Why is it that otherwise perfectly intelligent, thoughtful and rationally minded people baulk at the suggestion that sociopaths are conspiring to manipulate and deceive them? And why will they defend this ill-founded position with such vehemence?
History catalogues the machinations of liars, thieves, bullies and narcissists and their devastating effects. In modern times too, evidence of corruption and extraordinary deceptions abound.
We know, without question, that politicians lie and hide their connections and that corporations routinely display utter contempt for moral norms – that corruption surrounds us.
We know that revolving doors between the corporate and political spheres, the lobbying system, corrupt regulators, the media and judiciary mean that wrongdoing is practically never brought to any semblance of genuine justice.
We know that the press makes noise about these matters occasionally but never pursues them with true vigour.
We know that in the intelligence services and law enforcement wrongdoing on a breathtaking scale is commonplace and that, again, justice is never forthcoming.
We know that governments repeatedly ignore or trample on the rights of the people, and actively abuse and mistreat the people. None of this is controversial.
So exactly what is it that conspiracy deniers refuse to acknowledge with such fervour, righteousness and condescension? Why, against all the evidence, do they sneeringly and contemptuously defend the crumbling illusion that ‘the great and good’ are up there somewhere, have everything in hand, have only our best interests at heart, and are scrupulous, wise and sincere? That the press serves the people and truth rather than the crooks? That injustice after injustice result from mistakes and oversights, and never from that dread word: conspiracy?
What reasonable person would continue to inhabit such a fantasy world?
The point of disagreement here is only on the matter of scale. Someone who is genuinely curious about the plans of powerful sociopaths won’t limit the scope of their curiosity to, for example, one corporation, or one nation. Why would they? Such a person assumes that the same patterns on display locally are likely to be found all the way up the power food chain. But the conspiracy denier insists this is preposterous.
Why?
It is painfully obvious that the pyramidical societal and legal structures that humanity has allowed to develop are exactly the kind of dominance hierarchies that undoubtedly favour the sociopath. A humane being operating with a normal and healthy cooperative mindset has little inclination to take part in the combat necessary to climb a corporate or political ladder.
So what do conspiracy deniers imagine the 70 million or more sociopaths in the world do all day, born into a ‘game’, in which all the wealth and power are at the top of the pyramid, while the most effective attributes for ‘winning’ are ruthlessness and amorality? Have they never played Monopoly?
Sociopaths do not choose their worldview consciously, and are simply unable to comprehend why normal people would put themselves at such an incredible disadvantage by limiting themselves with conscientiousness and empathy, which are as beyond the understanding of the sociopath as a world without them are to the humane being.
All the sociopath need do to win in the game is lie publicly whilst conspiring privately. What could be simpler? In 2021, to continue to imagine that the world we inhabit is not largely driven by this dynamic amounts to reckless naiveté bordering on insanity. Where does such an inadvertently destructive impulse originate?
The infant child places an innate trust in those it finds itself with – a trust which is, for the most part, essentially justified. The infant could not survive otherwise.
In a sane and healthy society, this deep instinct would evolve as the psyche developed. As self-awareness, the cognitive and reasoning abilities and scepticism evolved in the individual, this innate trust impulse would continue to be understood as a central need of the psyche. Shared belief systems would exist to consciously evolve and develop this childish impulse in order to place this faith somewhere consciously – in values and beliefs of lasting meaning and worth to the society, the individual, or, ideally, both.
Reverence and respect for tradition, natural forces, ancestors, for reason, truth, beauty, liberty, the innate value of life, or the initiating spirit of all things, might all be considered valid resting places in which to consciously place our trust and faith – as well as those derived from more formalised belief systems.
Regardless of the path taken to evolve and develop a personal faith, it is the bringing of one’s own consciousness and cognition to this innate impulse that is relevant here. I believe this is a profound responsibility – to develop and cultivate a mature faith – which many are, understandably, unaware of.
What occurs when there is a childish need within us which has never evolved beyond its original survival function of trusting those in our environment who are, simply, the most powerful; the most present and active? When we have never truly explored our own psyches, and deeply interrogated what we truly believe and why? When our motivation for trusting anything or anyone goes unchallenged? When philosophy is left to the philosophers?
I suggest the answer is simple, and that the evidence of this phenomenon and the havoc it is wreaking is all around us: the innate impulse to trust the mother never evolves, never encounters and engages with its counterbalance of reason (or mature faith), and remains forever on its ‘default’ infant setting.
While the immature psyche no longer depends on parents for its well-being, the powerful and motivating core tenet I have described remains intact: unchallenged, unconsidered and undeveloped. And, in a world in which stability and security are distant memories, these survival instincts, rather than being well-honed, considered, relevant, discerning and up to date, remain, quite literally, those of a baby. Trust is placed in the biggest, loudest, most present and undeniable force around, because instinct decrees that survival depends on it.
And, in this great ‘world nursery’, the most omnipresent force is the network of institutions which consistently project an unearned image of power, calm, expertise, concern and stability.
In my view, this is how conspiracy deniers are able to cling to and aggressively defend the utterly illogical fantasy that somehow – above a certain undefined level of the societal hierarchy – corruption, deceit, malevolence and narcissism mysteriously evaporate. That, contrary to the maxim, the more power a person has, the more integrity they will inevitably exhibit. These poor deluded souls essentially believe that where personal experience and prior knowledge cannot fill in the gaps in their worldview – in short, where there is a barred door – mummy and daddy are behind it, working out how best to ensure that their little precious will be comfortable, happy and safe forever.
This is the core, comforting illusion at the root of the conspiracy denier’s mindset, the decrepit foundation upon which they build a towering castle of justification from which to pompously jeer at and mock those who see otherwise.
This explains why it is that the conspiracy denier will attack any suggestion that the caregiving archetype is no longer present – that sociopaths are behind the barred door, who hold us all in utter contempt or disregard us completely. The conspiracy denier will attack any such suggestion as viciously as if their survival depended on it – which, in a way, within the makeup of their unconscious and precarious psyche, it does.
Their sense of well-being, of security, of comfort, even of a future at all, is completely (and completely unconsciously) invested in this fantasy. The infant has never matured, and, because they are not conscious of this, other than as a deep attachment to their personal security, they will fiercely attack any threat to this unconscious and central aspect of their worldview.
The tediously common refrain from the conspiracy denier is, ‘there couldn’t be a conspiracy that big’.
The simple retort to such a self-professed expert on conspiracies is obvious: how big?
The biggest ‘medical’ corporations in the world can go for decades treating the settling of court cases as mere business expenses, for crimes ranging from the suppressing of adverse test events to multiple murders resulting from undeclared testing to colossal environmental crimes.
Governments perform the vilest and most unthinkable ‘experiments’ (crimes) on their own people without consequence.
Politicians habitually lie to our faces, without consequence.
And on and on. At what point, exactly, does a conspiracy become so big that ‘they’ just couldn’t get away with it, and why? I suggest it’s at the point where the cognitive ability of the conspiracy denier falters, and their unconscious survival instinct kicks in. The point at which the intellect becomes overwhelmed with the scope of events and the instinct is to settle back into the familiar comforting faith known and cultivated since the first moment one’s lips found the nipple. The faith that someone else is dealing with it – that where the world becomes unknown to us, a powerful and benevolent human authority exists in which we have only to place our faith unconditionally in order to guarantee eternal emotional security.
This dangerous delusion may be the central factor placing humanity’s physical security and future in the hands of sociopaths.
To anyone in the habit of dismissing people who are questioning, investigative and sceptical as tin foil hat wearing, paranoid, science-denying Trump supporters, the question is: what do you believe in? Where have you placed your faith and why? How is it that while no one trusts governments, you appear to trust nascent global governance organisations without question? How is this rational?
If you are placing faith in such organisations, consider that in the modern global age, these organisations, as extraordinarily well presented as they are, are simply grander manifestations of the local versions we know we can’t trust. They are not our parents and demonstrate no loyalty to humane values. There is no reason to place any faith whatsoever in any of them.
If you haven’t consciously developed a faith or questioned why you believe as you do to some depth, such a position might seem misanthropic, but in truth, it is the opposite. These organisations have not earned your trust with anything other than PR money and glossy lies. True power remains, as ever, with the people.
There is a reason why Buddhists strongly advise the placing of one’s faith in the Dharma, or the natural law of life, rather than in persons, and that similar refrains are common in other belief systems.
Power corrupts. And, in the world today, misplaced and unfounded trust could well be one of the greatest sources of power there is.
Massive criminal conspiracies exist. The evidence is overwhelming. The scope of those currently underway is unknown, but there is no reason to imagine, in the new global age, that the sociopathic quest for power or the possession of the resources required to move towards it is diminishing. Certainly not while dissent is mocked and censored into silence by gatekeepers, ‘useful idiots’, and conspiracy deniers, who are, in fact, directly colluding with the sociopathic agenda through their unrelenting attack on those who would shine a light on wrongdoing.
