V - mini series

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Brief info here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085106/

Detailed info here:
http://thevisitors.info/

V is a miniseries about an invasion of reptilian aliens to the planet earth, disguised to look as humans, who used cunning propaganda and plausible lies to befriend the human race, and slowly establish a tyrranical global system of power/control which was very similar to Nazi Germany. There were, of course, serious issues with the film, as there are with all similar films, which represent either a level of wishful thinking, intentional disinfo, or both on behalf of the creators of the miniseries. But there were also some very well-made parts, and aspects of the film that seem to present the reality pretty accurately.

First, some of the bad parts:

As is almost always the case, the aliens are strictly physical from another planet - no hyperdimentionality to them at all.
All the weapons the aliens use are much weaker and far less accurate than our own earthly weapons, both their hand-held weapons and their fighter-craft weapons included. They also could not aim even the crappy weapons they did have - forget about any sort of lock-on mechanism! Many other similarly silly typical "movie" things, like the fact that the aliens ever had to mingle with humans at all and establish a control mechanism, instead of just come and take what they wanted without all the political nonsense. This reminds me of all the people who say that the Grays have a deal with our US government, they give us technology and in return the government "allows" them to abduct people. Right...

Also, the fact that the rebels fought strictly with guns and weapons, which although was realistic in the movie to some degree, is entirely senseless, impractical, and would only hurt any real resistance movement in real life against both, the political control and alien control. But of course, if this planet truly ever faced an overt alien control system (as opposed to covert as it is now), many would use the example of such movies and take up arms, because that is all they know about "resistance", thanks to Hollywood, and so they'd end up shooting themselves in the foot, osit.

Sadly, at the end the human race "triumphs" against the aliens who are forced to leave - but not really. The aliens are chased away by the actions of the resistance movement who then ends up being praised by humanity, even though humanity learns absolutely nothing from the experience, just as it never does from all such similar experiences in our own history. Which means the next time this happens, it'll be the same story all over again, over and over and over. In other words, although it is not directly stated, it is essentially the same stupid dynamic that happens in practically all movies of similar type at the end:

Person 1: "Sorry I doubted you, you were right!!"
Person 2: "It's ok, I'm just glad to help"

And of course Person1 goes from initially hating/disbelieving Person2 to later praising and apologizing to him for not "believing". But Person1 NEVER bothers to stop and think just how Person2 knew everything from the start while Person1 and everyone else didn't know anything until the very end. Apparently that lesson of how to SEE is unimportant, what's important is that "we're all ok now, the evil aliens are gone thanks to you!" - end of story. THAT is what made the ending to this movie and all others similar to it, frankly depressing. The depressing part is that it reflects reality.

Because the lesson we're given is: "it's ok to assume, as long as there's a hero to fight on your behalf, and there always is!". That's probably the biggest disinfo of this entire movie, maybe even of our entire existance as a human race in general.

Now the good parts:

Great portrayal of how propaganda easily deceives masses of people who are unable to critically think, or maybe just don't want to.
Also a good example of wishful thinking on behalf of those who fall for it, and how they use plausible justifications to rationalize all that the aliens do and say.
The "freedom fighters" are called "terrorists" by the Aliens, and "rebels". Also a great example of how just referring to a group as "terrorists" instantly demonizes them in the mind of the average person, regardless of what reason the aforementioned group may have for fighting against the "establishment", or even whether that group is in fact doing anything, or even exists.
And of course, my favorite, the part where the aliens and our governments (working together) create fake terrorist attacks all around the world, then plant evidence, and frame thousands of scientists for conspiracy and terrorism. Scientists afterwards were resented like Jews in Nazi Germany, and many of them started disappearing, or being openly apprehended for suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities. And just like in real life, the terrorists in the movie have no good motive to be "terrorists" at all, it all makes no sense. Various politicians were "whisked away" into alien motherships for "safety" against the evil scientific conspirators. Additionally, severe global security measures (pretty much martial law) were increasingly used more and more, but increased slowly in order to make people adjust to each step before the next step is initiated, AGAIN just like Nazi Germany and present day US. There was also a movement created, very similar to "Hitler Youth", which had the same purpose and effect.

So for all the "nonsense" and "sillyness" and unrealism in this movie, it also had much seriousness and realism. It also portrayed human emotions very well, and because it was done in the early 80's as opposed to now, it wasn't focused on special effects as much as on the philosophical, political and interpersonal human aspects.

All in all a great miniseries, consisting of 5 two-hour episodes. The first 2 episodes were the original miniseries, the last 3 episodes were added later and are called "The Final Battle". Additionally, there was later a regular TV series with 19 episodes released before it was cancelled and left at a cliffhanger. Supposedly a remake of the original miniseries is scheduled for 2007 using all modern technology. Here's a comment from Wikipedia regarding a change midway through the series:

"The series ran for 200 minutes and was successful enough to spawn a sequel, V: The Final Battle, which was meant to conclude the story, and a television series in 1984-85 that revived it. [Series creator Kenneth] Johnson left V during the sequel but went on to work on other science fiction shows such as Alien Nation. Perhaps as a result, the sequel and TV series had less of an emphasis on historical allegory, and were more action-oriented." Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_(TV_series)

In other words, out of the 5 episodes, the last 3 were more action oriented, the first 2 being more political, historical, and philosophical.

