Quote:
Posted by
Dennis Leahy
So,
let's look past Q, and R, and ask ourselves: how in the hell could we possibly allow ourselves to believe that known bad guys are good guys? How can our discernment be so far out of whack that we would dig through R drops and find something real or true, and conflate that to equal that Clinton is not just one of the good guys, but the leader of the good guys? How could we ever be so gullible as to accept that Clinton has humanity's best interests at heart? How could we give her a pass on the verifiable history of the evil actions taken by Clinton?
There is only one gigantic financial/corporate network on Earth. Global in scope. Globalists by network. Please see
this post, for a diagram/fingerprint of the network. Q and R are trying to convince us that their hero, although tied to and controlled by this network, is somehow a good guy. Note that the USA trillion dollar budget is about 2/3rds
military industrial complex corporations, and (I can't think of an exception), all of the giant multinational corporations are evil to the core. The more deeply tied to this network, the more demonstrably evil an individual is.
Shouldn't our discernment kick in at this point?
Looking past Q for a moment...
Some of my personal musings on the nature of evil and the topic of discernment.
The Tibetans didn’t believe evil actually existed as a thing in and of itself. “Evil”, they say, stems from the 3 kleshas i.e. 3 poisons or 3 fundamental character flaws, which when combined in various ways produce all myriad of twisted and perverted behaviour that we’d normally label as evil.
3 poisons symbolised by:
- Pig = ignorance
- Snake = attachment
- Cockerel = aversion
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b0/92...6aca225110.jpg
Discernment is cultivated through Distinction! The ability to recognise individual features within the whole. Separating the trees from the forest. The Wheat from the Chaff.
“
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right name” (Confucius - Rectification of names)
Quote:
Confucius was asked what he would do if he was a governor. He said he would "rectify the names" to make words correspond to reality. The phrase has now become known as a doctrine of feudal Confucian designations and relationships, behaving accordingly to ensure social harmony.[1] Without such accordance society would essentially crumble and "undertakings would not be completed."[2] Mencius extended the doctrine to include questions of political legitimacy.[3
A question to reflect on... how much more improved would our discernment skills be if instead of only having a binary choice i.e. ‘good guy’ vs ‘bad guy’, we had multiple systems of personality assessment that gave dozens of potential qualities to make distinctions between?
A person who sees the world in technicolour can enjoy better contrast, better perspective, with more detailed analysis within a complex system, than a person who analyses the world with a binary selection of black or white.
What if our discernment skills were drawn from a richer pallete?
The Neo-Platonists made distinctions using their hierarchy of virtues:
Iamblichus, in his work On Virtues (not preserved today), develops the scale of virtues of Porphyry's Sententiae 32 (O’Meara 2003; Kalligas 2014; Finamore 2012). Iamblichus added two more virtues below the political: the natural virtues (at the lowest level) and the ethical virtues (below the political virtues), as well as the hieratic virtues at the highest level of the scale. Iamblichus' scale of virtues, following an ascending order is: (1) natural; (2) ethical; (3) civic; (4) purifying; (5) contemplative; (6) paradigmatic and (7) hieratic.
Walter Russell Mead breaks America’s deep state politics into 4 factions — in his book
Special Provedance, with each faction having sub-factions, and those sub factions forming alliances with other factions, and each of those new sub-sub-factions having their own lobbyist groups, aims, objectives, inclinations and desires. As Walter Mead puts it, American Politics isn’t a clear cut picture, it’s more like a kaleidoscopic mess of shifting gears and moving parts in a fractal like nature... as complex as the cellular systems in our body.
The Tibetans diagnosed and treated maladies using their 3 kleshas, 10 directions, 4 noble truths, 8 fold path, 5 skandhas,
7 treasures,
3 cauldrons.
The Egyptians had their Ennead and pantheon of neters to describe different facets of human behaviour.
The Ancient mystery traditions understood that the more assessment systems a person could comprehend — the wider their vocabulary in those matters — the more precise their discernment skills would become. The divinised intellect, ‘Atum-Ra’, the illuminated mind, capable of using heka to speak reality into existence. They each had the fundamental concept that “all is the one, all is the self” yet they created greater distinctions within that fundamental concept because they understood that recognising features in relation to the whole produced ‘hygia’ - hygiene of the psyche in union with the creative soul of the cosmos.
There’s a couple quotes i’ve tried to live by throughout the years that help keep me in a mind-space of perpetual learning. The first I heard on an episode ‘Young Sherlock Holmes’ when I was younger...
“
To judge that which you dont understand is the basis of stupidity”.
Combine that with Socrates...
“
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing”
Whenever I form judgements around a topic, I always remind myself of these quotes and ask myself “
do I really understand all sides of the situation to a fine enough degree to really be making judgements about it?”
Almost 100% of the time there’s always a new angle that can be explored that enriches and deepens my comprehension. I find that making snap judgements only serves to prevent people from digging deeper, making finer and finer distinctions, thereby limiting discernment. A lifetime process of cultivation and fine tuning is required to embellish the picture. Anyone whose been through that painstaking process would find it sacrilege to label something ‘good’ or ‘bad’, nuance and objectivity are demanded in its place.
It might not be the right approach to some, but it’s my approach. That’s how I use my discernment to discern who to pay attention to at least, people who have precise and detailed focus of the material aspects, as well as having insight and comprehension of the bigger picture (including the archetypal aspects).
The Q drops and anon research can be read in 10 minutes a day. That leaves a whole 23 hours to find other experts to cross-correlate and verify any tangible information that stands out in the daily news cycle.
People that choose to spend all day analysing the Q drops are important for those of us who don’t have time to focus on one thing with such tunnel vision intent. Especially with the symbolic attention to detail the autists put into analysing the drops? That part of the Q research goes right over my head (i.e. Trump taking 17 steps to meet Kim Jong Un:noidea:) but I find that when I step back and just allow those data points to be present without judgement, new data points emerge that add meaning to existing data points, thereby creating greater contrast and distinction.
Like those paintings that are made up of dots, if you judge each dot individually, it’s just a blight on a piece of paper, but when you step back and see how all the dots coalesce together, you start to recognise patterns and boundaries where distinctions can be made to fine tune our understanding of the bigger picture.
http://www.thepluspaper.com/wp-conte.../2015/09/3.jpg
Dennis, I actually think your research is pretty good, I just disagree with the distinctions of your conclusions about the nature of ‘good’, ‘evil’, ‘bad’ etc. I think a more Tibetan approach can be applied, because the 3 kleshas (poisons) can be transmuted into life enhancing elixirs when the alchemy of awareness is brought to focus on them. They don’t need to be destroyed, only to be transformed in order to raise us from hell to heaven in the greater cycle of
bhavacakra:
https://www.lib.uidaho.edu/digital/t...ages/yamas.jpg
As Jung said “
I’d rather be whole than good”.
That’s my thought process around contentious topics anyway. :flower: