No criticism

[ZooLife]

Voltaire really hit the head with this one.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtXJEzsCIAEpynO.jpg:large


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIpyGQxa2ZY

The wave prefers no opposition but it realizes that it will be found out for what it is unless it at least has the 'appearance' of allowing opposition.

[waves]

I agree. And I think under the same umbrella is my observation that the alternative community is more and more making the same big mistakes we said we were gathering elsewhere to get away from.

Our critical thinking is fading of our own annointed sacred cows.

People within the alternative community pick their 'truths', issues and heroes to align with, it becomes 'their' cause to fiercely defend.. and in the process become utterly blind and closed off to the failings and deceptions of their heroes. Makes for very easy manipulation of the so called awake community by the - don't forget, looooooong pre-planted and planned - clever controlled opposition who mix mud with cutting edge insight that makes people feel special that they can 'see' and hook them into aligning with them. Their critical thinking shuts off and they start making excuses for crap they at first would have found questionable.

For example, I don't see any difference whatsoever in the way vaccine defenders nitpick and attack the attackers, keep listing all the good things they believe vaccines have done but completely ignore all the valid points being put on the table that undermines their sacred allegiance.... and the same nitpicking killing the messenger reaction of those defending Alex Jones recently HERE while totally ignoring the valid points being made of the clever conintelpro figure he sure adds up to behind that insider/exposer 'truth' persona. But... but... but... he's <flower flower flower>..... we need him.... he's done so much good... so what if he.... - people wrote as if personally attacked. But all those responses were everything but addressing the valid points that were clearly and unpersonalattackingly put on the table for observation.

If muddying the waters like this was the long term goal of the controlled opposition to keep the truth disorganized and foment dissent among the dissenters, it's working admirably.

[Sierra]

No criticism? Sometimes discernment is required to determine if criticism is justified.

Mod hat on:

The person you refer to displayed most of the classic signs of a shill, in his over the top attack on an alternative community public figure. Nothing personal, if he had attacked David Icke etc. he would have met with the same response from the moderation team.

Avalon is Bill's living room, we are guests, and if one insists on starting an attack based on on a distorted, and biased extraction of out of context quotes, it will be pointed out this is what is going on. As was pointed out, threads started in hostile vein rather than with due diligence and a respectful attitude, do not do well, and almost never produce good results.

A.D. attacked Bill Ryan's very polite post which stated that in his personal opinion to tar someone with a four minute clip extracted from thousands of hours of a daily on air show was perhaps uncalled for, in the light of millions of people brought to the awareness something is not right in our governmental systems.

I have never watched AJ myself, don't want to, but I could not help but notice, the complaints of over the top emotional expression, is exactly what the poster did as well. See the list of invalidating, hostile NLP phrases used in one post (yes, one post), directed at Bill's personal opinion (which A.D. asked for!):




Would the world be a better place if Alex didn't exist? My answer is no... he's woken up literally millions of people. If his style isn't to one's liking, then there are plenty of others to listen to. Tuning in to his show is not compulsory. :)


It's side stepping
merely suggest
It's pretty clear that myself, and the others here
not address the facts
merely saying
same sad, dismissive
merely a way
dismiss any actual, valid
just shrug off
just as dismissive
completely disregards
in no way addresses
those of us
manipulation
very obvious tactics
We are doing something
We are attempting
rest of the herd
We are attempting
obvious deception
sold to masses
We are digging
those psychological tactics
in fact, Bill,
even based
clearly designed
anger and hostility
you dodged
At no point
the clear psychological
the tactics used
steer and manipulate
beyond easy to fool
psychology of the masses
beyond easy to control
understand how to exploit
control society
really bad
ridiculously over-emoting, disingenuous, painfully bad
I find it alarming
obvious corruption and deception
so easily deceived
same exact tactics
I find it alarming
so easily swayed
clearly not
poisoned


Classic, over the top, over emotional ranting shill language.

I've bowdlerized and gutted the following the the sake of brevity:


Disinformation is either intentional distortion or telling lies. The intent behind disinfo is negative. The intent is to limit access to accurate information.

Sign #1
Propagandizing
(Look For: Emotionalization, Oversimplification, & Slogans)

When propaganda isn’t spotted for what it is, look out; done well, it will convey certainty and will echo the clarity of a truly wise being. Propaganda is information that is spread for the purpose of promoting a cause[ /b]. Of course, because information is propagandist doesn’t mean that it’s untrue, [b]but it does mean that there is an agenda—and agendas create a win/lose situation.

Sign #2
Poor Logic
(Look For: Inconsistency & Logical Fallacy)

So look for inconsistencies. That’s where you’ll find the distortions and lies. And keep an eye out for fallacious reasoning. Logical fallacies are deliberately employed by disinfo artists because they play upon common weaknesses.

Wherever there are constellations of logical fallacies, many of them grouped together, beware. It takes a lot of mental work to imbed red herrings and set up straw man arguments. Obviously, a person could do that subconsciously in an attempt to justify his or her belief system, but it could also imply that there’s intentional distortion.

Sign #3
Falsehoods
(Look For: Lies, Omissions, & Distortions)

Yes, this sign is self-evident; but I bring it up because it’s all too easy to rationalize away a blatant inconsistency or lie in the face of other information that gets you good results and checks out logically and intuitively. But living according to a belief system with a glaring lie in it is like continuing to eat a sandwich with moldy cheese because the meat and bread are still fresh.

Sign #4
Consistently Extreme Point-of-View
(Look For: Forcefulness)

By extreme point-of-view I mostly mean views that are judgmental or condemning. In American politics, this sign takes the forms of liberal-bashing or Bush-bashing. In the spiritual circle, an example is the fundamental Scientologist’s take on drugs and psychology, or even the fundamental Buddhist’s take on eating meat. An Always or Never-type of extremism creates categories of good and evil based upon memorized lists instead of being based upon the work of discernment. It may be technically true that eating meat lowers the soul’s vibration, but ask yourself, is it never useful to lower it?

Extreme views very often reflect or lead to bad logic. In the case of the fundamental Scientologist I’ve heard “All psychology’s bad.” Certainly some psychology is bad, but saying “all” is bad logic. It’s hasty generalization. Extreme views are very often anti-intellectual or driven by moral judgment.

You may notice, too, that extreme views are often accompanied by emotional force or zeal. A quick way for determining whether you might be dealing with an extreme or unbalanced view is to determine in what way the view is being presented (With force? With calm?) Also notice if their words match their energy.

In the least, extreme views defend a position at the cost of missing the big picture.

Sign #5
Vagueness
(Look For: Verbosity Without Substance)

At best, vagueness is a sign that the material under consideration is linguistic masturbation. You can tell if this is the case by noticing the lack of practical suggestions. This type of material is mostly or all theory. At worst, vagueness is a sign that a carrot is being dangled in front of a donkey. The donkey gives the dangler a free ride, or does his work, all the while stretching for the carrot but never eats. Somewhere between these two cases, the best and worst, is the common bull**** artist or hack that energizes you but is ultimately un-filling.

I think people fall for stuff that’s vague, but clever and pretty-sounding, because it can be a palpable thrill to read it. It feels good.

Sign #6
Authoritarianism
(Look For: Commanding Verbiage)

This is a biggie. People who’ve spent a few long years exploring alternative ideologies rarely fall for this one, but because it exploits such a common weakness of the ego (being impressed by power) even seasoned seekers fall for it.

And all it takes for the archetype to be activated is a spell of uncertainty. In a moment of confusion an authoritarian voice can feel like the voice of God solely because of its forcefulness.

Luckily though, all it takes to get free from an oppressive authority figure is to realize that forcefulness doesn’t equal truth. Certainty doesn’t even equal truth. You can be dead certain and dead wrong.

Authoritarianism is a sign of misinfo or disinfo because spirit isn’t interested in leading—only ego.

Authoritarianism is identifiable by an abundance of commanding verbiage: ...you should, you ought to, you have to, you must… always… never…” etc. More subtle authoritarianism is revealed by definitive statements that leave no room for outside opinions. Or it’s revealed by its lack of acknowledgment of each person’s ability to get their own answers.

Sign #7
Specialness
(Look For: Holier-Than-Thou Mentality)

There isn’t much to say on this. Stuart Wilde said that there are essentially two journeys: ego to spirit or spirit to ego. The ego is all about feeling special, chosen, one-of-a-kind. And those feelings can be created through affirmation of the ego or through rejection. Sources of information that promote specialness promote destructive egoism.

Sign #8
Jargon
(Look For: Complicated Terminology)

In relation to disinfo, jargons are dangerous. They’re dangerous because they may be reinforcing false beliefs. The belief is rendered reasonable and given the appearance of legitimacy because it has a neat name. Jargons are also used to obscure the truth.

Jargon allows you an opportunity to discard anomalous experiences as less meaningful than they really are.[b]

A variation of jargon is labeling. In the Mormon Church, in which I was raised, people are frequently referred to as “members” or “non-members.” Of course, the term “non-member” can be invoked with greater or lesser moralistic judgment, but by itself the term is excluding—it says “not-a-part-of-the-whole.” In Scientology you have people who are “clear” and people who are “toxic.” Certainly there are people out there who are sick, but invoking a term for it over and over again stops you from actually trying to understand the sick in their own language. [b]In short, jargons create judgmental Know-It-Alls.

Sign #9
Discouragement of Critical Analysis
(Look For: Insistence Upon Feeling The Truth)

Whether or not a system or teaching is “anti-intellectual” can be determined in a few ways. Hostile to hard questions? What type of learning is encouraged or is learning by a discussion of concepts? Does the belief system ignore large bodies of information that contradict its beliefs?

Another test for anti-intellectualism is the test for propaganda (see sign #1). Propaganda is meant to bypass the analytical mind by stimulating a gross emotional response and herding people into desired behaviors.

A critical frame of mind is discouraged by an overemphasis on feeling. New Age channeled texts, I have found, ask for feeling-verification a lot. It typically appears in gently authoritarian commands like this: “You are ___. You know this to be true. You feel it (...in your core, etc.)” This could be nothing more than suggestion. Books written in this mode may eventually hypnotize you into feeling what you’re being told to feel through simple repetition. As you read on and on into this type of material you may stop critically reflecting and asking yourself, “Is that really true?”

It invisibly creates an assumption that what we are now is not okay. It invisibly creates invalidation.

If the highest level of spirit is non-judgmental, then any material spreading invalidation doesn’t come from the highest level of spirit.

I don’t pretend that this is a complete list. But I would argue that if a piece of information contains most of the above, then you’re dealing with disinfo.

An easy method for evaluating suspect information is noticing in what context a falsehood exists once you find one. Once you find one, work outwards from it. If the lie is presented in a context of propaganda, or within a constellation of logical fallacies, or with unrelentingly bellicose views, or with a lot doubletalk, or by invoking heroes, by stroking the ego, with a bunch of terminology, or by encouraging you to act before think, then it’s probably disinfo. Of course, it takes time and mental energy to notice these things. The only shortcut is intuition, but if you develop your intuition without developing your intellectual discernment, you remain vulnerable.

I could add, another sign of a shill (as pointed out by Tangri) are years of no posts, followed by an unrelenting attack on the chosen prey. And when busted, the usual response is to quit or lie low for the next opportunity. A.D. chose to quit.

The mod team did not censor A.D. for criticism. We objected to distortion, and biased selection of material to attack a person unfairly, without objectivity, without logic or reason, using language designed to elicit negative emotional reactions.

In any event, the Avalon guidelines were thoroughly fractured, and A.D. would have been uninvited regardless, had he continued in the same vein.

Regards, Sierra

[ZooLife]

I agree. And I think under the same umbrella is my observation that the alternative community is more and more making the same big mistakes we said we were gathering elsewhere to get away from.


Agreed.

It's not all bad at this point but when correlations between the alternative community and MSM start looking similar in a number of respects it can leave a critical thinker thinking....'hmmmmmm'.

In my experience there isn't an entity in existence that is beyond reproach so why the censorship in the alternative community? Isn't that one of the main characteristics of MSM and those behind it?

I would understand it more if the main characteristic of the alternative community is that it is mainly concerned about self promotion/ ego building and that truth being secondary.

My assumption may very well be in error for I think getting to the truth and sustaining the truth about the goings on of entities whether of a person, group, or movement in the alternative community are goal number one.

If the alternative community does not hold itself up to a higher level of integrity then it is no better then the rest and then it is nothing more then another part of the problem.

I hope the 'leaders' of the alternative community do routine gut checks to see if they are truly any different and make changes when they see their difference is or is becoming no different.

[ZooLife]

Mod hat on:

The person you refer to displayed most of the classic signs of a shill, in his over the top attack on an alternative community public figure. Nothing personal, if he had attacked David Icke etc. he would have met with the same response from the moderation team.



Where is your discernment? Nowhere in this thread did I refer to anybody other the alternative community in general.

[Sierra]

Mod hat on:

The person you refer to displayed most of the classic signs of a shill, in his over the top attack on an alternative community public figure. Nothing personal, if he had attacked David Icke etc. he would have met with the same response from the moderation team.



Where is your discernment? Nowhere in this thread did I refer to anybody other the alternative community in general.

Really? I prefer specific over general when specific is clearly the issue. Consider it an "example", then of what "no criticism" tends to ignore.

[ZooLife]

Well, I am glad that is cleared up.

:rolleyes:

[Innocent Warrior]

Huh? I thought this was about the NWO?

Update:


The wave prefers no opposition but it realizes that it will be found out for what it is unless it at least has the 'appearance' of allowing opposition.

I guess this is the AM, K. ...don't mind me.

[Sierra]

Well, I am glad that is cleared up.

:rolleyes:

And if not useful now, perhaps it will be useful down the line to someone. :)

[ZooLife]

Well, I am glad that is cleared up.

:rolleyes:

And if not useful now, perhaps it will be useful down the line to someone. :)

If that is the case, isn't the scope of what you are referring to for another thread since I never referred to the person you said I was referring to?


Huh? I thought this was about the NWO?

It is that too, Innocent Warrior.

On a broad scope it is about organizations and although they can have different names and purposes can take on some fundamental similarities while still professing a higher moral ground.

The conveyance of the thread should not be twist it into something different.

[Innocent Warrior]

Well, I am glad that is cleared up.

:rolleyes:

And if not useful now, perhaps it will be useful down the line to someone. :)

If that is the case, isn't the scope of what you are referring to for another thread since I never referred to the person you said I was referring to?


Huh? I thought this was about the NWO?

It is that too, Innocent Warrior.

On a broad scope it is about organizations and although they can have different names and purposes can take on some fundamental similarities while still professing a higher moral ground.

The conveyance of the thread should not be twist it into something different.

Yeah, well that's what I thought it meant, but considering the timing, it's a fair assumption on Sierra's part.

Peace out.

[ZooLife]

Yeah, well that's what I thought it meant, but considering the timing, it's a fair assumption on Sierra's part.

Peace out.

My reason for starting this thread is fundamentally rooted in thoughts I have been having for a long time.

Assume, I am guessing you know the cute break down of what that word looks like, right? Ass-u-me. :)

[Octavusprime]

[QUOTE=waves;966175]
My assumption may very well be in error for I think getting to the truth and sustaining the truth about the goings on of entities whether of a person, group, or movement in the alternative community are goal number one.



Assumptions: We all have them.

[ZooLife]

Assumptions: We all have them.

In fact, that is an assumption as well. Of course there is always someone in the crowd that will assume differently.

[Innocent Warrior]

My reason for starting this thread is fundamentally rooted in thoughts I have been having for a long time.

Yeah, I ended up figuring you wouldn't have any problems with sticking with your stance, if you were indeed referring to the AJ thread, but as you can see by my first reply, it's not hard to see how easy it is to see otherwise, I'm not immune to making assumptions. Working on it.

[ZooLife]

My reason for starting this thread is fundamentally rooted in thoughts I have been having for a long time.

Yeah, I ended up figuring you wouldn't have any problems with sticking with your stance, if you were indeed referring to the AJ thread, but as you can see by my first reply, it's not hard to see how easy it is to see otherwise, I'm not immune to making assumptions. Working on it.

It isn't sticking to my stance, it is my stance.

All someone would have to have done is ask if this thread was referring to an unnamed reference instead of making an assumption.

All the assumption did was to derail the thread.

I thought it was a valid idea to explore, not meant to be I guess.

[Innocent Warrior]

My reason for starting this thread is fundamentally rooted in thoughts I have been having for a long time.

Yeah, I ended up figuring you wouldn't have any problems with sticking with your stance, if you were indeed referring to the AJ thread, but as you can see by my first reply, it's not hard to see how easy it is to see otherwise, I'm not immune to making assumptions. Working on it.

It isn't sticking to my stance, it is my stance.

All someone would have to have done is ask if this thread was referring to and unnamed reference instead of making an assumption.

All the assumption did was to derail the thread.

I thought it was a valid idea to explore, not meant to be I guess.

That's why I wrote, "if you were indeed referring to the AJ thread", as in, if that was the scenario, which it is not, I get that.

Is it too soon to joke about killing your own thread? K k, I'm leaving. Back to topic.

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

Wow I just read the Alex Jones thread,
what happened ?

It seemed like a decent discussion that went south fast.

[Carmody]

.
... views that are judgmental or condemning.

Judgement is a fool's game. It anchors one in the self lies of their own past.

A cemented reality is an unchanging reality is a death, one that kills the essence of life. Life is a thing in motion, in change. Static systems are dead. In science.. factualization is a death a termination, a terminal spiral into static condition.

Theory --is life. As theory is about a condition, a condition...that is open to change.

Note the comparison to dogma and religion, as dogma is religion, is a downward spiral into a dead thing.

Static systems are things that we reflect upon and into commodities. Things we eat, things we consume.

Thus, polarization of the populace is about control and consumption.

These analogies hold, down the essence of quantum considerations. Life arises from those quantum considerations, as does the idea of dimensions and dimensional integrations.

And if one feels they are being manipulated in this space, in this place... by 'other' or dimensional cross connection, well....think about it.

As above, so below.

[M0JFK]

Exactly Zoolife...exactly, spot on sir and couldnt of put it any better myself. Here, here.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Wow I just read the Alex Jones thread,
what happened ?

It seemed like a decent discussion that went south fast.

A faint smell of censorship entered the room TWC...lol

[Agape]

Something very funny occurred ( to me ) , only seconds ago . As I was eye scanning the thread and exiting it fast as well ,
in place of one of the people who thanked for someones post ( too much detail to say whose ) I saw the name 'Eli Khamarov' . What ? Do we have a member by that name I thought, I check the list, no we don't .
It was not a name known to me , to be honest but I googled it : http://www.math.utah.edu/~gold/khamarov.html

I'm too much in my intuitive mind right now to pay attention and read his page thoroughly but there seems to be something interesting there .


:sun: ( wet towel, applies :ROFL: )



I sort of ..like it ... there's a point there ...



Some excerpts...

On Thinking

By Eli Khamarov
Unfortunately, I lack the eloquence of an Emerson, Voltaire, or Shakespeare. Eloquence aids in the quick and elegant comprehension of an idea without prolonged reflection. Nevertheless, it is my sincere hope that some new perspectives may be gleaned from these writings; it is the intended purpose of this exposition and, I hope, nothing more.
Many great thinkers have lived, and our society is ready for many more. I am not a well read man by any means, in fact, I find it quite difficult to read a book without the distracting visions it invokes. Before long, I have skimmed a multitude of pages and gleaned nothing but the simple sentence-idea which freed my mind in the first place. Oh yes, I did 'see' the words following the guilty passage, but unless I am able to return to the task of reading, those words shall never be read.

