The 'censorship' discussion

[Praxis]

Posted by edina (here)

People can already experience that on 8kun and Twitter.

I think what you propose here doesn't address what I described and feel is genuine real need for people, a place to take in the information without slogging through all the drama.

Is there a way to discuss the content of the Q posts in a constructive positive and collaborative manner, without antagonism and animosity?

I would say no, there is not.

In my opinion this is like asking if you can have a conversation with a flat earther.

Edina, Maybe you should know that many of thing that Q talks about I have no issue with. I too believe Hillary Clinton is a bad person and has killed people.

My issue, and maybe others, is the frame that Q people put things in. Is there a deep state? YES. Is Trump fighting it? This is where we have the problem we are running into.

You take his move of the Embassy to JErusalem as fighting the Deep State cause that is how Q Frames it.

I see that move as part of moving the world towards the Christian Eschatology that is a the root of the Deep State Agenda.

This recent strike is also a good example.

Clearly it is an escalation from my point of view.

But from the Q point of view it is somehow pro peace.

When people have this level of breach in how they see the world there is no conversation without animosity.

Trump is putting people in cages using the DHS. Remember when the right was uber concerned that FEMA camps were being built and How we are going to be put in them. Trump is literally doing that now just to the Other, which is the first step to doing it to everyone.

[ClearWater]

Posted by Praxis (here)

Posted by edina (here)

People can already experience that on 8kun and Twitter.

I think what you propose here doesn't address what I described and feel is genuine real need for people, a place to take in the information without slogging through all the drama.

Is there a way to discuss the content of the Q posts in a constructive positive and collaborative manner, without antagonism and animosity?

I would say no, there is not.

In my opinion this is like asking if you can have a conversation with a flat earther.

Edina, Maybe you should know that many of thing that Q talks about I have no issue with. I too believe Hillary Clinton is a bad person and has killed people.

My issue, and maybe others, is the frame that Q people put things in. Is there a deep state? YES. Is Trump fighting it? This is where we have the problem we are running into.

You take his move of the Embassy to JErusalem as fighting the Deep State cause that is how Q Frames it.

I see that move as part of moving the world towards the Christian Eschatology that is a the root of the Deep State Agenda.

This recent strike is also a good example.

Clearly it is an escalation from my point of view.

But from the Q point of view it is somehow pro peace.

When people have this level of breach in how they see the world there is no conversation without animosity.

Trump is putting people in cages using the DHS. Remember when the right was uber concerned that FEMA camps were being built and How we are going to be put in them. Trump is literally doing that now just to the Other, which is the first step to doing it to everyone.

These are fair points that challenge the 'Q' perspective, and they are framed in a way that seems to me to be lacking animosity and antagonism. Assuming a person more aligned with the 'Q' perspective were to disagree with your points, you don't think they would be able to frame their responses in an equally balanced and well presented way? I believe this is exactly the type of interaction that Edina is referring to and desiring.

[Praxis]

Posted by ClearWater (here)

These are fair points that challenge the 'Q' perspective, and they are framed in a way that seems to me to be lacking animosity and antagonism. Assuming a person more aligned with the 'Q' perspective were to disagree with your points, you don't think they would be able to frame their responses in an equally balanced and well presented way? I believe this is exactly the type of interaction that Edina is referring to and desiring.

I believe that I and many others did try, for the best examples please look for Dennis' post to the Q anon people. He was far better than I at remaining civil.

What were the outcomes of those attempts?

[ClearWater]

Posted by Praxis (here)

Posted by ClearWater (here)

These are fair points that challenge the 'Q' perspective, and they are framed in a way that seems to me to be lacking animosity and antagonism. Assuming a person more aligned with the 'Q' perspective were to disagree with your points, you don't think they would be able to frame their responses in an equally balanced and well presented way? I believe this is exactly the type of interaction that Edina is referring to and desiring.

I believe that I and many others did try, for the best examples please look for Dennis' post to the Q anon people. He was far better than I at remaining civil.

What were the outcomes of those attempts?

Yes, and those interactions happened a lifetime ago in forum years, largely with people that are no longer here on this forum. I feel it a bit unfair to conclude that something cannot be done now because of this previous experience, though I certainly understand the skepticism that remains as a result of those interactions. Given this skepticism, and the pain that may linger with some, perhaps now is not the time for it, but it seems appropriate that at some point we set aside the past and allow lines of communication to open up once more - even if we don't personally wish to engage in it.

If I am bitten by a dog, it would be understandable that I would be hesitant to interact with dogs, but at some point I'd like to think that I may recognize that the actions of one dog do not and should not represent all dogs. I should not seek to prevent others from interacting with dogs because of my experience (or my witnessing of a bad experience). And please, nobody interpret my association between people and dogs in a negative manner. Most of us people still have a fair ways to go before we can measure up to dogs, so it's nothing to feel bad about.

[Kryztian]

Posted by ClearWater (here)
Those who take it on do so with full knowledge of what they're volunteering for,

Actually, that is far from the stories I've heard from Avalon moderators, most of them had no idea. And every forum is different and this one happens to be quite busy and trades in a lot of controversial ideas, which make the workload quite high, even before considering the Q-anon fiascos.

and can step down from their position at any time, should it prove to be more than they wish to deal with.

That's absolutely true, but do we want them to resign? We have had quite a turnover of mods and it isn't easy finding people to do the job. There are limits in any job, paid or unpaid, as to what you should be expected to do, how much stress you should be expected to handle and how much your dignity should be taxed. We should be mindful of that.

I see lots of posts here talking about kindness, patience, understanding, love and light. But it seems many of them are by people expecting to receive kindness, and don't necessarily give it. Different forms of the Golden Rule have been uttered by many great prophets (Buddha, Jesus, et. al.) and the reason those words were so meaningful was because those prophets were living according to those principals to the utmost degree, showing tremendous love and compassion that were superhuman. They were urging others to give kindness, NOT to demand it from others.

So we probably can not all agree as to where the kindness and the unkindness is flowing in the antagonistic confrontations between pro- and anti- Qanon factions, but can we all at least agree to be kind and considerate to our moderators who have given so much time and energy to making this a better forum?

[Frank V]

Posted by Kryztian (here)
Last summer Project Avalon had a really toxic psychopath do some tremendous damage on the forum, equivalent to what bush fires are doing to Australia right now. He, as far as I know, was not active on the Q threads. After he was unsubscribed (no one in the history of Avalon every deserved this more), he continued to bare his toxic soul on another forum, spreading insinuations and lies in a most vicious manner. That forum was not as quick as our in removing slanderous personal attacks, and most people on the forum were not aware of who was being gossiped about, nor were people on our forum aware of this.

It took me a couple of minutes to remember whom you were talking about here, because there has been more than one former Project Avalon member who perched down at The One Truth and then started posting slander/libel about Project Avalon as a whole, or about Bill or any other individual here in particular. Hell, I've done it myself after I was banned here in 2015 ─ granted, with the help of serious amounts of mis- and disinformation sent my way by Corey Goode about Bill and the then-staff here, and an at the time equally pre-existing wave of hostility toward Project Avalon floating about among many of the then-regulars of The One Truth.

People who hurt want to vocalize their pain, because sharing one's painful experiences with others tends to alleviate that pain somewhat. It's a form of group therapy. And if there is a pre-existing climate that facilitates this, then one quickly finds oneself riding that wave, and things quickly get drawn out of perspective and blown out of proportion. Mind you, I'm not saying that the individual you speak of was really hurting ─ or at least, not in any rationally conceivable way, because I personally suspect a degree of mental and/or behavioral illness in said individual.

By the way ─ and this doesn't simply apply to yourself, but also to every other Project Avalon member ─ I need to say this, but it really won't hurt you (or anyone else) to say the name of the forum I administrate out loud, because forums are not corporate entities and there are no copyright violations if you call us by name.

One of the main reasons why I chose to accept Bill's offer to restore my account here at Project Avalon to active status was so that I could act as a liaison between Project Avalon on the one hand, and the two sister forums The One Truth and Eye-Rise on the other hand.

