I always celebrate an article that reveals more of the human condition without framing it in personal vendetta or self vindication.
But the glimpse is soon crowded out by reactions to the subject.
Presenting a seeming unity is the nature of an individual or social persona or presentation as a cover story or adjustment and counter to the hate or conflict that runs beneath.
Such has been the nature of the development of human consciousness as a result of a loss of that which truly unifies to an interjection of imposed control or conflict management.
The love hate alloy of the 'human conditioning' is perhaps a polarised replacement of a love that HAS no opposite - and yet the play in opposition is the development of a consciousness through which the freedom to accept existence opens from a sense of being projected or 'separated' into existence.
I WANT IT THUS! is recognisable in every heart from earliest infancy and is a grasp of form that image or symbol qualities of meaning that cannot be encapsulated and possessed. And yet while they are given that meaning they are lived as if it is a matter of our possession or a fear and hatred of dispossession.
The 'Invisible Hand' idea works also for the undercurrent set of 'what we are thinking' - where a narrative sets or frames the funding and acceptance of ideas and development. And this is self-interest working through the current and dominant definitions and themes - which may present as progress for the human good while actively seeking wealth and power of a private agenda set over the human good.
The concentration and consolidation of wealth and power into the very few begs the question what is the worth of such wealth and power if only to disempower and indenture to debt slavery and sacrificial allegiance under a toxic and destructive lie? This is a different question than the attempt to contest within the frame of powerlessness.
The exchange of a passing fantasy gratification for a true relationship has to first insinuate a sense of self-lack and self-doubt - through which to nudge a fantasy of self-inflation that presents 'a fine set of robes for the King'.
Rather than point the finger (away). Question the active but underlying presumptions or beliefs that are accepted and acted upon as currency of reality. Thought IS currency - and adulterated and diluted supply runs the boom and bust of the carrot and the stick.
The push of current 'top down' thinking is for global and granular energy and thought control. Conflict management as an Internment of Things. Nothing new under the Sun then - excepting we replicate the displacement and dissociation from our true nature in ever more Self-alienating systems of substitution for life. Such that the Many take such a managed existence as the only life to be had and in fear to lose are robbed of even the little that they hath.
'Go forth and multiply' can be recognised as the nature and function of mind. But whatever is given devotion goes forth - and so a sense of lack is the basis for a world of debt and desecration as an abundance of lack or indeed fear.
This DOES drive the 'economy' and technology - but always as the marketisation and weaponisation of a sense of inverted possession and control. The fear that the OTHER carries your own secret intent is the armouring against it that not only sets that belief as (your) reality - but communicates fear, distrust and hate to the OTHER as active and ongoing threat of hate and denial - even if presented as justified self protection or interference.
Fear generates contagion that renders insane. However fear, to be released of 'creative' function, has to first be owned instead of flagged to the 'Other'. The great Unconsciousness is the wish that it go away, be taken away or magicked away or covered over - as an ongoing delay or deferrment or outsourcing to someone else somewhere else. So as to persist the personal sense of face and control against a fear of loss.
It is possible to give willingness to put differences aside and allow what we share in common to find a voice. The difference is all the difference because joy shines of itself - where hyped up presentations are hollow. To know this difference is to know where to give with-ness and worth-ship in any given moment.
False witness may seem to be our face of power and protection - but the cost of the lie is a true relationship - within as without. Instead of guilting our current adaptation, let a working acceptance open space for more perspective by which to recognise and appreciate our lives - because what is covered over is not lost so much as put out of sight as IF out of mind.
in reply to
I have read that the Germans used a Polish manufacturer to make the Enigma coding machine and that the Poles made secretly made a copy of every component and worked out its function. So the code was already broken and the Polish copy captured in the breaking of the Maginot line during the first actions of the war. However Poles escaped to Britain with the secrets such that it was only a 'secret' to those below a certain level of privileged access.
Slightly similar story with the 'top secret' Norden bombsight.