Because I am not well read, I am an original thinker. I rely upon myself to make the discoveries that others surely have made as well. So, when ideas are found, I may rely on books so as to aid in their appraisal and value, keeping in mind that these secondary sources are not a definitive standard. As one discovers, it is not uncommon that a Dante, Goethe, or another had made similar observations. After all, they were thinking men. They developed these ideas because they alloted themselves the time to do so. They are the gems of their generation, of their century, and history rewards them so.

Any thinking person has experienced the same; he has walked a similar path. It is a time of rejoicing, not lamenting, one's own rediscovery of an idea. It means that in all the paths you have traversed, you have come across a lesser path, as Robert Frost so elegantly put it, ``the path less traveled by.'' Your concern is the new surroundings, your eyes and mind are trained on the sights while the path serves as a guide for your feet.

Many people are afraid to explore the new for fear of failure, or worse, in their eyes, the fear of repetition; yet they contradict themselves. They repeat the works of others by reading them. This is very debilitating. They believe that the knowledge they have accumulated represents intelligence. Intelligence it is not, I stress. The mere rephrasing, reshuffling, rehashing, and paraphrasing does not represent original thought. Yes, in my anger at seeing this naiveté, I may have said, and certainly did think it was appropriate for them to continue their languid exercise so that their offspring may continue the practice and tradition: to find the young ones busily memorizing the works of myself and others. Emerson wrote, ``Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their duty to accept the views which Cicero, which Locke, which Bacon, have given; forgetful that Cicero, Locke, and Bacon were only young men in libraries when they wrote these books.'' The modern scholar recites the works of others with the firm conviction that the ideas he is espousing are of his own mastery. A closed mind, more so than a closed book, casts a long shadow.

When I interject the main thoughts in these writings with those of another, I do so wholly for the benefit of those who do not believe that less well-known thinkers may reach the same conclusions as those of whom they revere. The best way to counter those that are deeply rooted in The System, as P. F., another great philosopher, has told me, is to confront their views with those ideas of the great thinkers that contradict their own; it makes for a real quandary.

I know the 'secrets' of Einstein, Feynman, and others alike. What made them successful, in the eyes of our society, is that they were never afraid of failure. They did not concern themselves with the thoughts of others. They did -- not think they did. They questioned the obvious. Einstein said, ``genius is asking the questions a child would ask.'' While the average modern scholar restricts himself to current dogma, others and I have been free to explore the countryside. Modern schooling, unfortunately, breeds an ossious polarization -- polarization to the extremes -- the inability to view the validations of unpopular views, because the focus of their casuistry has been reduced to mindless invalidation. This is very evident in politics, where two schools of thought clash for control: Idealism and Realism. One must recognize the validations of both sides: We must strive for the idealistic, but then only by keeping the realistic in mind.

Our schools, our universities -- our society-- is cranking out people who think they are thinkers, and who occupy their time thinking so. Instead of making actual contributions, the problems of today and tomorrow, like them, sit idle. The problems of today are the problems of tomorrow if they continue to remain untouched by intellectual intervention. For outstanding problems, the methods that have been developed thus far will not solve these problems -- if they did, I am sure you would have read about them by now. New methods need be developed, but I warn you, they will not be found in any book or in any classroom. They will be found by those who leave the classroom, those who leave early, before their minds are poisoned and tainted forever. They will, with patience, be found in some least explored region of mind and thought. Only the creative, the original, will find these solutions. The books only demonstrate the creativity and originality of those who came before us; it should serve as a model, as a stepping stone, as a gauge. Creativity and originality is not a quality or quantity that is passed on by book and memorization -- it is transferred to, bestowed upon, and granted only to those who set out and explore these time-lived problems. The explorers set prejudices aside and begin the task. Creativity and originality is cultured by doing, and only by doing; nothing stops it -- not time, not difficulty. Those who have had original ideas continue to strive in the hopes of recreating that spark of an original idea. They have experienced this climax before; it is an elixir that powers them in their tasks.

Imitate the thinkers. They are selfless. They give to society. But do not copy them. Many teachers of English unconsciously `require' students, because of their pedantry, to imitate their writing or their preferred style of writing. We do not want to send out into the world thirty or more bodies whose writing style is in direct proportion to, if not a clear reflection of, the teacher's style. We do not need thirty of them; the one suffices. It is necessary that each of these thirty becomes an original thinker, doer, and sayer. They must learn from their initial successes and failures, especially failures. One failure is worth seven and a half successes. Each failure is a new and useful insight of oneself and the world. If success marches in at the onset, there has been no benefit of seeing the world another way. And if you have success, you will be less inclined to seek an alternate solution or method, although this alternative method may be of wider scope. You have limited yourself, you have not seen other approaches. Success is right only once. Success gives the taste of success, and failure should remind us of it.