If people keep on referring to The One Truth as simply "another forum" because of any past (and already long gone) inter-forum histrionics, then that is only going to feed into the alienation of the disparate groups of people within the alternative community, while my intent was to bring these disparate groups closer together and focus on what unites us, rather than on what divides us. And given how divisive the QAnon material ─ or perhaps even better put, US-centric bipartisan politics and the support thereof ─ have proven themselves to be here at Project Avalon, I'd say that the differences between those who adhere this bipartisan philosophy and those who do not have driven a bigger divide between the Project Avalon members themselves than there is between Project Avalon and The One Truth.

Humanity as a whole should stop thinking in terms of "us and them". Democrats versus Republicans (as if no other nations exist on this planet than the United States of America), or nationalists versus globalists (as if no other geopolitical solutions exist apart from nationalist fascism and globalist-corporate fascism), or Project Avalon versus "another forum whose name shall not be mentioned".

I don't like bragging ─ really, I don't ─ and I certainly don't like grandstanding, but it was us over at The One Truth who discovered that the author of the very scathing and slanderous infographics about Bill Ryan and Kerry Cassidy was a recently banned Project Avalon member who had also for a while been a moderator at The One Truth, and that he created those infographics after he had already left The One Truth, and that he posted them at two far-right websites/boards, along with two identical copies of an equally slanderous article he had written while he was still a member here at Project Avalon. And of course, he then had Project Avalon members ─ some of whom were QAnon followers ─ believe that The One Truth had been responsible for the creation of those defamatory infographics.

So please, stop referring to us as "another forum", because by doing so, you are assisting in the survival of this silly divide. We need to get together if we want to create a better world for ourselves and for those who come after us.

Anyway, that said, returning to the subject of the slanderous individual who posted direct attacks against one of the moderators here at Project Avalon, prompting that moderator to step down and eventually stop connecting to any forums, said slanderous individual in question has been banned from Project Avalon, and I don't think he'll ever be allowed back in, so it also won't hurt to say his name out loud: it was Bob.

As for why The One Truth was not as fast in intercepting his libel, there are multiple reasons. First of all, quite often Bob spoke in cryptic tongue, not referring to individuals or events by name. A lot of what he said was also so outrageous that none of us could match what he wrote to any real-life events or situations that we ourselves could possibly think of. In other words, we had no idea what he was raving on about. However, The One Truth does support one's freedom of speech, insofar as their freedom of speech is not in violation of our own forum rules ─ in other words, no ad hominems against fellow forum members.

That said, the targeted (now former) Project Avalon moderator is also a member at The One Truth ─ as the matter of fact, she was already a member in our neck of the woods from long before she ever became a moderator here, but given that she had a different screen name over at The One Truth, none of the staff even knew or suspected that she and the Project Avalon member tormented by Bob's machinations and fabrications were one and the same person ─ and she contacted me via private messages in order to explain the situation to me. Around the same time, Bill also informed me ─ via email ─ of what had been transpiring here at Project Avalon on account of Bob and his dirty game against the moderator in question.

Eventually Bob became more outspoken, started using names, and started spreading slander about Bill and the moderator in question, throwing in some nonsense allegations regarding Scientology techniques used on or against the people at the Laughlin gathering without their consent all into the same mix, as if Scientology auditing is the same thing as black magic or voodoo. We already knew that Bob was/is a fantasist who believes in his own fabrications, and we also knew he's quite prone to grandstanding about his (purported) engineering achievements. So we equally knew to take whatever Bob said with a whole bucket load of coarse-grain salt.

We deleted the slander and we got him to calm down. And for a while, he behaved, too, and he seemed to want to dedicate his efforts to a commendable ecological objective, which he posted about in great abundance. But then suddenly, out of the blue, he went back to his slandering and libeling ─ triggered by the mild bitterness about Project Avalon in a single post by another ex-Avalon member. We then deleted those posts too, and I personally also issued him several shots across the bow ─ which were also deleted again as part of the cleanup, in order to get the thread where Bob posted his venom back on topic, because that was not his thread and it had nothing to do with whatever he was on about. Besides, it was an ugly confrontation, and a couple of individuals stood up in Bob's defense because they perceived him as being the victim. So that thread needed to be cleaned up.

At the moment, Bob's account at The One Truth still resides in active status because we wanted to offer him a chance to make a public apology. However, he hasn't been online anymore since those events. It is also only a trivial operation for me to move his account into sabbatical or retirement, and I may yet decide to do that, with or without his consent. The only reason why I haven't yet ─ believe it or not ─ is compassion, because as much as he can be a raving madman on the outside, he's a scared little boy on the inside, and I have seen that side of him too.

Either way, as it is, given that he hasn't been back anymore since that confrontation, he's currently also not causing anyone any trouble.

[ClearWater]

Posted by Kryztian (here)

Posted by ClearWater (here)
Those who take it on do so with full knowledge of what they're volunteering for,

Actually, that is far from the stories I've heard from Avalon moderators, most of them had no idea. And every forum is different and this one happens to be quite busy and trades in a lot of controversial ideas, which make the workload quite high, even before considering the Q-anon fiascos.

and can step down from their position at any time, should it prove to be more than they wish to deal with.

That's absolutely true, but do we want them to resign? We have had quite a turnover of mods and it isn't easy finding people to do the job. There are limits in any job, paid or unpaid, as to what you should be expected to do, how much stress you should be expected to handle and how much your dignity should be taxed. We should be mindful of that.

I see lots of posts here talking about kindness, patience, understanding, love and light. But it seems many of them are by people expecting to receive kindness, and don't necessarily give it. Different forms of the Golden Rule have been uttered by many great prophets (Buddha, Jesus, et. al.) and the reason those words were so meaningful was because those prophets were living according to those principals to the utmost degree, showing tremendous love and compassion that were superhuman. They were urging others to give kindness, NOT to demand it from others.

So we probably can not all agree as to where the kindness and the unkindness is flowing in the antagonistic confrontations between pro- and anti- Qanon factions, but can we all at least agree to be kind and considerate to our moderators who have given so much time and energy to making this a better forum?

Yes, of course we should extend our kindness and consideration to the staff. And I hear you on the Golden Rule, and completely agree. This is something I strive always to do myself, simply because it feels right to do so. And of course I have my moments where I don't express kindness. Recognizing that I am not perfect gives me some degree of patience and understanding when encountering situations where kindness is not expressed, but only demanded. Definitely kindness 'should be' both given and received, and should not be 'expected' when it's not given.

And also, this does not negate the responsibility of the staff to prioritize what's best for the community over what's easiest for them (both individually and collectively). If there is a lack of clarity on what is required of a member when joining the staff, that is a separate issue that should not impact how individual threads are handled on the forums. Likewise, if the load is too much for some staff members to handle, this should be addressed within the group so that a potential resolution can be found (and there ARE reasonable and relatively simple ways to approach such a situation). And this also should not impact how individual threads are handled on the forums. These are not what I would consider to be reasonable justifications for making decisions of this nature. To give an admittedly bad comparison, it would be like justifying not taking my son to the doctor for regular checkups because I'm stressed, I don't have the time, and I didn't realize how much time would be required to take proper care of him. Like I said...bad comparison, but still makes a fair point I think.

Anyone who volunteers to protect and grow a community has my utmost respect. And I still believe that they should prioritize what's best for the community over what's easiest for themselves, or perhaps not be in that position. And I feel comfortable saying this because I am in a comparable position, and hold myself to these same expectations.

[Chester]

Posted by Kryztian (here)

Posted by Sammy (here)
If a poster gets out of hand, why can't they be handled like they generally are anyways? On a case by case basis?

Sammy, because it has been HELL on the mods. The mods are all volunteers, and some of them work incredibly hard, reading every post, making spelling and formatting corrections, untangling complex off topic posts and sorting them into meaningful new threads. And they read through every post!!! Next time you see a long post and you look at the user name and say to yourself "I'm not reading the post from THAT PERSON!", well, the mods don't have that luxury, and there is a lot of vitriol and stupidity they have to get through before their day is done.

Last summer Project Avalon had a really toxic psychopath do some tremendous damage on the forum, equivalent to what bush fires are doing to Australia right now. He, as far as I know, was not active on the Q threads. After he was unsubscribed (no one in the history of Avalon every deserved this more), he continued to bare his toxic soul on another forum, spreading insinuations and lies in a most vicious manner. That forum was not as quick as our in removing slanderous personal attacks, and most people on the forum were not aware of who was being gossiped about, nor were people on our forum aware of this. But then a very active and vocal member of the Q community posted the links. I think we've all have a few incidents in our life we are attacked and you feel it deep in your very soul and this sticks with you throughout your whole life. Well, that's what it was like for one hard, very kind, very compassionate moderator. And to a lesser extend for many of us that witnessed this.

What ever the debate about Q anon, the emotional and spiritual wear and tear upon our beloved moderators must be a prime consideration in this matter. I wouldn't want the job they have and I wouldn't wish the ugliness that have to contend with on anyone.

Well, wasn't "the bad guy" unsubscribed?

Does having the thread public so that non-members can read the thread change a single thing whereby mods would experience any more moderation situations than otherwise? I can't see it.

Does it look like the forum is censoring by doing this? To some, it might. If so, is that a good thing for this forum? I wouldn't think so.

Understand, I just posted several posts on that thread which most honest readers would see as "questioning" the Q thing. Why shouldn't non-members see these types of questions and responses?

[Kryztian]

Hi Aragorn, I didn't want the One Truth Forum to die in obscurity as "the-forum-whose-name-you-dare-not-mention" on Avalon. You are doing a great job there and it does deserve to be heard of here. I just kept the names of people (and the forum) anonymous, because I didn't want to draw attention to the individuals, and let the discussion focus on different personages - that would be non productive. I was also making some assumptions about what was going on behind the scenes over at TOT, but since I was making some judgement and assumptions , I figured I better not mention the name in case my post sounded like an indictment. Glad to hear about what happened from your perspective.

I still prefer not to say the name of the particular sociopath however. I think it would give him a sociopathic high to be recognized for his cruelty.

[Chester]

Posted by Kryztian (here)
Hi Aragorn, I didn't want the One Truth Forum to die in obscurity as "the-forum-whose-name-you-dare-not-mention" on Avalon. You are doing a great job there and it does deserve to be heard of here. I just kept the names of people (and the forum) anonymous, because I didn't want to draw attention to the individuals, and let the discussion focus on different personages - that would be non productive. I was also making some assumptions about what was going on behind the scenes over at TOT, but since I was making some judgement and assumptions , I figured I better not mention the name in case my post sounded like an indictment. Glad to hear about what happened from your perspective.

I still prefer not to say the name of the particular sociopath however. I think it would give him a sociopathic high to be recognized for his cruelty.

I have edited this post based on Aragorn stating you were not referring to Bob as I had surmised. I trust Aragorn's opinion and understand I may have concluded incorrectly.

[Frank V]

Posted by Kryztian (here)
Hi Aragorn, I didn't want the One Truth Forum to die in obscurity as "the-forum-whose-name-you-dare-not-mention" on Avalon. You are doing a great job there and it does deserve to be heard of here. I just kept the names of people (and the forum) anonymous, because I didn't want to draw attention to the individuals, and let the discussion focus on different personages - that would be non productive. I was also making some assumptions about what was going on behind the scenes over at TOT, but since I was making some judgement and assumptions , I figured I better not mention the name in case my post sounded like an indictment. Glad to hear about what happened from your perspective.

Acknowledged, and thank you.

Posted by Kryztian (here)
I still prefer not to say the name of the particular sociopath however. I think it would give him a sociopathic high to be recognized for his cruelty.

Personally, I think he would rather be seeing himself as the victim. He's not necessarily sadistic. He actually believes that he has justice on his side.

[Frank V]

Posted by Sammy (here)

Posted by Kryztian (here)
Hi Aragorn, I didn't want the One Truth Forum to die in obscurity as "the-forum-whose-name-you-dare-not-mention" on Avalon. You are doing a great job there and it does deserve to be heard of here. I just kept the names of people (and the forum) anonymous, because I didn't want to draw attention to the individuals, and let the discussion focus on different personages - that would be non productive. I was also making some assumptions about what was going on behind the scenes over at TOT, but since I was making some judgement and assumptions , I figured I better not mention the name in case my post sounded like an indictment. Glad to hear about what happened from your perspective.

