Well, at the time, we didn't understand what was happening in terms of ponerization. But we certainly understood that OUR free will to be free of manipulation was being violated. We also understood that these rants were attempts to manipulate others into agreeing with them that WE had no rights at all.
Over time, as we observed this behavior, we began to get a glimmer of just how the "giving" tendencies of individuals could be so easily manipulated by liars using what are generally accepted as "truths". That later led to understanding of "the cult of the plausible lie." And so on.
At the same time, we could see how this same approach of the liars and manipulators was exactly that: cultic, "totalitarian" and a "violation of free speech." (Not to mention Free Will.)
Well, we certainly knew that, in our case, we were not a cult, nor were we being totalitarian nor violating anyone's right to Free Speech. But, we could see how it could easily TURN that way if we tried to establish hard and fast rules about it.
Every time the same issue came up with various early cass discussion group members who tried the manipulation game and ended up on the outside, either because we exposed them and they unsubbed, or because we unsubbed them for violation of our very liberal "rules," the whole "cult" rant would begin again. What's more, we could see that this appeal - "my free speech has been violated! Don't I have rights, too?! - to the giving nature of the normal person had a strange affect on people's minds.
We started thinking about social and cultural rules in general and saw how so many things that are accepted as "normal" were used AGAINST normal people in the hands of psychopaths, pathocrats, etc.
We now have a much better understanding of this from Lobaczewski and descriptions of the Ponerization processes. Well, as noted above, we have given a LOT of thought to this for a LONG time now.
As mentioned above, there is the issue of ideological terms and moralistic statements extracted from a positive ideology being used by liars to manipulate and control "normal" people. Here is an excerpt from Ponerology about this:
Note: a "primary ponerogenic association" is one that begins, from the outset, with evil intentions, like a mafia or a criminal gang that makes no pretense of being "good." They are generally easily spotted. It is the "secondary ponerogenic associations" that are more problematical. This is a group that starts out with a positive ideology (whether perfect or not, at least there are good intentions and some good ideas) and is gradually subverted to the use of evil. One example is Christianity and how it has been coopted for control and to justify wars and murder. Another more recent one is the republican party "revived" by the "Neocons."
So, we see that using words in a certain way, a "doubletalk" way, is one of the signs of ponerization. That is, when people like Vinnie rant about "free speech," which we all accept as a positive thing, what they really mean is "freedom to lie and use manipulative tactics on anyone and everyone." When they accuse a group of being a "cult," it really means that the targeted group resists their attempts to lie and manipulate their way to the top within it.Lobaczewski said:
Lobaczewski talks about the fact that groups that are susceptible to ponerization are groups that are formed to "right social wrongs," etc. This means that the members are people who are "fighting for the underdog" to begin with, and because of this, are already willing to give up standardized and accepted social "principles" which makes it even easier for them to give up more and more and justify everything they do in the name of their ideological goal: righting social wrongs.
This, of course, (even before Lobaczewski), was a problem that exercised us to no end. How to determine when, where, and how to identify so-called "moral principles" that have been specifically created to oppress people, and which are truly "universal," so to say? Which to give up? Which to retain? And if not retain, what principles to replace what is given up with?Lobaczewski said:
For example, not too long ago on the cass list, we had a long discussion about true conscience and whether or not people who are acting based on "social rules" are really acting out of conscience or just because they are programmed.
Again, a network is invaluable. The subject can be researched, the problems identified, etc.
Another example is the subject of lying. Now, Mouravieff has a long section on lying and Gurdjieff talks about it at length as well. But then, Gurdjieff makes the remark that "sincerity with everyone is weakness." He also points out that the teacher can lie to the students, but the student must not ever lie to the teacher. There is an obvious reason for this. Very often, the teacher may have to put a student in a certain situation in order for them to learn something crucial. That may require a lie. But if the student lies to the teacher, there is no possibility that the teacher can help such a student because he will be working with incomplete data.
Then, of course, there is the very important issue of what Mouravieff calls the "strategic enclosure," that a person, who begins the work, must "pretend" and "play a role" - as Gurdjieff calls it - toward the outside world in order to forestall attacks from the General Law which he is not yet prepared to defend against. This is certainly lying of a special sort.
The ONE thing that is certain about this is that lying to the SELF is the major no-no. If you lie to yourself, and worse, if you believe the lies you tell yourself, (which is pretty common for most people running on programs), then you are a hypocrite and, according to everything we can observe, as well as statements made in esoteric work, a hypocrite has no hope for spiritual advancement.
The whole point of the work is to expose to the self the lies that one tells the self, to ruthlessly eradicate such lies and find the true self, stripped of all illusion.
So we see, from just this short review, that "never tell a lie" is another area that is doubletalk used by psychopaths and pathocrats against normal people.
