Obsrvr,
You have to put everyone in their own reality.
That’s how you make everyone awesome.
It’s not a contradiction either. People can’t wrap their heads around the idea that EVERYONE can be god. Think about strange loops and holography here!
All of this is about eliminating the burden once and for all… achieving the great work.
As long as anyone is suffering, I can’t with 100% honesty say, “what a great day!”
My goal in life is to be able to say that honestly.
This is true. God Tells us what’s good and what’s evil. When we have good intent and when we have evil intent. When we’re being sincere/reasonable or insincere/unreasonable. What’s perfect and what’s imperfect. What’s triangular and what’s square. We are aware of these things. The ‘hypothetical’ you gave was clearly descriptive of an imperfect being. God Teaches me what is triangular and what is round. I cannot then say I don’t know if x is round or triangular when I can clearly see that it is round, all in the name of I cannot tell God what is or isn’t round.
Yes I agree, but only in the following sense. If I see Christ getting crucified, I either conclude that Christ deserved this, or I conclude that God/Existence is imperfect. I am not Omniscient. I don’t know Christ like God Knows Christ. But I know God Is Perfect. So I conclude Christ deserved it. But if some ‘god’ then turned around and said to me that Christ did not deserve to be crucified, yet I willed that he be crucified, I would then know that ‘god’ is not God and that God is probably waiting for ‘god’ to complete his transgression so that God would put ‘god’ in Hell. It is absurd for God to do imperfectly. Injustice is an imperfection.
At times, to us, it may be that the Lord works in mysterious ways. Our judgement should be that it’s all perfection. It is silly for us to say I know better than God. But it is also silly for us to imply injustice or imperfection = perfection. Perfection will be better than what we can conceive. It will not be worse than that which no greater we can conceive of. Your words suggest the latter of the aforementioned two sentences is a hypothetical possibility. It is not.
It’s not in vain. It’s to avoid evil. Although I have to change my answer. We should fight this ‘god’. We should torment it. That is better than merely avoiding it.
See above.
No. I don’t think I ever said it really is unwise to know real truth. And no, I think Truth is Omnibenevolent towards good, but also Omnimalevoelnt towards evil (hence why Hell is not sugarcoated in scripture). Truth does not love evil. This is why it’s evil for evil to be evil.
didn’t read the whole thread
just the OP
but gotta say
the truth fucking matters
everyone knows it
as evidenced by the fact
that you feel like shit when you’re not being truthful
Truth is not enough. And sometimes Lies win out, as we are seeing for the past few years.
The US political-right is not yet adapted to the violence, lies, corruption, and sheer hatred contained within the political-left.
If the right doesn’t change its methods quickly, and utilize the evil strategies of the left, then the course will continue as it is, towards inevitable civil war.
The Right needs to take the lead the Left has presented. Only Evil can defeat Evil.
Just like it takes a thief to catch a thief.
The Truth can no longer defend the political-right. I don’t think enough people are aware of this fact yet.
It doesn’t mean the political-left are in anyway truthful, obviously they’re not, they’re a party of lies.
But it doesn’t mean Truth will win them over or achieve victories in the months and years to come.
The political-right need to begin utilizing the Lie. To get their own hands dirty, to join the fight in the mud.
This is not a fight that will be won on the “moral high ground” or on the high-horse.
So become what you hate?
Now you suggest that the conservatives become lying, cheating authoritarians as well? - Become the evil in the name of Good?
It is seeming like authoritarianism is the way for everyone to be - just any means to oppress and crush the opposition.
Is this really as James said - “The Planet of the Apes in the Land of Lies with the Chimps in Charge” - Charlton Heston discovering the statue of liberty buried in the sand?
What other choice is there?
I’ve already seen the tide turn. The Far Right is already radicalizing.
Consider this, the liberal-left-democrats, the Communists, beat, burned, looted, murdered the Right, the center of USA, the populace, the average citizen without penalty or consequence for an entire year.
How long while you’re beating a person on the ground, repeatedly, calling him/her a “NAZI RACIST!” before that person submits, gives up, and accepts the label?
How bad a beating, until the person hated, attacked, sacrificed, accept the label given to them?
It’s a psychological defeat. It’s already happened, within the Right. The Left is creating the evil, hate, and demons that they fear the most. It’s a self-projection.
A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
They want Nazism to appear, even where it does not exist before. They want Fascism. They want Authoritarianism. It won’t be long until the political Right obliges them, accepts the label, and then begins the next historical cycle. They are creating the demons they fear.