Among other places, you can find "V" miniseries on Amazon.com
 
Hi ScioAgapeOmnis, everyone,
Great review. I had much of the same thoughts as you especially regarding the whole lizards being strictly physical and also the fact that their weapons was so similar to human weapons. But there was LOTS of 'good' things too which imo outweighed the 'bad'. But anyway something interesting that I came across a about a year ago before I moved to the country and got rid of my satellite TV channels, was V- the continuation of the Final Battle. Some SPOILERS here...
From what I saw (which was just a couple of episodes) was that after the Lizzies left Earth because of the actions taken my the resistance in the Final Battle, and also Diana (the Lizzie science leader) finds out about the 'power' of the little girl who was conceived from the human and Lizzie DNA , she goes back to the Lizzie planet and tells them about the betrayal of "John", and comes back with 3 times more the fleets. On Earth some time has passed and the girl is grown up. So, anyway she becomes the new leader of the resistance when the Lizzies come back, and Diana is the full leader of the Lizzies to take over the earth. I didn't see the series in full because we were moving, but found it interesting to see that there was more to the story after the Final Battle, and am wondering if anyone has seen the rest of V.

In either case it is a great series to check out.
Thanks
Nina

PS.
I actually just checked the link provided above http://thevisitors.info/, and it has the episode guide for the rest of V. I didn't see that before- thanks.
 
knowledge_of_self said:
...wondering if anyone has seen the rest of V.
Never heard of it either. And if somebody can supply a link where to get them - would be very apreciated.

It is funny that this thread comes up now as I am in the middle of watching the series (the 5 two-hour episodes).

I think there are visionary things in there and the fact that TODAY one compares the series less with the Nazis but rather with what's going on in the US RIGHT NOW sends one chills down the spine.

For Example: Front page of the U.S.News & Worl Report from April 3, 2006:
THE WORLD'S FIRST CANCER VACCINES
A CANCER VACCINE: That is the 'gift', the medical breakthrough, the reptiles promise the humans for there support in the series

Then the general metaphor of wearing the 'human' mask (of sanity) to hide their reptilian selves.

The fact that the reptilians collect the humans for FOOD

And as already mentioned in the posts above, the psychology of denial that allows the Fascist takeover.

Oh - and lets not forget the media w-h-o-r-e and the fact that control of the media makes the takeover possible.

I can only recommend it.

And I wonder what it means that "V For Vendetta" as well as "V" both spray red Vs as a sign of resistance to a US Fascist state.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Vs would materialize in the real world some time soon :P
 
Fifth Way said:
knowledge_of_self said:
...wondering if anyone has seen the rest of V.
Never heard of it either. And if somebody can supply a link where to get them - would be very apreciated.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00023BKMC/qid=1146693299/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2915721-9552016?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130

And I wonder what it means that "V For Vendetta" as well as "V" both spray red Vs as a sign of resistance to a US Fascist state.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Vs would materialize in the real world some time soon :P
You should check out Thomas Pynchon's novel, V. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060930217/sr=8-5/qid=1146693299/ref=pd_bbs_5/002-2915721-9552016?%5Fencoding=UTF8
 
Fifth Way said:
I think there are visionary things in there and the fact that TODAY one compares the series less with the Nazis but rather with what's going on in the US RIGHT NOW sends one chills down the spine.
Yes, it certainly does. The part of the story where they (begin spoiler) round up all the scientists and keep them aboard the spaceships so they can't identify and alarm the rest of the population is somewhat analagous to today's world where mainstream science is part of the COINTELPRO against the progress of understanding the pathocracy. Plus keeping humans in containers in order to feed off of them is another tie-in to our current reality. This is a DVD worth taking a peek at, maybe watch this with some family or friends and try to throw in some of these connections. This is an old movie so the special effects can be a little cheesy, but it does not detract from the story one bit.
 
Hello all- I remember watching the series when it was on TV and my first son was just a little guy-I think maybe 5-6 years old-and he was watching V with Daddy-until one of the Reptilians started peeling their "human" exo-layer off of their face-I believe it was "John" the commandant or whatever they called him-my little boy freaked out and ran screaming from the room.

I recall reading on the site-don't remember the article about what the C's said about this kind of material filters down to us from 4D-Stuff like War of the Worlds (I thought the re-make sucked big time-even though the 1957 George Pal version didn't follow Orwells' book it was WAY better) well anyway this stuff filters down to us from 4D and gives us "clues"and information-SO...