It is every humane being’s urgent responsibility to expose sociopathic agendas wherever they exist – never to attack those who seek to do so.
Now, more than ever, it is time to put away childish things, and childish impulses, and to stand up as adults to protect the future of the actual children who h
That's what mankind needs to comprehend...the ego is based on reason; reason is based on the conflict between truth and false, which is defined by belief based words (brands; idols) as substitutes for reality.
Words represent a corruption of communication; reason represents a corruption of comprehending reality; and the ego represents a continuous temptation to keep ignoring the former corruptions.
talmudic reasoning controls human reason through the use of contradictions; the beast system (a self perpetuating pyramid scheme) feeds the ego with temptations, and all words (idols) are in control of those who offer them to those who consent by believing them (spell-craft utilizing the contract of belief aka offer meets consent under the laws of nature).
I would not refer to them as sociopaths. I would call them satanists. Being a satanist starts from sociopathic tendencies, but also amplifies those tendencies. Most of the so called skeptics here are advancing the agenda of that religion.
Aka consent (want versus not want) to the suggested information by another. The versus represents the ad-vers-ary aka reasoning about suggested information (fiction); while ignoring perceivable inspiration (reality).
You don’t think reasoning is innate, and comes from within? I would refer to reasoning as the (attempted, and usually failed) logical process to deduce/understand.
I agree that it is largely/heavily influenced by the words of others, many not engaging in reasoning (falsehood, instead), however surely some of them are?!
Can no one reason at all? Is reasoning not involved in piercing the veil of what we observe in perceivable reality. Much of what we perceive/see is not what is, and reasoning/deduction is required to understand what is happening further - right?
You don’t think reasoning is innate, and comes from within?
a) everything comes "through" within; hence everything is being impressed (perception); compressed (comprehension) and then, depending on choice, expressed (growth) or repressed (loss).
b) IN'NATE, adjective [Latin innatus, from innascor; in and nascor, to be born.]...to be (perceiving) implies out of (perceivable); hence being form (life) out of flow (inception towards death).
c) REASON, noun (Greek; to say or speak, whence rhetoric) implies reaction by choice to enacted balance (need/want).
I would refer to reasoning as the (attempted, and usually failed) logical process to deduce/understand.
a) living implies being processed within dying; hence representing the temporary resistance to ongoing velocity.
b) life as the temporary within the ongoing can only "attempt", hence the struggle to growth within loss.
c) understanding represents "standing under" suggested information; hence consenting to want or not want what others are suggesting; while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable inspiration.
d) to deduce (draw from) implies growing comprehension (compressed within) out of perceivable (impressed upon). The ongoing flow (inception towards death) represents the only source for recharge for the temporary form (life) within.
I agree that it is largely/heavily influenced by the words of others, many not engaging in reasoning (falsehood, instead), however surely some of them are?!
a) agreement vs disagreement; true vs false; good vs bad; believing vs not believing; capitalism vs communism; pro-life vs pro-choice; coke vs pepsi etc. all represent the rebranding of wanting vs not wanting the suggested information by others.
b) choice can only exist at the center of balance; hence as responding form within the momentum (balance) of enacting flow. That momentum represents the ever changing moment one has to adapt to.
c) choice at the center of perceivable balance (need/want) is tempted to ignore this for the suggested imbalances (want vs not want) from others.
d) underneath every suggestion operates choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law aka the inversion of perceivable balance (action) to choice (reaction) natural law.
e) all words are shaped and suggested by choice to choice. Nature does not offer suggested information; it moves everything; which the senses within perceive as inspiration for adaptation. Therefore; one perceives sound before suggested word.
f) thinking in words represents misusing memory (mind) to accumulate suggested information; which then constantly tempts one to remember aka to respond to memory filled with fiction instead of to perceivable reality. If you look at your child and remember his birth; then you ignore that which is (your child) for that which was (memory of his birth). Now reconsider what others could tempt you to ignore with nonstop suggested information?
g) take breathing; thirst and hunger as the perceivable foundation of adaptation. What would you reason (want vs not want) about? Does it matter if you want or not want to breath? Are you corrupting your comprehension by keep ignoring the need to breathe? How easy is it to tempt one to reason about wanting vs not wanting suggested "taste"; while ignoring perceivable "hunger"? Now we suddenly have suggested convenience stores; yet a majority in ignorance about how to grow food and just like that an inconvenience store can utilize supply chain issues to weaponize hunger for all those who want convenience.
Can no one reason at all?
Everyone has the free will of choice to ignore perceivable (need) for suggested (want) and falling for the temptation of the latter causes the imbalance; the conflict; the reasoning (want vs not want). There's no restriction upon choice unless consented to the suggested choices of others, and so the host weakness of ignoring perceivable (inspiration) tempted the parasitic response of suggestion (information) as weaponized temptation.
Being "free" will of choice at the center of "dom"inating balance represents free-dom. All restriction upon freedom are caused by choosing want (suggested) over need (perceivable).
Living represents the struggle to resist the temptation of dying...for that one requires response-ability (choice).
Is reasoning not involved in piercing the veil of what we observe in perceivable reality?
a) the consequences of every reaction represent both inspiration and temptation to ones choice. Without others fighting each other within the hamster-wheel of reason; I would've had an even harder time to comprehend how a 3rd party could use suggestion to cause division (reason) among the consenting majority.
b) this isn't about reasoning good or bad (which in itself represents reasoning about reasoning); but about ones own growth of comprehension; growth of potential; growth of resistance; growth of self discernment; growth of efficiency as choice and so on.
c) the veil represents ones lack of comprehending all perceivable, and ignorance (choice of want over need) tempts more ignorance; hence further corrupting comprehension. Each one at the center of all represents an expressing ecosystem; yet that expression requires effort (struggle to grow within loss).
d) from a different perspective...the more one adapts to being moved; the more one comprehends about motion. Every word suggested represents an affixed meaning (information); tempting us to ignore the moving meaning (inspiration).
Much of what we perceive/see is not what is, and reasoning/deduction is required to understand what is happening further - right?
a) your reasoning about right (want) vs wrong (not want) is what causes you to ignore "everything" perceivable for suggested "nothing". As one thing within every thing; one cannot perceive no thing. Yes (want) vs no (not want) represents yet another rebranded conflict of reason; which ignores perceivable change (need).
b) all that is happening can only happen within momentum aka within the ever changing moment. Not suggested time (past; present and future); but perceivable time (tick; tick; tick...) aka ongoing momentum.
c) try utilizing need over want; perceivable inspiration over suggested information and implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want) to stay clear of most deception; yet this requires frequency of choice; hence repeated adaptation to inspiration as to grow your comprehension thereof.
Reading; agreeing and understanding does not represent the growth of comprehension. You need to compress the impressed for expression; which you can also help teach yourself with breathing (Latin spiro; spirit; hence in-spirit-ation). Allow the impressing in by filling your chest to capacity; then compress it within your lungs; then express it all. Focus on the struggle of compressing; which will slowly grow your lung capacity and your comprehension (compression).
That being said...there are no suggested guides for self discernment. It has to be by yourself. If this helps you to discern; then because you chose to use it as inspiration; not because whatever I wrote; which for you represents suggested temptation.
And the whole purpose is that no human beings will survive that 4th industrial revolution and Great Reset they are talking about.
It will be deliberate and the end results are easily visible in the Soviet Russian and CCP Collective Farms, the Maoist Cultural Revolution and Khmer Rouge.
Mass death and depopulation until 4M are left.
By that point I doubt the 4M will be even human and the Elite could just exile them into the wilderness and replace us with GMO beautiful ones.
psychopathic killer cannibals that will kill and eat their own like wild animals...but what happens will be even worse
Now take a step towards your nearest window; look at for example the birds outside, and consider why they; despite all the horror within your mind, seem to be busy adhering to self sustenance under the laws of nature aka survival.
And guess what animal represents? AN'IMAL, noun [Latin animal from anima, air, breath, soul.] Interesting how this all seems to indicate a corruption within the individual ONEs mind...
It’s one of the stupidest lies the MIC ever told. But if you repeat any stupid lie loud enough and long enough, people start to believe it. Repetition (conditioning) works on everybody.
A conspiracy is merely a crime planned or committed by 2 or more. They are everywhere at all times, and if you think people can’t/don’t keep secrets together to better themselves at your expense - you are a fool.
Why is it that otherwise perfectly intelligent, thoughtful and rationally minded people baulk at the suggestion that sociopaths are conspiring to manipulate and deceive them? And why will they defend this ill-founded position with such vehemence?