Eli Khamarov, November 1992

Reprinted without permission

[Innocent Warrior]

This thread is not a response to the AJ thread.

However, ZooLife has an excellent topic worth exploring.

:focus:

P.S. This is not in response to Agape's post.

P.P.S. Apologies for my abrupt post, ZooLife clearly stipulated the topic of this thread, when responding to my posts. My previous posts already derailed the thread somewhat and they are a grammatical mess because I was tired, so I'm clearing it up.

[Hawkwind]

Classic, over the top, over emotional ranting shill language.

I've bowdlerized and gutted the following the the sake of brevity:


Disinformation is either intentional distortion or telling lies. The intent behind disinfo is negative. The intent is to limit access to accurate information.

Sign #1
Propagandizing
(Look For: Emotionalization, Oversimplification, & Slogans)

When propaganda isn’t spotted for what it is, look out; done well, it will convey certainty and will echo the clarity of a truly wise being. Propaganda is information that is spread for the purpose of promoting a cause[ /b]. Of course, because information is propagandist doesn’t mean that it’s untrue, [b]but it does mean that there is an agenda—and agendas create a win/lose situation.

Sign #2
Poor Logic
(Look For: Inconsistency & Logical Fallacy)

So look for inconsistencies. That’s where you’ll find the distortions and lies. And keep an eye out for fallacious reasoning. Logical fallacies are deliberately employed by disinfo artists because they play upon common weaknesses.

Wherever there are constellations of logical fallacies, many of them grouped together, beware. It takes a lot of mental work to imbed red herrings and set up straw man arguments. Obviously, a person could do that subconsciously in an attempt to justify his or her belief system, but it could also imply that there’s intentional distortion.

Sign #3
Falsehoods
(Look For: Lies, Omissions, & Distortions)

Yes, this sign is self-evident; but I bring it up because it’s all too easy to rationalize away a blatant inconsistency or lie in the face of other information that gets you good results and checks out logically and intuitively. But living according to a belief system with a glaring lie in it is like continuing to eat a sandwich with moldy cheese because the meat and bread are still fresh.

Sign #4
Consistently Extreme Point-of-View
(Look For: Forcefulness)

By extreme point-of-view I mostly mean views that are judgmental or condemning. In American politics, this sign takes the forms of liberal-bashing or Bush-bashing. In the spiritual circle, an example is the fundamental Scientologist’s take on drugs and psychology, or even the fundamental Buddhist’s take on eating meat. An Always or Never-type of extremism creates categories of good and evil based upon memorized lists instead of being based upon the work of discernment. It may be technically true that eating meat lowers the soul’s vibration, but ask yourself, is it never useful to lower it?

Extreme views very often reflect or lead to bad logic. In the case of the fundamental Scientologist I’ve heard “All psychology’s bad.” Certainly some psychology is bad, but saying “all” is bad logic. It’s hasty generalization. Extreme views are very often anti-intellectual or driven by moral judgment.

You may notice, too, that extreme views are often accompanied by emotional force or zeal. A quick way for determining whether you might be dealing with an extreme or unbalanced view is to determine in what way the view is being presented (With force? With calm?) Also notice if their words match their energy.

In the least, extreme views defend a position at the cost of missing the big picture.

Sign #5
Vagueness
(Look For: Verbosity Without Substance)

At best, vagueness is a sign that the material under consideration is linguistic masturbation. You can tell if this is the case by noticing the lack of practical suggestions. This type of material is mostly or all theory. At worst, vagueness is a sign that a carrot is being dangled in front of a donkey. The donkey gives the dangler a free ride, or does his work, all the while stretching for the carrot but never eats. Somewhere between these two cases, the best and worst, is the common bull**** artist or hack that energizes you but is ultimately un-filling.

I think people fall for stuff that’s vague, but clever and pretty-sounding, because it can be a palpable thrill to read it. It feels good.

Sign #6
Authoritarianism
(Look For: Commanding Verbiage)

This is a biggie. People who’ve spent a few long years exploring alternative ideologies rarely fall for this one, but because it exploits such a common weakness of the ego (being impressed by power) even seasoned seekers fall for it.

And all it takes for the archetype to be activated is a spell of uncertainty. In a moment of confusion an authoritarian voice can feel like the voice of God solely because of its forcefulness.

Luckily though, all it takes to get free from an oppressive authority figure is to realize that forcefulness doesn’t equal truth. Certainty doesn’t even equal truth. You can be dead certain and dead wrong.

Authoritarianism is a sign of misinfo or disinfo because spirit isn’t interested in leading—only ego.

Authoritarianism is identifiable by an abundance of commanding verbiage: ...you should, you ought to, you have to, you must… always… never…” etc. More subtle authoritarianism is revealed by definitive statements that leave no room for outside opinions. Or it’s revealed by its lack of acknowledgment of each person’s ability to get their own answers.

Sign #7
Specialness
(Look For: Holier-Than-Thou Mentality)

There isn’t much to say on this. Stuart Wilde said that there are essentially two journeys: ego to spirit or spirit to ego. The ego is all about feeling special, chosen, one-of-a-kind. And those feelings can be created through affirmation of the ego or through rejection. Sources of information that promote specialness promote destructive egoism.

Sign #8
Jargon
(Look For: Complicated Terminology)

In relation to disinfo, jargons are dangerous. They’re dangerous because they may be reinforcing false beliefs. The belief is rendered reasonable and given the appearance of legitimacy because it has a neat name. Jargons are also used to obscure the truth.

Jargon allows you an opportunity to discard anomalous experiences as less meaningful than they really are.[b]

A variation of jargon is labeling. In the Mormon Church, in which I was raised, people are frequently referred to as “members” or “non-members.” Of course, the term “non-member” can be invoked with greater or lesser moralistic judgment, but by itself the term is excluding—it says “not-a-part-of-the-whole.” In Scientology you have people who are “clear” and people who are “toxic.” Certainly there are people out there who are sick, but invoking a term for it over and over again stops you from actually trying to understand the sick in their own language. [b]In short, jargons create judgmental Know-It-Alls.

Sign #9
Discouragement of Critical Analysis
(Look For: Insistence Upon Feeling The Truth)

Whether or not a system or teaching is “anti-intellectual” can be determined in a few ways. Hostile to hard questions? What type of learning is encouraged or is learning by a discussion of concepts? Does the belief system ignore large bodies of information that contradict its beliefs?

Another test for anti-intellectualism is the test for propaganda (see sign #1). Propaganda is meant to bypass the analytical mind by stimulating a gross emotional response and herding people into desired behaviors.

A critical frame of mind is discouraged by an overemphasis on feeling. New Age channeled texts, I have found, ask for feeling-verification a lot. It typically appears in gently authoritarian commands like this: “You are ___. You know this to be true. You feel it (...in your core, etc.)” This could be nothing more than suggestion. Books written in this mode may eventually hypnotize you into feeling what you’re being told to feel through simple repetition. As you read on and on into this type of material you may stop critically reflecting and asking yourself, “Is that really true?”

It invisibly creates an assumption that what we are now is not okay. It invisibly creates invalidation.

If the highest level of spirit is non-judgmental, then any material spreading invalidation doesn’t come from the highest level of spirit.

I don’t pretend that this is a complete list. But I would argue that if a piece of information contains most of the above, then you’re dealing with disinfo.

An easy method for evaluating suspect information is noticing in what context a falsehood exists once you find one. Once you find one, work outwards from it. If the lie is presented in a context of propaganda, or within a constellation of logical fallacies, or with unrelentingly bellicose views, or with a lot doubletalk, or by invoking heroes, by stroking the ego, with a bunch of terminology, or by encouraging you to act before think, then it’s probably disinfo. Of course, it takes time and mental energy to notice these things. The only shortcut is intuition, but if you develop your intuition without developing your intellectual discernment, you remain vulnerable.

I could add, another sign of a shill (as pointed out by Tangri) are years of no posts, followed by an unrelenting attack on the chosen prey. And when busted, the usual response is to quit or lie low for the next opportunity. A.D. chose to quit.

The mod team did not censor A.D. for criticism. We objected to distortion, and biased selection of material to attack a person unfairly, without objectivity, without logic or reason, using language designed to elicit negative emotional reactions.

In any event, the Avalon guidelines were thoroughly fractured, and A.D. would have been uninvited regardless, had he continued in the same vein.

Regards, Sierra

I agree that A.D. got overly emotional in his later posts, and probably should have been warned of such. His initial arguments, however, seemed entirely sound to me. Perhaps the thread I started was creating too much friction among the forum, and as such was causing more problems than it was worth. As such, I didn't mind seeing it get closed, but to do so under the pretext of "nothing substantial being presented" was complete BS.

As for your list of ways to spot a shill, the public figure in question regularly exhibits every one of them.

I don't intend to harp on this subject, because I value the forum and would like to continue participating in it. I do, however, think the case in point could have been handled better by all concerned. A.D.'s choice to start his "true colors" thread, was completely unacceptable and metaphorically on a par with taking a dump in Bill's living room, but I still have my doubts as to whether he made the choice out of a sense of frustration or with the intention to disrupt the forum.

[Innocent Warrior]

Sorry Hawkwind, thought that was ADs thread. I've edited my post again to avoid further confusion.

[Sierra]

I agree that A.D. got overly emotional in his later posts, and probably should have been warned of such. His initial arguments, however, seemed entirely sound to me. Perhaps the thread I started was creating too much friction among the forum, and as such was causing more problems than it was worth. As such, I didn't mind seeing it get closed, but to do so under the pretext of "nothing substantial being presented" was complete BS.

As for your list of ways to spot a shill, the public figure in question regularly exhibits every one of them.

I don't intend to harp on this subject, because I value the forum and would like to continue participating in it. I do, however, think the case in point could have been handled better by all concerned. A.D.'s choice to start his "true colors" thread, was completely unacceptable and metaphorically on a par with taking a dump in Bill's living room, but I still have my doubts as to whether he made the choice out of a sense of frustration or with the intention to disrupt the forum.

