May 1, 2011

The difference between pieties and blindspots

Richard Grove

03/12'11 tt = Tosco T.) Now take Boorstin's all-deciding realization, "the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge," and look at it with the eyes of the top culture creators.
I think you will recognize that building castles of piety "in the air" isn't something that the bank's level of consciousness was able to be in control of.

04/17'11 tt) Hey Rich, my favorite ex-"Wallstreet-rockstar", you may not forget that I'm not in the preacher's, philosopher's, professor's, or politician's business. Propagating is not what "pietologists" do. This would be absurd!
Now, since I will definitely not become part of this vociferous punditry circus with my attitude as a whisperer, the question is, if you will deliver any comments also outside of your T'n'H clubhouse, isn't it?
Because I thought that you were some sort of "synchronicity superstar" in the making, you know.
I'm simply looking for Jon's arbiters. They don't have to necessarily be real persons, with regard to the potential riskiness of this job – the reason why I only accept avatars as facebook friends from now on.
But it obviously won't work behind closed doors. It won't work within a privatized public, within private circles of enlightened alumni that will always act politically when it comes to the public in its entirety, you see?

04/18'11 Hi Tosco, I've been having pc problems all week, so if you've sent any other messages, I haven't seen them, I just got my email to open, saw your note ... and my responses are found below: "RG".

04/17'11 tt) Howdy, Rich!
You may have wondered why I put Thomas Richards in the same league of passionate uncoverers and comprehensive lecturers like you and Clint Richardson, whereas it is quite obvious that you are so much more intellectual, so much more studied and so much more eloquent than him. *) 1 The main reason therefore is probably one of my biggest concerns about your "blindspotology", which appears to me to be simply too rational. *) 2 There is no room or respect for romantic thoughts or let's say for the freedom of thinking romantically, you know. *) 3 Your sense for language seems to me to be too nominal, if you can guess what I am suggesting here. Sort of too "mathematical", too mechanical somehow. *) 4 This adumbrates my notion when I said that "I don't think of 'piety theory' as being the exact same thing as Richard's 'blindspotology'" and it surely will be one of the big central topics between the two approaches. Clint Richardson is another story but also similar in a way.

Furthermore, I mentioned something like becoming synchronicity experts in consequence of Jon Stewart's call for "an arbiter of what's real and what's not". The thing is that I don't need an answer or a decision from you on this. There is also no time limit involved or any rules of engagement etc., nothing. I think, for instance, at the moment only that it would be certainly interesting to conduct a correspondence with someone of your intellect, who sees him, of all authors, as the real deal, who taught Bill (and Hill) Clinton the Jesuitical Argument. *) 5 "Which people like Quigley did not see fit to share with the public" – is that supposed to mean that you think of him as kind of a deserter from the Catholic corporate system? *) 6
If we really want to outgrow this military monolith of concentrated intelligence, to which Quigley was committed all his life, there is no other way than to do it methodically: to simply challenge their parasite model of the mob, the corporation. To fight the ruthless and contemptuous business model of the priests of the Leviathan of church and state is, in my opinion, to be meant as a healing process from their deepest and strongest piety-scientific tricks and methods. *) 7 I'll be available for contact not before next weekend.

PS: "Literacy is a form of slavery, until critical thinking is exercised by the reader."
Says the man who believes the books were already written that could make you really understand what's going on and what it is ... *) 8 For example, to "occult information" or, more precisely, all efforts being made to shape reality in the eye of the beholder in certain ways are the basis for business on all levels of spiritual and economic power and are undertaken by everyone, right up to the business of love (either in its religious dimension or in its most intimate familial form). *) 9

02/24'11 "Anonymous attacks whoever attacks Wikileaks. [...] They ruined both his lives." Glenn Greenwald
02/28'11 Jesuit-trained CIA top agent and CBS media officer Michael Scheuer

RG = Richard Grove)
*) 1 RG: It's no wonder, I've been acquainted with Thomas Richards and his work for many years, as I used to follow Phelps' work with great attention.
*) 2 RG: I don't have a "blindspotology", only the observation that all individuals have blind spots, and those who do not examine theirs by identifying the contradictions to identify the knowledge, seem to arrive at knowledge without a method. That's great for some people, but I possess no psychic powers, so I need logic to validate the contents of my mind. If it appears "too rational", I would ask: do you have any proof of this, or is it a subjective observation which has yet to be validated?
*) 3 RG: There is plenty of room and respect for the freedom of thinking, in fact, I know it encourages thinking by requiring questions to be asked, and valid answers to be found, this is through the process of thinking, which is the process of asking the (5 W's + How?) to ascertain identity without contradiction.
*) 4 RG: I'm a work in progress, a student of life, not a final product, so I hope that I become less "mathematical" b/c I hate math :)

*) 5 RG: I don't think Quigley is any more the "real deal" than his student Clinton, rather, I think that by demonstrating that a) people like Quigley train Clinton, and that people don't see Clinton as "good", communicates as: Clinton's a manipulator (one of many) and he's trained by people like Quigley, and to know the enemy, you must gain knowledge of what info/intel the enemy is using ... thus, get to know Quigley and the whole mess through his books, then learn about the blind spots of Quigley (the history of the Jesuits, Christianity, "government" which is mind control, in general ...)
*) 6 RG: No, it means that Quigley is part of the NWO, and if you think he's telling you everything, that's not accurate. He only un-occults what is convenient to him, thus the need for studying Antony Sutton, Eustace Mullins, Nesta Webster, Ida Tarbull, as well as the source materials which Phelps uses, etc.

*) 7 RG: Again, you're disagreement is unfounded, as we both understand this.
You seem to have been misinterpreting my art, or not using the art to formulate your perspectives of my position. I hope that this email has made it more clear that we are not in opposition on these topics.
*) 8 RG: Again, you are quoting me, and then erecting a straw man, which is an error in formulating your conclusion/judgement of my actions. Please re-consider observing the art and media I've created, and work from what's there. The process of understanding is achieved by observing, and answering the 5 W's + How, as peace revolution 023 exhibits for your participation.

*) 9 RG: There are two reasons to occult information, to gain power, or to protect yourself from predators who occult info to prey on you.
Example of the former: The Roman Empire, example of the latter: The Essenes, Dead Sea Scrolls.

tt) Of course you haven't, Rich, I made it up. Blindspotology is just a way to label the course that you're following with headlines like "What you've been missing" or such statements that books were filling or replacing blindspots, purposely created by traditional state education in the first place, and so forth.
I made this word up not to offend you but to demarcate the idea of a piety-theoretical research approach from your very conspiracy-theoretical general understanding.
The main reason why I think it's necessary has to be seen in that major magic ideological trick to overemphasize the military aspect of secrecy in favor of hiding the far more important military aspect of blind belief from coming to public attention, because, contrary to you, I believe that "occulting the truth" isn't the main source of political power. The main source of political power consists of the ability to rule the biggest desires, wishes and hopes of people, which makes the profession of the priest to the most politically influential of all, in my opinion, and the entire history of human civilization shows that this is exactly the case.

I totally share your "observation that all individuals are having blind spots" and also almost everything that you say about that very natural human condition, but do you also think about the individual need for having these blindspots to one's own taste, for instance? "There is no room for romantic thoughts" etc. was a weak expression for saying that analyzing the irrationality of human thoughts and decisions has to play an equal role like dedicating attention to the needs of the human soul for consistent, clear, and comprehensive evaluations.
Romantic thoughts deserve the same respect as rational thoughts is what I was actually trying to say, because I don't think you can expect from others to think critically and logically in front of the mystery of life, and I think we both agree to the fact that nobody can really force others into doing so. Meaning you're left with hope alone that they would, and hope is nothing I want to base research projects on.

You'll find in Carlos Castaneda's "A Separate Reality" an interesting passage in chapter ten, where he wrote about death as the "central force in every bit of knowledge that becomes power":

"My benefactor said that when a man embarks on the paths of sorcery he becomes aware, in a gradual manner, that ordinary life has been forever left behind. That knowledge is indeed a frightening affair. That the means of the ordinary world are no longer a buffer for him. And that he must adopt a new way of life if he is going to survive. The first thing he ought to do, at that point, is to want to become a warrior, a very important step and decision.
The frightening nature of knowledge leaves one no alternative but to become a warrior.

By the time knowledge becomes a frightening affair the man also realizes that death is the irreplaceable partner that sits next to him on the mat. Every bit of knowledge that becomes power has death as its central force. Death lends the ultimate touch, and whatever is touched by death indeed becomes power. A man who follows the paths of sorcery is confronted with imminent annihilation every turn of the way, and unavoidably he becomes keenly aware of his death. Without the awareness of death he would be only an ordinary man involved in ordinary acts. He would lack the necessary potency, the necessary concentration that transforms one's ordinary time on earth into magical power. Thus to be a warrior a man has to be, first of all, and rightfully so, keenly aware of his own death. But to be concerned with death would force any one of us to focus on the self and that would be debilitating. So the next thing one needs to be a warrior is detachment.
The idea of imminent death, instead of becoming an obsession, becomes an indifference."