Now how the various conflicting narratives operate at different levels is another thing - but narratives are also cover stories and that DOES come through the article above.
The idea that we are being lied to may also be the idea that we want to live a lie or persist in self-illusion for our OWN reasons or for reasons that are kept hidden from ourselves so as to mask over a realm of conflict so as to protect it behind a cover story, and protect us from its undoing or resolution - excepting token alliances and truce of 'cover story'.
The presentation of the innocent victim as the basis of the call for vengeance is part of the mind that knows not what it does. That is, it believes its own thought determines reality as a cover story of self-justification for persisting in... its own thought or private agenda given priority in secret.
The nature of reality for human consciousness cannot be considered without recognising that we (whoever we are) MODEL or IMAGE our reality and then use that model to interact and manipulate through that reality as if IN our own thoughts, definitions, meanings and beliefs.
The conviction that truth is OUT THERE rather an implicately projective to an explicate EXPERIENCE is the result of WANTING it so.
The fundamental false flag is to set up trouble abroad to cover for or divert from trouble at home. The conflict is thus 'protected' by a 'separation'.
Now it may be that our narratives are 'code' for what we do NOT want to know or OWN - and that this even this also is 'already known' to a realm of access 'backstage'.
I cannot take away another's story - or unfolding experience of who they are - and who they are not - nor is there any call to do so. (Attempt to do so generates insane entanglement within story as denied will of victim and victimiser).
But perhaps I can realign in a of waking to the script as a freedom to live its 'other side' as a movement of reintegrative recognition.
To 'cast out' has a double meaning and a projector is a beam of filtered light.
To see through a glass darkly or in modern terms through an algorithm of rules that serve the director of thought in theme and focus.
Truth already In Here or Inherence is a resonant recognition to a willing abidance.
The mind then follows - instead of splitting off in a mis-taken inheritance all by itself.
Freedom to follow and live our own expression must be the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them as a development of character and self responsibility. But the introduction of sin and guilt of uncorrectable error effectively locks off the script from revision, and damns the personae of that error to never ending re-enactment of the lie and the father of it in which death or unconsciousness is called on to save - and the world of such supply rises like a genie to the intensity of the wish.
That what we want matters is masked in seeming to want what we do not or hiding what we truly do want because it reopens the pain of conflict in the heart. better then to displace and mitigate to a world made to cover over an 'ancient hate'.
Reactive or habituated emotional investment distorts our capacity to think and see clearly. We become victims to our own and others story.
Human development? Is there not the interplay of seemingly opposing polarised forces in which we are invested and en-tranced. If the game is not worth the candle then its capacity to engage attention wanes to the desire for a more coherent story. desire is the vibration that aligns thought as purposeful fulfilment. Are we not collectively invested in NOT wanting to lose rather than wholly wanting to have and to be as What Is?
Perhaps our 'reality experience' of any moment is the level of access or 'need to know' basis. If we are not wholly willing to own and to know we will manifest filters or blocks or diversions that then generate a stepping stone path of unfolding experience - perhaps through an attempt to NOT know by defending what we think we know (or want true) against all odds and evidences. perhaps there is a baby in the bathwater - because the desire to be loved or powerful is not in itself illegitimate - but coercion and manipulation undermine the very qualities that a sense of loss or limit of - set us in act - and react.
#3 in reply to
It isn't either or - but both AND...
The PR or marketing of image is at the fore and so it cant be allowed to fail.
The studio work doesn't prove everything is staged.
At another level we may see that Everything is staged - but if we give power of mind to Others or to circumstances, we use them as a proxy for our own story or 'staging our scene'.
The Big Lie is the politics of audacity to the capacity to get away with it.
But once you accept what such 'power' gives as your own, where is your way out?
Only yielding up or releasing what you took to be your 'own' at cost of a truth you did not and could not make. But thought to replace.
Truth is beyond our capacity to make, and so cannot in truth be unmade - but our true awareness can be denied and ruled out by a will set in conflict with itself.
Conflicting narratives may serve the same underlying purpose.