I still prefer not to say the name of the particular sociopath however. I think it would give him a sociopathic high to be recognized for his cruelty.

Forgive my opinion... but referring to someone who is either easy to figure out or who someone else identifies by name in their post immediately following yours, as a psychopath, especially when the person can't defend themselves and doing so on a thread that is public while insinuating the former member was integral to the Q thread being made members only seems a bit twisted. Think about it.

That is not what Kryztian said, Sam. In fact, he clearly stated that Bob had stayed out of the QAnon threads.

[justntime2learn]

"The Trees"

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

Rest in peace, Neil Peart

[AutumnW]

Aragorn,

I am so happy you are here and think you add so much to the site. Your posts are a pure delight, so full of a broader perspective we lack, confined to NAmerica, as we are. And it's a big continent...but still...

Anyway...I think what we all yearn for is a tribe -- quieter, saner, a place to call home that feels like home. We miss what we don't have and can't quite remember it. Sometimes I catch a glimpse of it and feel terribly sad. Europeans are more anchored, have more of a sense of place and history extending WAY back that stands them in better stead. The architecture alone, maintained and left in place is enough to keep roots invigorated.

North American drift. We argue. We fight. We think we are misunderstood by the 'other' and yet we are all yearning for a sense of place and freedom. We can't easily articulate this, if at all, because the two yearnings can operate at cross purposes.

Anyway, blathered on enough here. I came across this series on youtube yesterday and was enchanted by the evocative nature of some of these deserted little towns. Film makes a point that words miss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzjX_cD4CeE

[Jayke]

Posted by Praxis (here)

Posted by ClearWater (here)

These are fair points that challenge the 'Q' perspective, and they are framed in a way that seems to me to be lacking animosity and antagonism. Assuming a person more aligned with the 'Q' perspective were to disagree with your points, you don't think they would be able to frame their responses in an equally balanced and well presented way? I believe this is exactly the type of interaction that Edina is referring to and desiring.

I believe that I and many others did try, for the best examples please look for Dennis' post to the Q anon people. He was far better than I at remaining civil.

What were the outcomes of those attempts?

The last time Dennis engaged us ‘Q anon people’, we actually had a pleasant discussion about the nature of discernment. In the members only section Place for dialogue thread.

Posted by Jayke (here)

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
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.

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons

3 poisons symbolised by:

• Pig = ignorance
• Snake = attachment
• Cockerel = aversion

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)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names

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) 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.



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:



As Jung said “I’d rather be whole than good”.

That’s my thought process around contentious topics anyway.

I only bring it up because it follows on from my last post about the 3 techniques the Buddha uses to end all suffering. Each of the 3 techniques in ‘the complete enlightenment Sutra’ is designed to purify one of the kleshas.

• Samatha purifies the tendency of the snake to lash out by helping us remain serene in the presence of those who challenge our attachments.
• Samapathi purifies the the tendency of the cockerel to attack those whose views we have aversions to by helping us to see opposing points of view more clearly.
• Dhyana purifies the ignorance of the pig by cultivating deeper and deeper insights into the true nature of reality.

[Chester]

Posted by Sammy (here)

Posted by Kryztian (here)
Hi Aragorn, I didn't want the One Truth Forum to die in obscurity as "the-forum-whose-name-you-dare-not-mention" on Avalon. You are doing a great job there and it does deserve to be heard of here. I just kept the names of people (and the forum) anonymous, because I didn't want to draw attention to the individuals, and let the discussion focus on different personages - that would be non productive. I was also making some assumptions about what was going on behind the scenes over at TOT, but since I was making some judgement and assumptions , I figured I better not mention the name in case my post sounded like an indictment. Glad to hear about what happened from your perspective.

I still prefer not to say the name of the particular sociopath however. I think it would give him a sociopathic high to be recognized for his cruelty.

I have edited this post based on Aragorn stating you were not referring to Bob as I had surmised. I trust Aragorn's opinion and understand I may have concluded incorrectly.

After a good night's sleep and upon awakening, recognizing the feeling inside of annoying loose ends, I spent the last half hour trying to figure out why I thought the former member Kryztian was referring to as a "toxic psychopath" was Bob.

Here's why.

As this thread evolved and Kryztian's first post (#399) related to this emerged... a post replying to a single statement of mine pulled from a post I had written where I listed my reasons that supports my opinion the Q thread should be public.

I then recalled that when all this Q business went down that this happened at the same time as a sad event occurred which I was aware of. I am referring to the changes here at Project Avalon in the moderation team and membership.

Understand, I have become a firm believer in the personal responsibility one holds when it comes to membership on this forum and The One Truth (stating the name of "the other forum" now that Aragorn has made it clear he would prefer the name be mentioned). I came to this conclusion learning the hardest of ways that I had a choice, put my forum membership first, or risk social entanglements with others whereby I might find myself in a position to make an impossible choice - a friendship or the forum. And I have been through this more than once, somehow escaping with only "a yellow card" so far! But I also must accept my personal limits and one of those is with regards to the development of personal relationships with folks I meet through the forum as I recognized it all started with PMs and then on to things like Skype. For this reason, and after coming out of my second hiatus in July, 2019, I chose to turn off PMs as a firewall.

I now recognize that all I need to do is make it clear that regardless of relationships and regardless of what someone may bring onto themselves or (and this is certainly possible) what an individual may experience which they interpret as an affront whereby they chose to leave and/or they engage in a manner that escalates and results in their banning, I will step aside and/or work to deescalate the situation but I will not follow anyone out the door. And so, I will turn on PMs as there are benefits in having an open door to anyone who may wish to say something they prefer remain off the forum.

Now, back to the my original intent for this post. Picking up at the post I mentioned above - #399, I made the assumption "the toxic psychopath" was probably pointing to Bob because of what I saw on both PA and TOT last July which culminated in Bob being banned here at PA and I can't recall, but either banned or left TOT... but it was sadly part of the fallout of the events that resulted in mods moving on, Paul moving on and a few members moving on.

And it seems this somehow is tied to the Q thread (a thread I hardly looked at as each time I tried, I felt lost as it seemed so coded and like some long winding story road which would take way too much effort to try and "get up to speed" on. And I say this because since late 2017 I had been involved in a time consuming work project and made participation all but impossible, much less to try and wrap arms around Q. So I didn't.

So as for why I concluded that the "toxic psychopath" being pointed to (instead of named) was Bob is because in scanning (not carefully reading) Aragorn's reply I see the name Bob in bold listed ten or so times and taking up over half of the post. Because I have known Bob for years now and have had an extensive relationship with Bob throughout and because Bob is no psychopath, I felt compelled to make the post I made in post #410 - since edited to correct my error of assumption.

So, Bob is not designated as the toxic psychopath... good.

And my well intentioned words in not naming TOT (though I will maintain this style when I refer to other forums and/or a group of forums which TOT may be one), I will always name TOT as the forum I am writing about when I do so.

Now since we have all the naming issues out of the way save for one, should we not speak of the toxic psychopath by name? Or, should s/he be left unnamed? And if so, how is anyone supposed to know the right rules with regards to who is named or not and what forums should be named or not?

[Delight]

"So, Bob is not designated as the toxic psychopath... good."

I was actually going to chime in about Bob in a bit of defense when I too thought he was being targeted because I have had only a rare interaction but always read his threads such as about Taurine. He was not IMO ever acting like a psychopath but someone who thought he knows something and is not "easy".

For that matter, I still recall many other people who were passionate and opinionated (9Eagle for one and could name many missed voices) and less than welcome in their presentations by the righteous cows.

But each time a person of worth is ejected by the herd, the cows without horns are the losers.

Same goes for the intolerance of Q.
I feel pity for the cows without horns.

[Snoweagle]

@ Aragorn Thank you for your experiences with @Bob

I had engaged with Bob privately by email. I sought a discussion on scientific matters which were to controversial to be made in public discussion. What resulted was as you have eluded, self centred bull. I was not impressed. Alarm bells were ringing at each of his procrastinations.

It would not be honourable on my part to have you read those mails between us as my intent was privacy. However, i wrote a pm to Bill basically asking did he know anything about Bob as I was concerned that he was not whom or what he eluded to be. Bill should be able to confirm that.

The last mail I receiver form Bob was the final straw when he started to discuss designing some sort of device harnessing massive amounts of energy for some nefarious purpose. I terminated my contact with him in my nearly instantaneous reply. This was not my interest or intent. Furthermore I had no need for him on such topics as my interest were anomalies in science. (I've since moved on and resolved all I care to know on this subject).

On review at the time, I believed the only purpose he behaved in such a way with me and potentially unknown to me, others: was to draw serious researchers into the watchful oversight of security services. I did the right thing and strongly advise others do not become involved with Bob or others that promote themselves in a similar way.

It is one of the reasons I no longer post anything or engage with anybody on the internet.

I'm posting now as this was very personal to me and I will not tolerate any support for Bob. He is a well educated "loose cannon". Should you be impressed with information he places before you, do your own research. Do not engage privately.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I had this same warning from a long-standing member, whom I respect and take at their word. It was the first time I interacted with him and I thought here was a guy I would like to know better. Right away came the PM warning me to steer clear. I did not know why, but I heeded the warning.

The interesting thing was, and I never pursued it, was how did this other member know about Bob? He had just joined and should have been anonymous. Now I'm glad I took the advice offered.

[Chester]

I got to know Bob four or so years ago... when I was more open to meeting folks from these forums. We developed an extensive relationship via Skype. What is mind blowing to me is the following: I have had literally a thousand hours or more of typed chats and voice conversations with Bob regarding all sorts of subjects. Bob has views and opinions just like I do and just as many others do as well. They change as he moves forward in life just like mine do. Bob has idiosyncrasies just like I do and just like many others do as well.

In my eight year experience with online forums and the folks I met through these online forums, I experienced my own vulnerabilities getting the best of me though, "I think" I have learned and am able to hold my own ground and sovereignty pretty well now. Having said this, as with anyone, there were times Bob and I had a difference of opinion. Never was that a big deal. Yet also, never did I experience anything like an imposition of views that was any more dominating than I have with others I met through the forums. In fact, I have had such experiences with others (met through these forums) far more imposing. I have no doubts there have been times I have escalated emotionally and projected imposition.

Bob never took advantage of me, Bob never harmed me, I never felt manipulated by Bob, I never experienced anything with Bob other than having the opportunity to talk about so many of the things we write about on these forums and the conversations were often quite rich. I am truly baffled as to the comment I read above. Ohhh and, let me add this too. Before I opened to the back channel relationship with Bob, I read warnings and recall a PM or two... and yet what I experienced with Bob and some of the suspicions the rumor mill suggested as to Bob and potential affiliations with one or more alphabet orgs, I would bet 100 to 1 odds those speculations are pure BS.

Still -

It's a sad thing when someone or a group gets separated from a community, sad for both. But it happens, and when we go down the road of the "who's at fault, who's to blame" game... what seems the most important thing everyone strive to keep in mind... what I call "court awareness." I have found that by focusing on a.) what the situation may be and b.) where everyone else is at (regarding their opinions and emotional states) and then weighing the importance of one's "membership" (whether literally or socially) in the community, then one can better protect themselves and the community from that "falling on one's sword" moment, whether on the forum, behind the scenes or both.

The thing about these types of things is that in most cases, there's a quick "side taking" situation whereby one or a few can find themselves isolated. How the one or the few handle those situations makes or breaks their future. For in cases such as communities, the shear power of that community becomes insurmountable and in my opinion, this never changes if the community is to survive in tact.

For me, it has become simple... and I have established a firm position with all individuals I meet through these forums as I feel I have learned these lessons. My membership and to some extent, social acceptance, on this forum and a few others I belong to and am active on, is more important to me than allowing my actions/reactions to put that in jeopardy. But also, though I had decided (July 2019) I would avoid back channel relationships, I have now started opening up again to these types of interactions (they always start with PMs) by simply making it clear to others, I won't take sides over the forum.

Tying this back to the censorship thing, as I stated in the only post I shared my opinion on the matter... what I think, what I suggest, what I wish for... these are all one thing, and what the forum decides is another and I stand by the decisions of the forum regardless.