Perhaps the Reptilians deliberately made themselves appear vulnerable and kind of clutzy and incompetent - like having "inferior" weapons and not being able to hit the broad side of a barn with them. So that when they show up folks would think back to V and say "ahhh-these dudes aren't so tough-their weapons suck and they can't aim worth crap"

From what the C's have told us-we know their technology is at least a hundred thousand years (figure?) ahead of ours-so if they ARE packing they sure as heck aren't going to have suckie weaponry-and from what has been experienced they don't really NEED weapons. They merely control the minds of their intended conquests and take over without a shot being fired.

So the Reptilian take-over scenario will probably be nothing like V-in fact they have the Grays and maybe the Nephilim (they ARE enforcers-remember) to do the dirty work.

I kind of thought a take-over scenario might look more like the dudes from Underverse in " Chronicles of Riddick" How their ships looked (Like a serpent with teeth-just like the multiple comets are supposed to look on approach to Earth-anybody get that?) and how they kind of can "breeze" in and out of reality-especially Judy Dench's Elemental character-I mean there were so many references to hyperdimensions and variable physicality I was wondering if the screen writers were Cassiopaen regulars!

Well anyway-V was an o.k. series but I don't think it really reflects what we know about-or at least assume we know about our scaley pals -and the Lizzies are supposedly 8-9 feet tall? Maybe if they got a bunch of basketball players to do the parts it would be more "real"

I suppose for some it will give a sense of nastalgia-it seems like everything is retro these days from cars to toasters.

Quite frankly I am still waiting for a "live" version of the Jetsons! I think Tim Allen would make the PERFECT George Jetson and Danny DeVito could be Mr. Spacely-now THAT would be cool!

That is what I dreamed our future was going to be-just like that.

Here we are in the 21st Century-No flying cars-no robots (well not like the ones in the Jetsons-heck even Robby would be awesome)

No instead we are sitting here wondering when "they" are going to show up and ruin our days-and watching re-runs of V-hey-maybe THEY are behind the re-release...OH OH...

Heck with them-make some popcorn, grab some cool drinks-turn out the lights and watch V!

Just make sure if you have little ones they don't watch it-that face tearing and hamster gobbling can be a bit much for little ones that do not know it isn't real! ;)
 
tschai said:
Just make sure if you have little ones they don't watch it-that face tearing and hamster gobbling can be a bit much for little ones that do not know it isn't real! ;)
Maybe it depends on the little ones! I think the devil here is in the details. I'm only 22 years old, I know next to nothing about raising children, but I would think that exposing them to uncomfortable realities, in a gentle way, would be extremely important to their development as a person. For example, things like avoiding unnecessary illusions like santa clause, tooth fairy, heaven, hell, etc. And depending on your assessment of the child's ability to handle various "negative situations", gently expose the child to the reality of the human condition, again, when you feel the child could handle it without being psychologically damaged in a bad way. And by human condition I mean the nature of politicians, the nature of mass media, the nature of public education as it is today, the nature of religion, the nature of STS in general, etc.

And when I say psychologically damaged in a "bad way" I mean the level beyond just being upset and disturbed (that's normal), but literally scarred or mentally "damaged" in an unhealthy way. But again, how and when to do this is entirely variable and different for everyone, osit.

But the point is not to terrify the child - but at the same time not to lull him to sleep like most children are by the cacoon of "comfortable illusions" their parents keep them in. The brightest and most objective/logical people I've ever met were those who due to tragic circumstances in their families had to take responsibility for themselves sooner than others - like a death in the family, etc. Often that also leaves damage and scars, but it also benefits in terms of waking the individual up to certain gruesome realities of life that many are in denial about. I guess, as a parent, I'd try to do the latter (the waking up) and avoid the former (the damage) to the best of my ability.

Just some thoughts.

P.S. - sometimes those same people with early childhood tragedies were also the most unreasonable - they become attached/obsessed with certain concepts due to those traumas, and so it can actually go both ways.

Knowledge protects.
 
ScioAgapeOmnis said:
Maybe it depends on the little ones! I think the devil here is in the details. I'm only 22 years old, I know next to nothing about raising children, but I would think that exposing them to uncomfortable realities, in a gentle way, would be extremely important to their development as a person. For example, things like avoiding unnecessary illusions like santa clause, tooth fairy, heaven, hell, etc. And depending on your assessment of the child's ability to handle various "negative situations", gently expose the child to the reality of the human condition, again, when you feel the child could handle it without being psychologically damaged in a bad way. And by human condition I mean the nature of politicians, the nature of mass media, the nature of public education as it is today, the nature of religion, the nature of STS in general, etc.
Hi, I am also 21 years old and do not have any children, but I think very much in the same lines as you, ScioAgapeOmnis, in a sense that we (adults) must tell children the truth about many subjects as much as possible, because it protects them in the long run. This is something the C's had to say in regards to missing children,

