Anomalies in The Ruiner's material

[Calz]

I think that one point must be made.

Speaking for myself ... the *assumption* was the "disclaimer" had to do with being able to share such a level of information publicly without getting whacked.

You know ... Gordon Duff on Veteran's Today kind of thing.


Another thing that many seem to be missing (not talking about this forum only) is that *** no one *** wants to hurt Shane.


What is the saying ... extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof???


Most of this encompasses material that simply *cannot* be proven.


Is this a black and white issue???


I leave it up to others.


It simply makes me sad ... above my paygrade ...


Divide and conquer ... will it ever cease to succeed???

[Mike]

well put Calz.


its like this: youre chasing that rabbit down the rabbit hole, right? youre chasing n chasing n chasing. youre so close to catching that rabbit but you keep whiffing. so close tho! but wait a second...youve been chasing for a while now and youre feeling a bit weak. and guess what, this hole is getting kinda narrow. you are in desperate need of nourishment (in the from of evidence or validation...however small)...and if you don't get it soon you may die. in your current condition, you can still turn around and make it to the surface alive, but to go much further will put that in jeopardy...

what to do, what to do? youre so damn close!

here's my take: if that damn rabbit won't at least meet you half way, or a quarter of the way...or at least offer you some bread crumb morsel of evidence or validation somewhere along the line, you gotta turn around...no matter how intriguing the pay off might be...

we gotta have lines, however arbitrary, or else anything and everything goes and the forum loses its foundational integrity.

it is my hope that in the future, when someone arrives here making extraordinary claims, our first expectation will be for some sort of validation or evidence...even bread crumb evidence, however small, (even circumstantial)before we even begin to entertain the story....as a gesture of trust and honor. if said individual is unwilling to even make that small effort, then its my hope that we send them on their way...warmly and cordially of course

i dont think we even have a choice in the matter! in this alt field, or whatever you wanna call it, credibility is the only name of the game. i mean, what do we gain from someone telling us some vague version of the same story we've all heard a million times over?...without any hint of evidence or validation or credibility. its an act that only creates more questions than answers. we don't need Shanes for that...one only has to visit all the various alt sites on the net, right?

[Realeyes]

If you knew that love can't break your heart
When you're down so low you cannot fall
Would you change would you change?

How bad how good does it need to get?
How many losses how much regret?
What chain reaction
What cause and effect
Makes you turn around
Makes you try to explain
Makes you forgive and forget
Makes you change
Makes you change

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FodfkqfJrhQ

[onawah]

Thanks to Bill for an explanation that really helped me to let go of some frustration about the amount of time that's been spent on this issue, and thanks for the good observations (and camaraderie) from the other posters here.
It does help to de-mystify what goes on behind the scenes in this whole process.
I knew quite some time ago that Shane was in the Unraveling band, but band members can also be great innovators and cultural change makers, so I withheld any judgement about that.
But when you put all the evidence together, it does seem to be a case of craving for attention, especially after that interview with Chanter, who in my view now (even though I only watched a few minutes, it was enough!) was acting as Shane's alter ego, and about as attention-craving as you can get.

[Realeyes]

Alice and rabbit holes............

[araucaria]

Imagine a new breed of moth discovering a first flicker of intelligence and communication. The first understanding and message for pioneering moths to pass on to their slower fellows would be: “Don’t go into the light!” Others would say, “I have free will: I’ll go into the light if I want to, just like my ancestors have always done.” The reply to this might be: “They weren’t your ancestors, because anyone who goes into the light automatically takes themselves out of the gene pool. But do as you will.”

Humans exposed to less life-threatening situations have started learning to study and learn, and learn trust by listening to others, and discover that sometimes self-imposed bounds to free will are necessary. This natural process is being interfered with in various ways and not necessarily for initially nefarious reasons. Misplaced trust comes from listening to people with an insufficient understanding of what they are advising about: what we call fear-mongering. That is something that comes with the uncharted territory. Since no one has all the answers, the principle of compartmentalization is a fact of life, not just a given in black ops. We fear the unknown, naturally enough because the known is either not dangerous or the danger avoidable for being known.

The paradox is that placing self-imposed bounds to one’s free will is not an infringement of the free will principle: on the contrary, it is a potentially life-saving way of exercising that free will: not doing something out of wisdom not fear. Advice of the “Don’t go there!” type may be given in a helpful spirit by someone talking from experience. Sure, it will sometimes be over-conservative, and we avoid going places we maybe need to check out. But the likelihood remains that we are talking about possibly dangerous zones that you enter at your peril. There is a statistical component to this, but as you increase the risks, ultimately it can be safely predicted that if you live by (down) the rabbithole, you will die by (down) the rabbithole. That is not fear-mongering, it is merely the application on the broadest scale of the small child–box of matches theorem. As you approach the area where people start disappearing, you are in danger of disappearing yourself, just as when you approach the exit to a large building in a crowd, you are liable to find yourself out on the street. If you want to hang around, stay away from the door.

If you want to find out what is going on anywhere (which normally speaking would be your reason for coming in the first place), it is usually not near the door. The door is where you come across those who have had enough on their way out, or those just arriving, while the main business is being conducted almost unnoticed in a quieter, more central area. The one locates “what is wrong in the world”, the other “what is right in the world”, to quote Chesterton once more. Right now there is a major distraction at the door with people coming and going, but the main business is nonetheless being carried on by ordinary good people quietly getting on with their lives, and yet encouraging newcomers to overcome their shyness, since they have nothing to fear. The question is how far is the disruption going to be allowed. Maybe not much further. There has been too much window-shopping: looking in or looking out. Time to come in and take part or get out altogether: that is the choice.

[norman]

Posted by Realeyes (here)


Deep sigh……….

..........So who is ‘playing who’? ...........

..........Perhaps it is time for us to start thinking for ourselves and tap into our own inner knowingness.............

The only anomaly that's really bothering me, is that our own inner knowingness is seemingly being systematically deprived of a vote.

[RunningDeer]

Posted by Realeyes (here)
Solution: Perhaps it is time for us to start thinking for ourselves and tap into our own inner knowingness.

Ps. My hubby is seriously ill right now, in a huge amount of pain with cluster headaches, so most of my attention is caring for him, so I cannot answer questions. Please find your own answers. I wrote this purely to bring a little balance back to inspire more pure reasoning. There is always more to a story than what is possible to write down in text.

Love and respect to you All
Realeyes X

Realeyes, there’s a strong synergy between your heart, mind and love for humanity. One can’t help but stretch by the points of view you’ve shared across time, and from the questions that more often than not range across dimensions.

I look forward to more 'realeyes'.

Zaps and the good stuff sent along to hubby, your kiddos and You.

Love,
Paula/RunningDeer ♡

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by norman (here)
The only anomaly that's really bothering me, is that our own inner knowingness is seemingly being systematically deprived of a vote.

That, and how it has anything to do with performing fellatio on birds in Toronto, which was apparently also on Shane's blog (and discussed in Shane's interview with CW Chanter around the 1:20:00 mark). I always hear that things are simply misunderstood or incorrect assumptions, but then nobody seems to want to clarify what the "real" message is supposed to be. When the clarification involves woo woo like this thing about the birds then I can understand why not. Apparently we can all just make up any imaginary things we want and it's instantly true. Maybe I should start using that philosophy more myself.

[Chester]

I would like to respond to Realeyes' post but looking at the bigger picture, this may not be good for PA. In addition, I have learned that people will see things the way they want to see them. The only way these things can be resolved is via pure honesty. I would be happy to carry on the conversation in my blog, Realeyes, and I would be happy to post all your comments in full. Let me know. Sam

[ulli]

After what has come to light about this person I regret having given him even 15 minutes of my attention.
Or comparing him to Andy Kaufman and his role playing. Or seeing him as a Myth maker.

[ThePythonicCow]

Realeyes made a long post here an hour and a half ago which we've decided to soft-delete (meaning, we can still refer to it, and we've sent a copy to Realeyes by PM for her own reference).

She wisely wrote "I do not have the ability to clear up this mess" -- and we do not either. But the mess is not Avalon's.

The mess actually belongs on another forum, where all this started, and the problem is that (this is no secret) Realeyes was unable to post there, as she had been banned from that forum. So she has used Avalon as a platform to address her detractors on the other forum.

That can be understood, and even sympathized with, but this is not Avalon's problem. The person who she is addressing, who is unnamed on her post but who is an Avalon member, is himself a member on the other forum, and so he has various means to reply to Realeyes on that other forum, or elsewhere, and quote Realeyes' message unchanged and in full. The Avalon mods at present think this is the best way to proceed.

Besides this all happening in the wrong venue, so to speak, the other problem is that few people reading this will actually have much idea what it's all about, as there's a lot of detailed personal history and prior communication that is entirely unconnected with Avalon or its members.

Hence our decision. We fully support Realeyes' freedom of speech... but it's simply in the wrong place, and (if here) to the wrong audience.

[Realeyes]

Posted by bsbray (here)
That, and how it has anything to do with performing fellatio on birds in Toronto, which was apparently also on Shane's blog (and discussed in Shane's interview with CW Chanter around the 1:20:00 mark). I always hear that things are simply misunderstood or incorrect assumptions, but then nobody seems to want to clarify what the "real" message is supposed to be. When the clarification involves woo woo like this thing about the birds then I can understand why not. Apparently we can all just make up any imaginary things we want and it's instantly true. Maybe I should start using that philosophy more myself.

The latest CW & Shane talk was like watching a Monty Python movie that portrayed many angles to encourage deeper thinking – the whole play was a mind to heart conscious awareness exercise.

CW did a lot of play acting, he made lots of stuff up,….. CW even made up the entire Blue Jays story – it was never in the Ruiner Blog. It was a fabricated joke meant to point out how we can readily believe here say.

There were many themes played out in that talk, “assumption” was one of them. Another was an exercise to observe our own discernment and perhaps how easily we might give our own power and knowingness away to another who speaks with convincing words. It was an exercise to know thyself better.

So just to reiterate, CW is the author of the Blue Jays story - mystery solved on that small part.

[ulli]

Posted by Realeyes (here)
That, and how it has anything to do with performing fellatio on birds in Toronto, which was apparently also on Shane's blog (and discussed in Shane's interview with CW Chanter around the 1:20:00 mark). I always hear that things are simply misunderstood or incorrect assumptions, but then nobody seems to want to clarify what the "real" message is supposed to be. When the clarification involves woo woo like this thing about the birds then I can understand why not. Apparently we can all just make up any imaginary things we want and it's instantly true. Maybe I should start using that philosophy more myself.

The latest CW & Shane talk was like watching a Monty Python movie that portrayed many angles to encourage deeper thinking – the whole play was a mind to heart conscious awareness exercise.

CW did a lot of play acting, he made lots of stuff up,….. CW even made up the entire Blue Jays story – it was never in the Ruiner Blog. It was a fabricated joke meant to point out how we can readily believe here say.

There were many themes played out in that talk, “assumption” was one of them. Another was an exercise to observe our own discernment and perhaps how easily we might give our own power and knowingness away to another who speaks with convincing words. It was an exercise to know thyself better.

So just to reiterate, CW is the author of the Blue Jays story - mystery solved on that small part.

Great. Thanks for the clarification.
So let's all set up a few thousand mystery schools around the globe.
Ne need to tell anyone in advance what it is they will be tested at, since that would ruin their chances of getting extra doses of self knowledge.

Maybe a few torture chambers thrown in so that people can even learn how to do OBE and stuff.
Or hey, how about some gas chambers, too, so they can so discover that there is a hereafter.