Imagine you are one of the Communist-Democrats, BLM, Antifa… you are beating a Trump-supporters head into the ground. Slam, slam, slam, slam. You scream in rage “NAZI RACIIIIIIST!!!” How long until that Trump-supporter submits internally, losing consciousness, and accepting what the Left has burned into his/her mind? You can correctly assign the Cause to Leftists and Leftism. But they get what they want. The Right succumbs to the idea, the projection. Then the radicalization on the Right begins. It’s already begun.
History repeating, is not a joke.
The Liberal/Left/Democrats/Communists are driven by pure emotion, pure hatred “Trump Derangement Syndrome”, pawns of the MSM and Deep State. They believe they are “fighting Nazis”, but what they are actually doing, in reality, in effect, is creating what they hate and fear, out of thin air. They forcing victims and innocent people into the “Fascism” they believe they are fighting against. But they are fighting for Fascism.
Obsrvr I’m going to send you a private message of evidence and proof of this
Obviously you’re not Catholic (not that we needed this discussion for me to determine that). 
How was the Egyptian Empire destroyed and entirely erased? - “dividing the waters” while the dividers stayed out of the ruckus. How was the Roman Empire destroyed and almost entirely erased? - the same way although a little slower - the Roman’s had an advantage the Egyptians didn’t have. How was the USA destroyed (and currently under erasure)? - can you guess? - the same way.
I’m not a war strategist but I can see that in order to defeat a would-be conqueror you have to be relatively impervious to his weapons while he is not so impervious to yours. You have to have something he doesn’t have sufficient to compensate for what he does have. I can default to James’ simple reductionist idea - “every war is determined by strategic momentum”. In some way you have to be greater than your foe and know how to apply it (my interpretation).
If you both have the exact same weapons and ideas about how to use them - if there is no real difference between you - the larger, more numerous wins - that isn’t you. Your conqueror was the globalists - the combination of all authoritarian nations and hidden corporate manipulators with a combined trillion dollar budget.
Now if you had the Presidency of the USA, the already established laws, and half of the population yet still didn’t have sufficient momentum (admittedly the President was denied his eyes - the intelligence agencies), how would you expect to win after you lost the Presidency? You had already lost one bishop, your queen (SCOTUS), and both rooks (law enforcement). Your king was check mated (the censorship). You still have no queen or rooks - maybe a bishop left and millions of pawns. How do you continue from that point? - Start a new game? - not an easy or quick process. Merely setting up the board could take decades. And they are still in the process of erasing you entirely so there can’t be a new game.
But we are straying too far from the topic of this thread even though the relevance of truth is core to any social strategy. Find out what weapons you have before you go into battle. Doesn’t that seem reasonable?
All of this really belongs on The New Dark Age thread or the World at War thread.
You have said that truth is not relevant to the globalists. I am sure you are right about that.
But should it be relevant to you or us?
Truth is always necessary to reveal who, what, and where the true threats arise.
I’m just pissed off that Western Civilization is collapsing and we are ending the age of Freedom in the West.
I certainly didn’t expect to be living in this time period. Freedom will require space exploration and colonization, before a new Free society can form.
The US Constitution is nullified and destroyed, by this Communist insurrection. But you already touched on this.
Good - I agree - but —
Should credit be given to the idea that the real truth about this whole life on Earth (or elsewhere) is possibly something best NOT known? Is there a limit to how much truth should be revealed. I have to ask because many very influential people have declared that it should NOT be revealed. And that is a serious problem. And looking into the past that problem has really come up time and again.
I think we can all agree that some level of truth is necessary merely to live - to perceive hope and threat. But if we are to find out that the total highest truth of it all is lethal, the problem arises as to how to draw the line and stop the investigating - the critical thinking - the philosophizing.
All of the religions of the entire world do that (as far as I can tell). They all say - “this is enough - no more”. In fact some religions appear to use full disclosure as a weapon to have societies destroy themselves.
A Ministry of Truth so easily becomes a propaganda weapon used in nefarious ways. I think there is a way to prevent that from happening but there must be an understanding that there really is a limit to what is good to NOT know about. All countries and religions do that (and all suffer a lack of confidence from their populous).
So as philosophers, can it be determined that a limit to knowledge SHOULD be implemented?
How to get it done is a different issue - perhaps next in developing a strategy to restore freedom - or whatever.
Under a Free Society, no, there are no Arbiters of Truth that can represent the State.
If there are, then it is simply no longer a Free Society, which is the case in the U.S.
The explicit argument here is that it is the liberal-left Communists who want to establish themselves as the Ministry of Truth.
And when Conservatives/Republicans bail out of Twitter, they shut down Parler in response.