History catalogues the machinations of liars, thieves, bullies and narcissists and their devastating effects. In modern times too, evidence of corruption and extraordinary deceptions abound.
We know, without question, that politicians lie and hide their connections and that corporations routinely display utter contempt for moral norms – that corruption surrounds us.
We know that revolving doors between the corporate and political spheres, the lobbying system, corrupt regulators, the media and judiciary mean that wrongdoing is practically never brought to any semblance of genuine justice.
We know that the press makes noise about these matters occasionally but never pursues them with true vigour.
We know that in the intelligence services and law enforcement wrongdoing on a breathtaking scale is commonplace and that, again, justice is never forthcoming.
We know that governments repeatedly ignore or trample on the rights of the people, and actively abuse and mistreat the people. None of this is controversial.
So exactly what is it that conspiracy deniers refuse to acknowledge with such fervour, righteousness and condescension? Why, against all the evidence, do they sneeringly and contemptuously defend the crumbling illusion that ‘the great and good’ are up there somewhere, have everything in hand, have only our best interests at heart, and are scrupulous, wise and sincere? That the press serves the people and truth rather than the crooks? That injustice after injustice result from mistakes and oversights, and never from that dread word: conspiracy?
What reasonable person would continue to inhabit such a fantasy world?
The point of disagreement here is only on the matter of scale. Someone who is genuinely curious about the plans of powerful sociopaths won’t limit the scope of their curiosity to, for example, one corporation, or one nation. Why would they? Such a person assumes that the same patterns on display locally are likely to be found all the way up the power food chain. But the conspiracy denier insists this is preposterous.
Why?
It is painfully obvious that the pyramidical societal and legal structures that humanity has allowed to develop are exactly the kind of dominance hierarchies that undoubtedly favour the sociopath. A humane being operating with a normal and healthy cooperative mindset has little inclination to take part in the combat necessary to climb a corporate or political ladder.
So what do conspiracy deniers imagine the 70 million or more sociopaths in the world do all day, born into a ‘game’, in which all the wealth and power are at the top of the pyramid, while the most effective attributes for ‘winning’ are ruthlessness and amorality? Have they never played Monopoly?
Sociopaths do not choose their worldview consciously, and are simply unable to comprehend why normal people would put themselves at such an incredible disadvantage by limiting themselves with conscientiousness and empathy, which are as beyond the understanding of the sociopath as a world without them are to the humane being.
All the sociopath need do to win in the game is lie publicly whilst conspiring privately. What could be simpler? In 2021, to continue to imagine that the world we inhabit is not largely driven by this dynamic amounts to reckless naiveté bordering on insanity. Where does such an inadvertently destructive impulse originate?
The infant child places an innate trust in those it finds itself with – a trust which is, for the most part, essentially justified. The infant could not survive otherwise.
In a sane and healthy society, this deep instinct would evolve as the psyche developed. As self-awareness, the cognitive and reasoning abilities and scepticism evolved in the individual, this innate trust impulse would continue to be understood as a central need of the psyche. Shared belief systems would exist to consciously evolve and develop this childish impulse in order to place this faith somewhere consciously – in values and beliefs of lasting meaning and worth to the society, the individual, or, ideally, both.
Reverence and respect for tradition, natural forces, ancestors, for reason, truth, beauty, liberty, the innate value of life, or the initiating spirit of all things, might all be considered valid resting places in which to consciously place our trust and faith – as well as those derived from more formalised belief systems.
Regardless of the path taken to evolve and develop a personal faith, it is the bringing of one’s own consciousness and cognition to this innate impulse that is relevant here. I believe this is a profound responsibility – to develop and cultivate a mature faith – which many are, understandably, unaware of.
What occurs when there is a childish need within us which has never evolved beyond its original survival function of trusting those in our environment who are, simply, the most powerful; the most present and active? When we have never truly explored our own psyches, and deeply interrogated what we truly believe and why? When our motivation for trusting anything or anyone goes unchallenged? When philosophy is left to the philosophers?
I suggest the answer is simple, and that the evidence of this phenomenon and the havoc it is wreaking is all around us: the innate impulse to trust the mother never evolves, never encounters and engages with its counterbalance of reason (or mature faith), and remains forever on its ‘default’ infant setting.