I agree, it could have been handled better. I'm not going to get into why I thought A.D. was a shill or why I don't think AJ is a shill, that sort of judgement *is* an opinion that can't be proved in either case. One can only say that is where one's discernment landed...

Zoolife, I apologize for derailing your thread, assumptions or apples and oranges, I genuinely thought you were wondering why A.D. was banned.

Please PM me if you want this thread closed, edited, whatever you need to get started again on your original train of thought.

Regards, Sierra

[ZooLife]

.
... views that are judgmental or condemning.

Judgement is a fool's game. It anchors one in the self lies of their own past.

A cemented reality is an unchanging reality is a death, one that kills the essence of life. Life is a thing in motion, in change. Static systems are dead. In science.. factualization is a death a termination, a terminal spiral into static condition.

Theory --is life. As theory is about a condition, a condition...that is open to change.

Note the comparison to dogma and religion, as dogma is religion, is a downward spiral into a dead thing.

Static systems are things that we reflect upon and into commodities. Things we eat, things we consume.

Thus, polarization of the populace is about control and consumption.

These analogies hold, down the essence of quantum considerations. Life arises from those quantum considerations, as does the idea of dimensions and dimensional integrations.

And if one feels they are being manipulated in this space, in this place... by 'other' or dimensional cross connection, well....think about it.

As above, so below.

http://www.christianscienceohio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Cell-phone-pix-November-1133.jpg

[Innocent Warrior]

If there is an organisation who rules the world, and I personally believe there is, that organisation is beyond reproach. They're beyond reproach because they don't officially exist, they're the unseen force, contolling the world, and it is from that level that the organisations, the ones we see, are played like chess pieces.

Did you ever see Bill's interview with Jordan Maxwell (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XeSHOc3ozj4)? A very interesting interview. If you have, do you recall the mysterious hippie who visited Jordan and went by the name of Cosmos? I don't doubt that happened. I don't believe Cosmos was from the council of 33 or any other known organisation, I don't think that medallion fell from his shirt by chance, but I do believe it happened.

Perhaps "The Adjustment Bureau" is real? I believe so.

Trailer.

fSeWHl1PaKs

Full movie.

Nfji1-evPZ8

So from my view, they're all allowed. It doesn't mean there is no hope, they only rule the illusiory world, we are what's real and where the true creative power lies and they know it.

[ZooLife]

Zoolife, I apologize for derailing your thread, assumptions or apples and oranges, I genuinely thought you were wondering why A.D. was banned.

Please PM me if you want this thread closed, edited, whatever you need to get started again on your original train of thought.

Regards, Sierra

I did not see your post when I posted the 'It.s turtles all the way down' picture post.

Thank you for your honest apology and I accept it unconditionally. I learned/ re-learned some thing from the encounter so it wasn't all bad. Some cool things are learned on Avalon when you least expect it.

"The best things in life are unexpected - because there were no expectations."

- Eli Khamarov

I probably should have waited until some time had passed before starting the 'No Criticism' thread to minimize assumptions. A lot of my thoughts on the subject had been brewing long before the I started the thread. They just wanted to come out then.

It's an important subject, censorship, particularly in these times. It is interesting to note that it is rare-to-nonexistent to pick up any stories with substance on the subject of censorship in MSM these days, isn't that telling?

Censorship applies right to our core as well because we can perform it on ourselves without realizing it.....just like the 'As above so below' which can as be restated as: "As below, so above".

I will leave things here for now as I was out celebrating and my mind is not as sharp as it should be right now....

Night All.

[ZooLife]

If there is an organisation who rules the world, and I personally believe there is, that organisation is beyond reproach. They're beyond reproach because they don't officially exist, they're the unseen force, contolling the world, and it is from that level that the organisations, the ones we see, are played like chess pieces.



Your post is proof that 'they' are NOT beyond reproach. They are seen by their unseen-ness. They are named in their unnamed-ness.

[Innocent Warrior]

If there is an organisation who rules the world, and I personally believe there is, that organisation is beyond reproach. They're beyond reproach because they don't officially exist, they're the unseen force, contolling the world, and it is from that level that the organisations, the ones we see, are played like chess pieces.



Your post is proof that 'they' are NOT beyond reproach. They are seen by their unseen-ness. They are named in their unnamed-ness.

:) I had the thought you would say that after I posted. It's not exactly a popular view, they're safe lol. All good, if they do exist, all they can do is steer and manipulate and all we need do is be true. Their days in control are numbered.

[ZooLife]

I wonder if we censor ourselves because if we viewed all we know at once it would overwhelm our CPU. I just get this sneaky feeling that we know more then we 'realize' at any given moment.

P.s. I have been working for an upgrade for years now. The upgrades are incremental which is what would be expected in linear reality.

Maybe if my CPU received a quantum leap in processing ability I would start to think I was being taken over by a Borg mentality and the thoughts of the new CPU were not mine.