C's session # 940716 said:
Q: (L) Why are humans consumed?
A: They are used for parts.
Q: (L) We don't understand. How can humans be used for parts?
A: Reprototype. The Vats exist. Missing persons often go there and especially missing children.
Q: (L) Do we have any protection?
A: Some.
Q: (L) How can we protect ourselves and our children?
A: Inform them. Don't hide the truth from children.
Q: (L) How does truth protect us?
A: Awareness protects. Ignorance endangers.
Q: (L) Why tell children such horrible things?
A: They need to know.
The subject of us being food for hyperdimensional beings was very intense for me, but a child's understanding of the subject can be grasped easier since they are more free of social programming at earlier age, osit. So, I do agree with the C's here that they MUST be told for protection, but how they are told is a different subject. And also, what ScioAgapeOmnis, have brought up which is the understanding factor. Some kids are much more understanding than other kids, so the approach is I think very important. I know that the first sci-fi movie that my spouse saw as a child was V (at a party), he particularly remembers the scene where Diana was biting the head of the budgie, and he says that at the moment it affected him very tremendously, but it also sparked a lot of curiosity within him which caused him to be very interested in the subjects of alien invasion, UFO's and other phenomena. But he says that other kids at the party paid very little or no attention to what was being portrayed in the movie. Only he was very affected by the movie, and as a result he was interested in paranormal subjects and read many sci-fi books. So this may be considered as a positive example of exposing a child to a movie like V at an early age.

Just some thoughts
Nina
 
My point was that exposing children to the non-reality portrayed on TV where the images they see are terrifying or grotesque-or in movies for that matter-simply for the "shock" value of such images is not healthy. If the child runs screaming from the room that is a good indication it was disturbing. Even after I explained to my boy that it was not real he still did not want anything to do with it.

Adults often forget that children -even though they might seem very "mature" do not have the ability at a young age to distinguish these images from reality. I agree we must not keep from exposing our children to those things which are a part of reality-as you suggest.

In todays world of high tech special effects movies and TV imagery can seem very real-who was not absolutely astounded by Jurrasic Park? I am an adult and those dinosaurs looked amazingly real to ME-in fact it was this portrayal of creatures that have been extinct for millions of years that made the movie work in my mind.

But a young child cannot understand these are only computer images-too often we allow the TV to take on the role of babysitter-and park the kids in front of the idiot box with a DVD or let them watch what ever-you would be surprised how poor some adults judgement can be when it comes to what the kids watch.

They do not bother to screen the content first and consequently the kids are exposed to TV/movie sex, drug use, full nudity, vilolence and profanity. And yes they are going to get exposed to it anyway-and over protecting our kids is just as bad as not protecting them at all. But kids also like to discuss what they have seen with their playmates-and re-enact some of these things-not realizing what they have seen are not real.

Want to walk in on your child trying to gobble a hamster cause the monsters on V did it and he thought that was cool?Or trying to mount the next door neighbors daughter cuz they saw it on TV?

I have told my family about the hyperdimensional reality-and about UFOs, Lizzies-the lot. They think I am nuts-my wife certainly doesn't understand-and my youngest son goes to school and tells his friends what Dad said about aliens and how we are going to get invaded and be Lizard bait--and his friends all laugh at him and think I am insane.

We live in the South (Georgia in the US) the so called Bible Belt-and anything that does not strictly fall in accord with the Bible here is heresy. There ain't no such things as UFO's or aliens cuz God would not ever allow such trash on his Earth! Anybody who believes in such trash is in league with the DEVIL!

Just try telling these folks there is no God as they conceive of God-there is not going to be a Rapture-that Jesus had a wife and kids and did NOT die on the cross-and they are not sinners-that Evil is subjective. Try telling them that we are here to LEARN-nothing more nothing less-and they will run you out of town.

Yes-Kids are a lot more intuitive than we give them credit for at times-but it is our responsibility as parents-as ADULTS even if we have no children-to guide them. But we also have to be VERY cautious on how we do so - young minds are very mallable-and they can be easily traumatized-even though our intentions are good.

I guess I should have explained that in more detail-but I guess I did not feel that was required.
 
tschai said:
My point was that exposing children to the non-reality portrayed on TV where the images they see are terrifying or grotesque-or in movies for that matter-simply for the "shock" value of such images is not healthy. If the child runs screaming from the room that is a good indication it was disturbing. Even after I explained to my boy that it was not real he still did not want anything to do with it.
Adults often forget that children -even though they might seem very "mature" do not have the ability at a young age to distinguish these images from reality. I agree we must not keep from exposing our children to those things which are a part of reality-as you suggest.
However, some of those scenes are similar to what you'd see on the discovery channel - eating live animals for example. Sure peeling off someone's flesh and exposing some green scaly lizard face underneath isn't "reality" in terms of it happening on our planet all the time (as far as we know), but it doesn't have to be so shocking and terrifying either! So I think it may be possible to mitigate the situation by mentally preparing your child for this stuff, like with the discovery channel footage, or just by talking to him or both. He may still not wish to see those scenes, but at least he might not run away screaming in shock and horror anymore. I think it's important to pinpoint just exactly which aspect of those scenes he finds so shocking? Is it his empathy for the little mouse that is being eaten? Is it his fear of scary-looking "monsters"? Is it his disgust with the grotesque/slimy nature of it all? Is it his shock at the concept itself of eating a live animal or peeling of skin to expose something else underneath? If you can pinpoint this, you could try to mitigate the reaction by explaining the concept to him and using analogies from the real world of similar things, if possible.