While the immature psyche no longer depends on parents for its well-being, the powerful and motivating core tenet I have described remains intact: unchallenged, unconsidered and undeveloped. And, in a world in which stability and security are distant memories, these survival instincts, rather than being well-honed, considered, relevant, discerning and up to date, remain, quite literally, those of a baby. Trust is placed in the biggest, loudest, most present and undeniable force around, because instinct decrees that survival depends on it.
And, in this great ‘world nursery’, the most omnipresent force is the network of institutions which consistently project an unearned image of power, calm, expertise, concern and stability.
In my view, this is how conspiracy deniers are able to cling to and aggressively defend the utterly illogical fantasy that somehow – above a certain undefined level of the societal hierarchy – corruption, deceit, malevolence and narcissism mysteriously evaporate. That, contrary to the maxim, the more power a person has, the more integrity they will inevitably exhibit. These poor deluded souls essentially believe that where personal experience and prior knowledge cannot fill in the gaps in their worldview – in short, where there is a barred door – mummy and daddy are behind it, working out how best to ensure that their little precious will be comfortable, happy and safe forever.
This is the core, comforting illusion at the root of the conspiracy denier’s mindset, the decrepit foundation upon which they build a towering castle of justification from which to pompously jeer at and mock those who see otherwise.
This explains why it is that the conspiracy denier will attack any suggestion that the caregiving archetype is no longer present – that sociopaths are behind the barred door, who hold us all in utter contempt or disregard us completely. The conspiracy denier will attack any such suggestion as viciously as if their survival depended on it – which, in a way, within the makeup of their unconscious and precarious psyche, it does.
Their sense of well-being, of security, of comfort, even of a future at all, is completely (and completely unconsciously) invested in this fantasy. The infant has never matured, and, because they are not conscious of this, other than as a deep attachment to their personal security, they will fiercely attack any threat to this unconscious and central aspect of their worldview.
The tediously common refrain from the conspiracy denier is, ‘there couldn’t be a conspiracy that big’.
The simple retort to such a self-professed expert on conspiracies is obvious: how big?
The biggest ‘medical’ corporations in the world can go for decades treating the settling of court cases as mere business expenses, for crimes ranging from the suppressing of adverse test events to multiple murders resulting from undeclared testing to colossal environmental crimes.
Governments perform the vilest and most unthinkable ‘experiments’ (crimes) on their own people without consequence.
Politicians habitually lie to our faces, without consequence.
And on and on. At what point, exactly, does a conspiracy become so big that ‘they’ just couldn’t get away with it, and why? I suggest it’s at the point where the cognitive ability of the conspiracy denier falters, and their unconscious survival instinct kicks in. The point at which the intellect becomes overwhelmed with the scope of events and the instinct is to settle back into the familiar comforting faith known and cultivated since the first moment one’s lips found the nipple. The faith that someone else is dealing with it – that where the world becomes unknown to us, a powerful and benevolent human authority exists in which we have only to place our faith unconditionally in order to guarantee eternal emotional security.
This dangerous delusion may be the central factor placing humanity’s physical security and future in the hands of sociopaths.
To anyone in the habit of dismissing people who are questioning, investigative and sceptical as tin foil hat wearing, paranoid, science-denying Trump supporters, the question is: what do you believe in? Where have you placed your faith and why? How is it that while no one trusts governments, you appear to trust nascent global governance organisations without question? How is this rational?
If you are placing faith in such organisations, consider that in the modern global age, these organisations, as extraordinarily well presented as they are, are simply grander manifestations of the local versions we know we can’t trust. They are not our parents and demonstrate no loyalty to humane values. There is no reason to place any faith whatsoever in any of them.
If you haven’t consciously developed a faith or questioned why you believe as you do to some depth, such a position might seem misanthropic, but in truth, it is the opposite. These organisations have not earned your trust with anything other than PR money and glossy lies. True power remains, as ever, with the people.
There is a reason why Buddhists strongly advise the placing of one’s faith in the Dharma, or the natural law of life, rather than in persons, and that similar refrains are common in other belief systems.
Power corrupts. And, in the world today, misplaced and unfounded trust could well be one of the greatest sources of power there is.
Massive criminal conspiracies exist. The evidence is overwhelming. The scope of those currently underway is unknown, but there is no reason to imagine, in the new global age, that the sociopathic quest for power or the possession of the resources required to move towards it is diminishing. Certainly not while dissent is mocked and censored into silence by gatekeepers, ‘useful idiots’, and conspiracy deniers, who are, in fact, directly colluding with the sociopathic agenda through their unrelenting attack on those who would shine a light on wrongdoing.
It is every humane being’s urgent responsibility to expose sociopathic agendas wherever they exist – never to attack those who seek to do so.
Now, more than ever, it is time to put away childish things, and childish impulses, and to stand up as adults to protect the future of the actual children who h
Brilliant! Well thought and explained. I wish everyone was able to read this and think on these words.
A stolen term; repurposed by the anti-human scumbag (((Freud))) and ever since used within the weapon of psychoanalysis. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=sociopath&year_start=1500&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3#
That's what mankind needs to comprehend...the ego is based on reason; reason is based on the conflict between truth and false, which is defined by belief based words (brands; idols) as substitutes for reality.
Words represent a corruption of communication; reason represents a corruption of comprehending reality; and the ego represents a continuous temptation to keep ignoring the former corruptions.
talmudic reasoning controls human reason through the use of contradictions; the beast system (a self perpetuating pyramid scheme) feeds the ego with temptations, and all words (idols) are in control of those who offer them to those who consent by believing them (spell-craft utilizing the contract of belief aka offer meets consent under the laws of nature).
I would not refer to them as sociopaths. I would call them satanists. Being a satanist starts from sociopathic tendencies, but also amplifies those tendencies. Most of the so called skeptics here are advancing the agenda of that religion.
SA'TAN, noun [Heb. an adversary]. Between inception and death...what represents the adversary to reality?
A: Belief
Aka consent (want versus not want) to the suggested information by another. The versus represents the ad-vers-ary aka reasoning about suggested information (fiction); while ignoring perceivable inspiration (reality).
You don’t think reasoning is innate, and comes from within? I would refer to reasoning as the (attempted, and usually failed) logical process to deduce/understand.
I agree that it is largely/heavily influenced by the words of others, many not engaging in reasoning (falsehood, instead), however surely some of them are?!
Can no one reason at all? Is reasoning not involved in piercing the veil of what we observe in perceivable reality. Much of what we perceive/see is not what is, and reasoning/deduction is required to understand what is happening further - right?
Awesome point about ad-vers-ary though...
a) everything comes "through" within; hence everything is being impressed (perception); compressed (comprehension) and then, depending on choice, expressed (growth) or repressed (loss).
b) IN'NATE, adjective [Latin innatus, from innascor; in and nascor, to be born.]...to be (perceiving) implies out of (perceivable); hence being form (life) out of flow (inception towards death).
c) REASON, noun (Greek; to say or speak, whence rhetoric) implies reaction by choice to enacted balance (need/want).
a) living implies being processed within dying; hence representing the temporary resistance to ongoing velocity.
b) life as the temporary within the ongoing can only "attempt", hence the struggle to growth within loss.
c) understanding represents "standing under" suggested information; hence consenting to want or not want what others are suggesting; while ignoring the need to adapt to perceivable inspiration.
d) to deduce (draw from) implies growing comprehension (compressed within) out of perceivable (impressed upon). The ongoing flow (inception towards death) represents the only source for recharge for the temporary form (life) within.
a) agreement vs disagreement; true vs false; good vs bad; believing vs not believing; capitalism vs communism; pro-life vs pro-choice; coke vs pepsi etc. all represent the rebranding of wanting vs not wanting the suggested information by others.
b) choice can only exist at the center of balance; hence as responding form within the momentum (balance) of enacting flow. That momentum represents the ever changing moment one has to adapt to.
c) choice at the center of perceivable balance (need/want) is tempted to ignore this for the suggested imbalances (want vs not want) from others.
d) underneath every suggestion operates choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law aka the inversion of perceivable balance (action) to choice (reaction) natural law.
e) all words are shaped and suggested by choice to choice. Nature does not offer suggested information; it moves everything; which the senses within perceive as inspiration for adaptation. Therefore; one perceives sound before suggested word.
f) thinking in words represents misusing memory (mind) to accumulate suggested information; which then constantly tempts one to remember aka to respond to memory filled with fiction instead of to perceivable reality. If you look at your child and remember his birth; then you ignore that which is (your child) for that which was (memory of his birth). Now reconsider what others could tempt you to ignore with nonstop suggested information?
g) take breathing; thirst and hunger as the perceivable foundation of adaptation. What would you reason (want vs not want) about? Does it matter if you want or not want to breath? Are you corrupting your comprehension by keep ignoring the need to breathe? How easy is it to tempt one to reason about wanting vs not wanting suggested "taste"; while ignoring perceivable "hunger"? Now we suddenly have suggested convenience stores; yet a majority in ignorance about how to grow food and just like that an inconvenience store can utilize supply chain issues to weaponize hunger for all those who want convenience.