Certainly, in an STO world, never telling a lie would be the norm. But we are not in such a world, and in a world where liars lie almost constantly in the guise of truth, and telling the truth can expose you to the control and manipulation of liars so that you can never accumulate enough strength to "see the unseen" or do anything else, obviously, a different approach is necessary.
Now, the C's have said: "give the lie what it asks for: the truth." But there is another part to this. When you are being manipulated to tell the truth so that some psychopath can gain control of you, you are almost obligated to tell a lie.
I have often used the example of a resistance movement to point this out.
If a resistance movement is fighting for freedom for all, what would happen if they went around telling the much stronger invaders all their plans, who did this or that, where they meet, when they are going to make their next uprising, and so on, the GOAL of "Freedom for All" would be denied it's necessary support and would fail. Telling the absolute truth in all cases would FEED the STS agenda.
Does that mean that the end justifies the means?
That's another slippery slope that has to be navigated with great care. Obviously, if you go too far with that one, you have become part of the STS reality.
So, where do you draw the line?
Well, that is obviously going to be something that we have to work our way through as each situation presents itself. I don't think that there can be any hard and fast rules. We will always have to remember the Law of the Three Forces: there is Good, there is Evil, and there is the specific situation that determines which is which.
Above, Lobaczewski has pointed out that the ponerization process includes the infiltration of SIMPLISTIC and DOCTRINAIRE contents that eliminate the possibility of a wide understanding of human nature. When you start declaring things as "black or white," you've already lost. When you say "free speech for all" and "never tell a lie" or never do this, and always do that, you have become simplistic and doctrinaire and have lost the ability to utilize the Three Forces and to analyze the line of force in a situation which can tell you if the action moves you closer to a Free Will universe where STO prevails, or does it feed the STS domination.Lobaczewski said:
Here the point is made that just hanging on to strict ideals and having hard and fast moral answers to any question is not enough, especially when one considers the element of deviants that can infect a group like a pathogen. Again, a broad understanding of human nature, of reality, and keeping always in mind the law of three is probably the best approach we have at present. We may figure out more as we go along, but for now, that's what we have to work with.Lobaczewski said:
And that is why it is SO CRUCIAL for ALL of you to have a broad and comprehensive knowledge base. When the C's say "knowledge protects," they aren't saying that Laura and Ark and the SOTT team are going to gather all this knowledge and protect YOU... it means that YOU, yourselves, must work as hard as you can to acquire as much as you can. We can help, we can all help each other. No one of us can do all the research and searching needed... it takes a team, a group, myriads of experiences and contributions, to create the kind of knowledge base that protects.
Repeat that: breadth of knowledge of human psychological variations is CRUCIAL.Lobaczewski said:
And now we come to the specific problem that concerns us:
This certainly describes our world today... regression from common sense in EVERY area, from Iraq to the economy, to the fact that people are accepting violation of their human rights, torture, loss of freedoms, etc. A whole lot of people most definitely seem to have turned into half-wits diseased with intellectual deficiencies and moral failings in spite of their paramoralistic slogans. So we have a clear example to observe.Lobaczewski said:
And this is the problem right here. We must treat those who display psychological anomalies with DISTANCE and CRITICISM. And that means, again "depth and breadth of knowledge of human psychological variations is crucial."Lobaczewski said:
REPEAT: the atrophy of natural critical faculties with respect to pathological individuals becomes an opening to their activities, and, at the same time, a criterion for recognizing the association in concern as ponerogenic.Lobaczewski said:
That is to say, if we do NOT distance ourselves from those with psychological anomalies, we are permitting the infection. This means that we must examine their writings and produce adequate critiques for the sake of others who come behind us, showing how to recognize such pathogens, and how to deal with them. ]
The average person who does not have a breadth and depth of psychological knowledge can be so easily terrorized by these pathogenic people. Trolls or agents or whatever we may call them. They travel in packs and subject normal people to their special brand of psychological pressure, and this affects normal people without adequate knowledge as being a "collective opinion." This is, in fact, the means they use to control and dominate: they create the illusion of "collective opinion" by their "spellbinders" and "clappers."Lobaczewski said:
So, there it is. Yes, a fine line, but there ARE criteria... they are somewhat subtle at times, and more evident at others. Most important of all is a broad knowledge base. Because, believe me, if, at some point in the future, any of you are required by circumstances to act as adviser to any group that seeks the knowledge YOU have acquired, you are going to be faced with this problem.Lobaczewski said:
How to learn what you must learn, how to pass it on to others, how to teach it to children and impress on them that they must teach it to their children... This is a pressing concern.
We do not know what is going to happen in the next few years, but based on the signs, it is going to be interesting. Getting in shape to be able to hold your frequency, to help others acquire knowledge to act colinearly with you, is the goal.
This is the classroom.