In todays world of high tech special effects movies and TV imagery can seem very real-who was not absolutely astounded by Jurrasic Park? I am an adult and those dinosaurs looked amazingly real to ME-in fact it was this portrayal of creatures that have been extinct for millions of years that made the movie work in my mind.
But a young child cannot understand these are only computer images-too often we allow the TV to take on the role of babysitter-and park the kids in front of the idiot box with a DVD or let them watch what ever-you would be surprised how poor some adults judgement can be when it comes to what the kids watch.
Well the only really unrealistic part about jurassic park is the fact that dinosaurs are still alive, but the fact that large animals eat humans, humans kill humans, and other scary/suspenseful situations exist, that's real. In fact, it's very mild compared to real life, since it's only a movie. So the situations portrayed in that movie have analogies in real life, osit.

They do not bother to screen the content first and consequently the kids are exposed to TV/movie sex, drug use, full nudity, vilolence and profanity.
I actually always wondered what it is about nudity or sex that is so "bad" that our kids must at all costs be shielded from it? Kids can see people get shot and eaten in movies, they can play videogames where they shoot people and blow things up, but to see a breasts or any sex organs in a game and you have a thousand people filing lawsuits. Why? It is reality, and it's just the human body - what is wrong with knowing about the human body or about sex? Why does the stork have to bring babies in the minds of kids? And what's wrong with seeing nudity and/or sex? Maybe the next thing is that babies won't be allowed to suck milk directly from their mothers' breasts because it's "inappropriate"?
And yes they are going to get exposed to it anyway-and over protecting our kids is just as bad as not protecting them at all.
I think in many cases it's not even a matter of "Protection", the word is inappropriate at all, osit. For example, nudity - it poses no threat, so I don't understand how one can "protect" against something that is not threatening in the first place. But by using the phrase "protect our kids" in conjunction with things that are in no way a threat or dangerous, it creates the impression that those things are somehow dangerous and bad, osit. Some things indeed are, but our society tends to think "ignorance protects" because when you speak of over-protecting our kids, socially that phrase is understood to mean keeping them ignorant and unexposed to certain realities. That actually has the opposite effect - it endangers them!

I personally think that if all kids are educated about the human body, about sex, and are allowed to SEE both without it being a big deal, it may prevent many child molestation cases where the purpetrator tricks the young child into doing sexual things because the child has no idea what he's doing at all. In fact, I think it's wise to teach kids about child molestation and how it happens and how to avoid it - in a gentle but objective and honest way. Again, as with anything, it can be presented in such a way as to scare the children, or it can be presented in such a way as to inform them but treat the subject very calmly and without unnecessary emotional hooks to scare them.

Same thing with masturbation - that's another "taboo" subject they don't teach you in health class and everyone has to somehow "discover it" on their own! Maybe that's one way to avoid accidental child or teen pregnancy - kids are human after all, they WILL sexually experiment whether adults like it or not, so I think it's wise to take that into consideration and give them advice on what they can do sexually without endangering themselves and others. I think care must be taken not to encourage kids to go have sex all the time or make that the "point" of their existance - but that again is upto the parents and how they can educate kids about life in general and various realities of life, things they can aspire to, that although sex feels good, it is basically a lower animal drive. Again, knowledge protects - the more knowledge, the wiser the child will be. And for crying out loud don't treat sex like something so taboo and "inappropriate" that the kid will be embarrased to ask questions and treat the subject without those unnecessary feelings about it.

Want to walk in on your child trying to gobble a hamster cause the monsters on V did it and he thought that was cool?
Knowledge protects! I think it's wise to control what your child watches (block access to TV if you have to) until he has enough common sense and knowledge, etc. If he was to do what you just said, then watching something like V probably wouldn't be beneficial for him at all.

Or trying to mount the next door neighbors daughter cuz they saw it on TV?
Knowledge protects! Again, at very early stages strictly limit exposure to TV and do your best to educate about all such things, their dangers, etc etc. Another good reason to limit exposure to TV is simply the mind programming and propaganda - most adults, nevermind kids, have no knowledge and thus defense against it, so if you could teach your kid about lying and about questioning everything he hears etc, that may prove invaluable. In fact, I'd not just "teach" the kid, I'd constantly demostrate using real life examples, and basically get them into the "habit" of questioning everything and how easily one can be led astray without constantly questioning (again with lots of real life examples).

I have told my family about the hyperdimensional reality-and about UFOs, Lizzies-the lot. They think I am nuts-my wife certainly doesn't understand-and my youngest son goes to school and tells his friends what Dad said about aliens and how we are going to get invaded and be Lizard bait--and his friends all laugh at him and think I am insane.
Knowledge protects! I think it may help to arm him with the knowledge that most people do not question or think about such things, and think they are weird and silly. So not only should he question things, but he should understand the reality of the situation - most people do not question things as you teach him to do! But be careful because this might lead to him looking down on people, but again knowledge protects. Teach him not to judge and instead to always be objective, and very careful whom he tells anything to and why. Again, these are all just ideas and thoughts I have, I may be wrong or they may not work at all - so take everything with a grain of salt please. However, perhaps it may also be helpful to not mention hyperdimentional realities until you can give the kid the basics of objective/open/critical approach to life itself. Teach him about psychopaths and how they function etc, teach him about the state of mind of the majority of the population, etc etc. And when you feel he has grasped the fundementals to a good degree (like STO vs STS and what both may mean, and many other general concepts), then bring up hyperdimentional denizens etc.

The C's said before that a little knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all. So you wouldn't give your kid a gun before teaching him how to use it would you? Same thing here, give him the preliminary basic fundemental understandings about the world and reality in general before you just throw out the hyperdimentional 4th density STS thing. Try to consider carefully the likely repercussions of anything you say, and whether you're giving him dangerous knowledge without first arming him with necessary preliminary understandings.

We live in the South (Georgia in the US) the so called Bible Belt-and anything that does not strictly fall in accord with the Bible here is heresy. There ain't no such things as UFO's or aliens cuz God would not ever allow such trash on his Earth! Anybody who believes in such trash is in league with the DEVIL!
The Bible says God works in mysterious ways, so you can tell them that if anyone presumes to know what God would and would not allow, is trying to put himself in the position of God and second guess the "almighty" himself ;)

Just try telling these folks there is no God as they conceive of God-there is not going to be a Rapture-that Jesus had a wife and kids and did NOT die on the cross-and they are not sinners-that Evil is subjective. Try telling them that we are here to LEARN-nothing more nothing less-and they will run you out of town.
Thanks to the Bible and its many lovely contradictions, you can easily say something as what I said above and still be true to the Bible! In fact you can contradict their entire religion and still be true to the Bible! Ya just gotta love that little book :P

But I wouldn't recommend unnecessarily stirring such waters - it serves no purpose since nobody there is ASKING, they've all made up their minds, so let'em be! Just watch your impressionable children and, in addition to making them not so impressionable, arm them with wisdom to not say things that would get them in trouble - and explain why it would get them in trouble, the nature of religion and religious people, etc. I mean it's a huuuuge pile of stuff to teach and explain, so the more you yourself understand, the more capable you are of passing it on to your children in a structured and sensible way, osit.

For example, don't just say "there is no God" - that's the same as saying "there is a God!". Say "there may or may not be, believing only leads astray, how about we contemplate and look at evidence and reason? We don't have to reach a conclusion NOW, if we don't know, we can leave it as that until the day we can know!" and so explain the nature of assumptions and why they lead astray and endanger, and vice versa explain about knowledge etc.

And when I say "do this" or "say this or that" I don't mean that as some sort of direction, all are just ideas for you to consider, nothing more. I may be entirely wrong, but hopefully you find something helpful in what I said. :)
 
I seem to have been taken to task for my obeservations that children should not be exposed to imagery that are grotuesque and horrifying simply for the "shock value" and instructed to have the child watch Discovery Channel.

The things seen on Discovery channel are "real"events and not just to "scare" you-we go to horror films or watch them on TV because we WANT to be frightened and because we as adults can differentiate between those "real" and non "real" images. And just because we can allow a child to watch these things doesn't mean we should-they can say that they aren't scared or grossed out because they don't want to show they are afraid or because they don't want to dissapoint Mom or Dad- perhaps- because it is EXPECTED of them not to be scared etc. and they do not want to be "labeled" as a scaredy cat, wimp and so forth.

Kids do understand that lions et al eat other animals to survive-it may not be pleasant to watch but they can accept it as a "fact of life"-it's one thing about this reality that is inescapable-unless you know how to keep from getting eaten. This is an advantage we have (at least most of the time) over the animals. But in many ways the predators that feed on us use the same tacticts-they lie in wait and snatch up the unwary and unwitting.

Many of the things that we observe, do and say are purley subjective-what one thinks is immoral or evil is not to another. That is why "nudity" is taboo in the US (A hold over from Puritan and Victorian ways of thinking) but is not a big deal in say Japan or the Scandanavian countries. If you are exposed to everyones bodies-as they are-from the earliest memories this is natural and normal and not a big deal.