Everyone has the free will of choice to ignore perceivable (need) for suggested (want) and falling for the temptation of the latter causes the imbalance; the conflict; the reasoning (want vs not want). There's no restriction upon choice unless consented to the suggested choices of others, and so the host weakness of ignoring perceivable (inspiration) tempted the parasitic response of suggestion (information) as weaponized temptation.
Being "free" will of choice at the center of "dom"inating balance represents free-dom. All restriction upon freedom are caused by choosing want (suggested) over need (perceivable).
Living represents the struggle to resist the temptation of dying...for that one requires response-ability (choice).
a) the consequences of every reaction represent both inspiration and temptation to ones choice. Without others fighting each other within the hamster-wheel of reason; I would've had an even harder time to comprehend how a 3rd party could use suggestion to cause division (reason) among the consenting majority.
b) this isn't about reasoning good or bad (which in itself represents reasoning about reasoning); but about ones own growth of comprehension; growth of potential; growth of resistance; growth of self discernment; growth of efficiency as choice and so on.
c) the veil represents ones lack of comprehending all perceivable, and ignorance (choice of want over need) tempts more ignorance; hence further corrupting comprehension. Each one at the center of all represents an expressing ecosystem; yet that expression requires effort (struggle to grow within loss).
d) from a different perspective...the more one adapts to being moved; the more one comprehends about motion. Every word suggested represents an affixed meaning (information); tempting us to ignore the moving meaning (inspiration).
a) your reasoning about right (want) vs wrong (not want) is what causes you to ignore "everything" perceivable for suggested "nothing". As one thing within every thing; one cannot perceive no thing. Yes (want) vs no (not want) represents yet another rebranded conflict of reason; which ignores perceivable change (need).
b) all that is happening can only happen within momentum aka within the ever changing moment. Not suggested time (past; present and future); but perceivable time (tick; tick; tick...) aka ongoing momentum.
c) try utilizing need over want; perceivable inspiration over suggested information and implication (if/then) over reason (want vs not want) to stay clear of most deception; yet this requires frequency of choice; hence repeated adaptation to inspiration as to grow your comprehension thereof.
Reading; agreeing and understanding does not represent the growth of comprehension. You need to compress the impressed for expression; which you can also help teach yourself with breathing (Latin spiro; spirit; hence in-spirit-ation). Allow the impressing in by filling your chest to capacity; then compress it within your lungs; then express it all. Focus on the struggle of compressing; which will slowly grow your lung capacity and your comprehension (compression).
That being said...there are no suggested guides for self discernment. It has to be by yourself. If this helps you to discern; then because you chose to use it as inspiration; not because whatever I wrote; which for you represents suggested temptation.
Thanks for the inspiration.
The most common reaction of the "Covid crisis" is that it will end up like the Spanish Flu, Fukushima or even Swine Flu.
Wrong.
This is the New Normal and the Great Reset.
And a Great Reset sums up as the evolution of society into psychopathic killer cannibals that will kill and eat their own like wild animals.
It's often compared to the Walking Dead or Resident Evil, but what happens will be even worse.
And the whole purpose is that no human beings will survive that 4th industrial revolution and Great Reset they are talking about.
It will be deliberate and the end results are easily visible in the Soviet Russian and CCP Collective Farms, the Maoist Cultural Revolution and Khmer Rouge.
Mass death and depopulation until 4M are left.
By that point I doubt the 4M will be even human and the Elite could just exile them into the wilderness and replace us with GMO beautiful ones.
Now take a step towards your nearest window; look at for example the birds outside, and consider why they; despite all the horror within your mind, seem to be busy adhering to self sustenance under the laws of nature aka survival.
And guess what animal represents? AN'IMAL, noun [Latin animal from anima, air, breath, soul.] Interesting how this all seems to indicate a corruption within the individual ONEs mind...
It’s one of the stupidest lies the MIC ever told. But if you repeat any stupid lie loud enough and long enough, people start to believe it. Repetition (conditioning) works on everybody.
A conspiracy is merely a crime planned or committed by 2 or more. They are everywhere at all times, and if you think people can’t/don’t keep secrets together to better themselves at your expense - you are a fool.