[promezeus]

It should be noted, and I don't think it has, that only one admitted 'program' person in this forum, or any? forum, of the 100s or 1000s? who escaped the 'programs' has bothered to support or defend the veracity of the ruiner blog or its author? And this one person recanted later. Isn't this the biggest anomaly of all that even the blog's proclaimed "intended audience" has not shown any public appreciation for the blog that was solely written and intended for their benefit?

note: for those who are unaware: the ruiner claimed many times that the blog was written only and solely for past illuminati program survivors or escapees, the 'intended audience', and not written for the general public.

[Elainie]

Posted by promezeus (here)
It should be noted, and I don't think it has, that only one admitted 'program' person in this forum, or any? forum, of the 100s or 1000s? who escaped the 'programs' has bothered to support or defend the veracity of the ruiner blog or its author? And this one person recanted later. Isn't this the biggest anomaly of all that even the intended audience has not shown any public appreciation for the blog that was solely written and intended for their benefit?

This has been brought up in my mind. Where is the intended audience? I believe wholeheartedly the intended audience was a test of gullibility, the one's who fell for the tales were the target audience.

[dianna]

Posted by Realeyes (here)

The latest CW & Shane talk was like watching a Monty Python movie that portrayed many angles to encourage deeper thinking – the whole play was a mind to heart conscious awareness exercise.

CW did a lot of play acting, he made lots of stuff up,….. CW even made up the entire Blue Jays story – it was never in the Ruiner Blog. It was a fabricated joke meant to point out how we can readily believe here say.

There were many themes played out in that talk, “assumption” was one of them. Another was an exercise to observe our own discernment and perhaps how easily we might give our own power and knowingness away to another who speaks with convincing words. It was an exercise to know thyself better.

So just to reiterate, CW is the author of the Blue Jays story - mystery solved on that small part.

Oh, well, that explains it ... jeez, and thank you for "encouraging" my deep thoughts and conscious awareness ... I often do need such "exercises" given to me ... else, how would I learn? Bravo!! for an "f tard" such as myself I can only state my gratitude ... I often confuse condescension with "whats in my best interest" ... thanks for helping me realize, realeyes.

[Shannon]

Posted by Realeyes (here)
The latest CW & Shane talk was like watching a Monty Python movie that portrayed many angles to encourage deeper thinking – the whole play was a mind to heart conscious awareness exercise.

CW did a lot of play acting, he made lots of stuff up,….. CW even made up the entire Blue Jays story – it was never in the Ruiner Blog. It was a fabricated joke meant to point out how we can readily believe here say.

There were many themes played out in that talk, “assumption” was one of them. Another was an exercise to observe our own discernment and perhaps how easily we might give our own power and knowingness away to another who speaks with convincing words. It was an exercise to know thyself better.

So just to reiterate, CW is the author of the Blue Jays story - mystery solved on that small part.

Hey there, I'm a little confused and am hoping you can clarify some of your post. What is the blue jay story? And are you saying that cw has been telling Shane what to say? Are the blue jays the same as blue avians? And is cw the member who screwed over Shane?

Sorry if these are questions that seem pointless to you, I'm just trying to figure out what is going on. Thanks.

[Elainie]

Posted by Saint Theresa (here)

Posted by Realeyes (here)
So just to reiterate, CW is the author of the Blue Jays story - mystery solved on that small part.

Hey there, I'm a little confused and am hoping you can clarify some of your post. What is the blue jay story? And are you saying that cw has been telling Shane what to say? Are the blue jays the same as blue avians? And is cw the member who screwed over Shane?

Sorry if these are questions that seem pointless to you, I'm just trying to figure out what is going on. Thanks.

The Toronto Blue Jay story appears 1 hour 20 minutes into Chanter "interview". So that is a tale both Chanter and Shane come up with, yet another test of gullibility.
CW Chanter is not a member here on PA. A PA member was part of Shane's inner circle , this is who Realeyes is referring to.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Saint Theresa (here)
. What is the blue jay story?

It was a story that Shane is giving blow jobs to every one on the Toronto Blue Jays baseball team, every Tuesday.