Viewing "nakedness" on TV or movies by the same token is not a bad thing for some-I for instance have no problem with it. But someone else may view this as "pornography"-a topic which seems to really get some people steamed. But again-it is subjective. Depictions of people engaged in explicit sexual acts may not be bothersome to some but to others this is "vile" and "evil"-but again -these are "natural" functions of the human body, no? But is it something you want your kids to watch? Would you copulate in front of your children because this is a "natural" thing and they should not have this "hidden" from them?

If you are comfy with having [them as] an audience, by all means-go for it. Some folks do-and some kids get sucked into "kiddie porn" endeavours because they(the kids) are told there is nothing "wrong" with this. Often their own PARENTS involve them in this- sometimes for large amounts of cash. Not so subjective when it is YOUR kids getting stalked by some internet freakazoid looking for a good time.

If you grow up in an environment where drug use is prevalent and have no problem with your kids using, hey I have no problem with it either. But conversely-I was a heavy drug user in my younger days-and I cannot say it has improved MY life to any great extent-in fact for ME it probably set me BACK decades on my way to "enlightenment"-and would recommend my kids NOT use-but final choice is theirs.

We must discern the predators traps and snares-and avoid them if we can. I DO NOT PROTEST that we should not expose our children to these things-only that the manner in which they are exposed-i.e. we introduce them to these things in an environment where we can answer questions or allay fears. BUT that will not always be the case and we must do what we can to empower them to make wise choices-WHETHER it be the TV shows/movies they watch and so on-but we up to a point are forced to impose our will upon them and our view points-until they can make judgements on their own-but they will forever be influenced by us one way or another. I can remember things my Mother and Father have taught me from as early as age three (I am 51 now)

I do not know how old your child / children are but if they are young you will see it is not as easy to do as say. And despite our best intentions-kids ARE influenced by TV, movies, magazines, bill boards and their peers. That is why the industries that appeal to young kids are so freakin rich. Our kids are taught at a very early age to be CONSUMERS-and hence become targets for the predators-to be consumed in turn.

Much of this is really not on topic for this Forum-I really did not expect by merely cautioning parents that the material in V might be a bit much for younger children that it would evolve into a debate-and regarding my kid and hyperdimensional realities-he ASKED. Just as I did-and the fates must have decided I was ready for the "next" step-and led me to this site.

He does NOT believe everything I say regarding this topic and well he should not. He is free to make up his own mind regarding these things as we all are. ALL THERE IS IS LESSONS. I have a great deal to learn as do we all-leastwise we would not be here.

Thank you for your insights.
 
tschai said:
Much of this is really not on topic for this Forum-I really did not expect by merely cautioning parents that the material in V might be a bit much for younger children that it would evolve into a debate-and regarding my kid and hyperdimensional realities-he ASKED. Just as I did-and was lead to this site.
Hi Tschai, personally, I agree with you. I still remember seeing movies or t.v. shows that gave me nightmares as a little kid, and I'm one of those people who think protecting kids from shocking images when they're very young is necessary and important. I agree that knowledge protects, of course, I just think that little minds should be protected from too much too soon, and that they can be guided into understanding the more horrific apsects of our existence without having to be emotionally scared by seeing something grotesque too early. It's an ugly world, period, and they'll learn that all too soon anyway, why not make childhood at least feel safe and secure for as long as possible. No, I'm not saying lock your kids in a cocoon and pretend that life is all beauty and pleasure, but it seems like taking some precautions to protect them from certain influences, at least early on, is a reasonable thing to do - this is just my take on it, though. =)
 
Thank you.

I went back and edited my remarks somewhat but essentially left them as was.

Sometimes I think in an effort to be eloquent and show off just how "smart" we are-it comes across as arrogance-at least that is how I took it-although I am certain it was not intended that way-and sometimes we can be just too damn sensitive to "crticism" or perceived criticism and go off half cocked.

I'll be the first to admit I am a mere novice-it seems at times I am truley ignorant, even though I have been on the "path" for decades.

But as I point out at the end of my "rebuttal" I guess it may be called that-All there is is lessons -and some have a long way to go (refering to myself)-and if anything in my post is taken as offense, I am very apologetic.

I really thought about not posting any return remarks-which in retrospect probably would have been the wiser choice-and sometime I DO have a tendency to remark on subjects I have no right to-but in the long run, I guess if I get "yelled" at enough by the folks here on this site, I will learn.

It's good to think with a hammer-but some times someone else must wield the hammer!

And spare me not the force of ye' blows!
 
tschai said:
And just because we can allow a child to watch these things doesn't mean we should [...]
I agree, it depends on many factors like his age, your assessment of his capability to handle/understand such things without being damaged or scarred emotionally or mentally, and tons of other things. Some people, as a dults, are far less easy to scare by such movies than others - in fact some of those others are terrified at every little thing. I'm just trying contemplate about why that may be, and whether it is related to the type of conditioning the individuals were exposed to since childhood, and therefore whether it's possible to avoid it and eliminate much irrational fear in the process. For example, maybe if the child is not scared with boogieman, monsters, or anything else that he's conditioned to believe is "evil" or "out to get him", it may help him laugh at such movies later on when he does become exposed to them. Understanding the objective nature of "evil" and other things also helps, because a lot of fear may be coming from our subjective assumptions - dark, scary, evil, etc. It may or may not help, but what my mom often did when she watched scary movies with me, is she kept reminding me that the cameramen are all over the place, the director/producer and tons of other people are there, even if in the movie the person looks like he's alone. And also that the monster is made of plastic or computer animated. That greatly easied my mind to remember - but also she made fun of the stupid things the protagonist did, and the stupid/senseless things the monster did as well. SEEing all that also greatly helped remove the fear.

One thing that's always interesting is, why is it that when a big scary monster is hunting a person, it is far scarier than if another person was hunting him (for some people anyway). Again, I think if we can question the source of such irrational fears (and they are irrational because objectively the person being hunted is threatened with death in both cases, it just looks scarier with the monster for some reason), and if we can deal with that source by instilling knowledge and critical understandings, then we can not be so easily scared/influenced by such "horrifying" stuff, perhaps.

If you grow up in an environment where drug use is prevalent and have no problem with your kids using, hey I have no problem with it either.
Again, I think education/awareness will be of the most help in their choice - the more they know about the objective nature and consequences of drugs, the better osit. I think the mistake most parents make is say "drugs are bad" or threaten the kid to never do it or "else", and this is basically like a button that says "Do not push or else" - it becomes a challenge and a dare for the kid to actually do it when the parents are1 not looking. Most people that I've seen do drugs tend to wishfully think to a certain degree - whether they think that what happened to others who did those drugs won't happen to them, or the drugs are "not that bad for you", or that they simply don't know the real consequences of the drugs, etc. True, some drugs (like marijuana) may not be as bad as our culture tries to make them, and I personally disagree with the law that prohibits the use of ANY drugs (and the seatbelt law too). I in no way support the use of drugs - I simply support free will with our own bodies, and I personally never have nor ever will use drugs because I know enough about them and their REAL consequences and how those consequences occur and why to know that I have better things to do with my life. But again, some drug users are also aware of all the nature of drugs, but they may either be simply depressed or directionless in life, and many other psychological reasons why they turn to drugs as the only "reason" for living. So again, a healthy mental state and an objective outlook may go a long way to prevent your kids from even wanting to do drugs. I think another biggie is the nature of addiction - it's hard to understand that addiction is real until you become the victim of it, and you generally tend to think "ha, I can stop anytime I want to". So if you could convey that knowledge to your child effectively, together with other knowledge etc, at least you'll eliminate the mystery and intrigue of drugs. Just an idea anyway.

We must discern the predators traps and snares-and avoid them if we can. I DO NOT PROTEST that we should not expose our children to these things-only that the manner in which they are exposed-i.e. we introduce them to these things in an environment where we can answer questions or allay fears.
And I do not insist that you should - I did say that I'd do it very gently - when you feel the kids are ready mentally to handle/understand these things - and that is entirely subjective and depends on both the child and yourself, and other things.

I do not know how old your child / children are but if they are young you will see it is not as easy to do as say.
I have no children, never had.

Much of this is really not on topic for this Forum-I really did not expect by merely cautioning parents that the material in V might be a bit much for younger children that it would evolve into a debate-and regarding my kid and hyperdimensional realities-he ASKED. Just as I did-and was lead to this site.
Do not mean to debate, just expressing my thoughts - I'm not arguing that you're right or wrong or that I am either. Sorry if it seemed this way, I'm only saying what sounds logical/reasonable to me and why - but in no way am I saying that this IS what anyone should do, etc. Maybe I would do it, but even that I'm not sure of because if there ever comes a time when I can put these things to use with my own children, I may have a different perspective and different ideas altogether by then - I don't know.

He does NOT believe everything I say regarding this topic and well he should not. He is free to make up his own mind regarding these things as we all are. ALL THERE IS IS LESSONS. I have a great deal to learn as do we all-leastwise we would not be here.

Thank you for your insights.
And thank you for yours. Although I agree that he is free to make up his own mind as is everyone, I personally think it is important to never "make up your mind" at all. As I understand the phrase, it means to be convinced of one reality or another. I think making up one's mind means closing it, because I it means that you believe that this or that IS true, period. It doesn't mean that's all this phrase can mean, I'm just saying that religious fanatics have their mind made up as well - but that doesn't help them see objective reality. And perhaps another important thing for him to understand is that he doesn't have to "make up his mind" - he can just work with probability based on the evidence he has, and if new evidence contradicts the old, he can alter the probabilities accordingly. This way he never falls into believing/assumptions and thus never closes his mind to the possibility of being wrong.

Just some thoughts!
 
Back
Top Bottom