You can’t get anymore lower and evil than these cretins.
– unless they, with full understanding and knowledge, agree to it.
Secrets are always necessary. The issue is always how those secrets are being used. No society can ever be totally free - that is just anarchy.
I think if educated properly a society could gain confidence that the national secrets were definitely not being abused. That doesn’t at all reflect what the former USA did, but I think it is possible - and necessary.
I disagree with that.
US has done fine so far with the CIA and NSA keeping secrets. The difference is that they don’t arbitrate “truth” to the public.
US has not had a “Ministry of Truth” up until the last 5 years. This monopolization has only recently overcome the traditional cultural blockades.
It would have never been acceptable for Social Media to restrict speech, or regulate political speech, or elections, before 2016 among the liberal-left.
Trump changed this because he was/is an existential threat to the (Deep State) Establishment, which is a good thing.
Populism needs to gain more victories in the years to come. The Establishment is too corrupt to continue to lead USA.
So the US government has never kept classified materials. That is certainly news to me - and quite a few Congressmen and Presidents. Perhaps you should let them know too.
I know the US didn’t have a designated Ministry of Truth but that doesn’t mean someone wasn’t choosing when to tell people things and when to keep secrets. The FBI has been being sued for information for decades that they refuse to release.
And other than that, we are not talking about inventing truth narratives although the US has certainly been doing that forever - as has every country. You really believe that Epstein committed suicide? You might as well believe that JFK committed suicide. Or that the Twin Towers collapsed and evaporated due to a lack of oxygen and Iraq was filled with WMDs. Or that Mr Obama was an honest man.
Nice thought but it is about like saying, “The South shall rise again”.
I don’t know what makes you think there is going to be a “next time”. You really believe that voter fraud was only used this once? And that it will never be used again? Or that media will now stop oppressing and manipulating information so that all voices have a chance to be heard?
The USA stopped being any shade of democracy on Jan 6, 2020. Democracy DIES in darkness - not sleeps. And it doesn’t just wake up again the next morning. You are NOW living under an oligarchy. You know that. And they don’t just fade away.
I just said they did and do keep secrets… via the CIA and NSA.
What I said is they did not try to “administrate the truth through a government agency”.
The US Media never even thought to go as far as it is now with its control on public speech, especially censoring the US President.
That is the development of “Social Media” and the “Tech Oligarchs”. It’s new, historically.
im 41 and the of the same political leanings that i was in my 20s, its just that in the us the overton window has shifted so far right that people call me a leftist now. its insane.
Again: very good thoughts. The topic is very important, contemporary and relating to the future. Thanks.
Sometimes it is cleverer (not wiser) to live with the lie. In the past, one could keep the truth to oneself or talk about it in niches (see: terror after all succesful revolutions since the end of the 18th century, last in communism). Now, we are dealing with communism of the last kind, which eclipses the communism of earlier times, because the latter was not yet capable of using the technology of the last three decades. Today’s communism is capable of doing it (see: China). Because China is now even ahead, other nations (especially the Western ones) want to become like China because they have realized that slaves make it easier to keep up or even take the lead again.
I think I have come to some conclusions concerning this subject. The first being that due to the possibility of indiscriminate broadcasting of literally all truth known to mankind being unwise/unhealthy for sake of mankind, there definitely should be a type of truth protectorate in one form or another. But that immediately leads to serious questions - not easily resolved.
How are categories of secrets to be chosen in the first place? - by whom? I am certain that the categories of secret information must be very very well defined and seriously and continuously scrutinized. But how do the categories ever gain their status?
And since social confidence is a must for reasonable living, there must be a means that instills full confidence in every sector of society that secrets are not being abused for any reason and that disinformation isn’t being mishandled. I imagine that different means would be utilized for different social groups (by however they are defined). And this gets back to the first question of who exactly is choosing the categories and why.
And finally it seems as though some form of speech and information monitoring and control is a must if secrets are to be kept (an unfortunate and disturbing truth in itself). And if leaked, there must be some means of capture and restore. That seems to be an easily offensive task to attempt.
We can see from history that prophets and priests used to gain faith from their followers which takes care of the first issue of who gets to know the secrets in order to choose whether they need hiding. But that is a very crude method and rife with suspicion, distrust, and eventual disruption. Keeping the secrets is reminiscent of Cherubs of old and current ruthless socialist fascism of late.
There must be a better way.
These questions are already being haphazardly addressed by very powerful people. It doesn’t seem that public confidence is ever really going to be achieved so they are now exercising fascist style force - giving up on civil harmony for sake of social hierarchy.
But what are the best answers to these critical and pervasive concerns?