Do you now understand a little bit better what the "piety theorist" is missing in the world of the "blindspotologist"?
If not, that's not a problem at all, because I'm pretty sure that I can deliver you the proof of my impression that your focus of interest would be "too rational" and "your sense for language too nominal" that you ask me for, although I'm not directly prepared for it yet. Let's drop the not so appropriate notion of "too mathematical" or "too mechanical", okay? But the "too nominal" part has to be kept for the time being.

A month ago, in a reply to Lisa, I announced a topic that I want to discuss with you by saying "[it's] the underlying tacit realm of deliberately poorly unarticulated public opinion, where I see a parallel to the usage of the phrase 'you know' in everybody's speech habits," which is of great importance especially on a day like today (when Nobel Peace Prize winner Barry "Obama" Soetoro caught, killed and buried Osama) and which perfectly fits in this conversation at this very point.
Like I said: "it surely will be one of the big central topics between the two approaches."
If there is a between ...

See, I don't believe, for instance, that the secret and bloody history of the Jesuit Order or the massive centralization through Rome's Christianization of Europe are kind of blindspots for Quigley. For him as a full-blood Papist, they are rather spots to make others blind for. Anti-psychedelic book religions live, in my opinion, for the predominant part of their momentousness from the language's potential to cast a spell over the less educated and more superficially thinking: Religion in its historical and current monotheistic form is pure devotional science. In the same way, the modern belief of the citizen in "his" state or "his" republic has also unmissable religious features, don't you think so too? According to Jon-Boy Stewart, "we're living in insanity", and I think we have to kind of respect this for the purpose of understanding it all in all, not only to accurse it, you know.

Your mail was indeed a great help in making it more clear to me where we're not in opposition, especially with regard to Professor Quigley ("'government' which is mind control, in general"), and I definitely didn't want to construe any artificial disagreements between both of us by insisting on the right method that had the power to compete with the allmighty straw man, which is the corporation, which is essentially the Company of Jesus as the ultimate form of a global corporation for equal-minded collectivists.
Now, let's focus on this for a while to make it hopefully more clear to you that those two sentences "If we really want to outgrow this" etc. weren't meant to be a critique of you as the "work in progress" that you are :)
When I speak of outgrowing the militance of the Roman corporate system in the way of an healing process from spiritually strong, psychologically deep, and politically supreme piety-strategic tricks on the individual as well as the social level, it is first and foremost meant as an attempt to find the right words for a methodical decision of direction. You know, you're now marching under the banner of the trivium for that matter, which is excellent in my eyes, but I'm afraid it will be insufficient as long as we can't handle these profound religious (philosophy with God) and secular (philosophy without God) layers of piety that obviously determine our all too civilized, "overcivilized", denaturized life.

"You seem to have been misinterpreting my art, or not using the art to formulate your perspectives of my position."
Well, unlike you, I don't see you or myself as an artist, misinterpretations are of course always possible, and I believe what I'm doing is to formulate my perspective on your position, not of your position, isn't it?
And I think it's important not to confuse the search for exactitude with the search for conflict.

"Again, you are quoting me, and then erecting a straw man, which is an error in formulating your conclusion/judgement of my actions." Yes, it looks like I did, I completely understand this reaction.
But let's keep that in mind and let's see how this subject unfolds through the next weeks and months and if it's actually just a straw man or something more real, alright?
How much you've invested in the "peace revolution" podcast no. 23 hasn't escape my notice, although I haven't listened to it yet except for the first ten minutes or so, and I downloaded the transcript.

To RG #09: There are many reasons to occult information or to play resp. to make policy with information, not just those two, and I simply felt it would be important to refer to the extraordinarily high level of mutual thievishness throughout all domains of our corporate culture with the intention to develop a little bit of understanding why such mega lies like the incineration of entire cities, the public executions of top politicians (presidents), the pulverization of office towers, or "a burial at sea of Osama through Obama" remain undisturbed by any considerable resistance "from below", meaning this theater will continue to happen.
You now don't compare the underground nature of your privatized Tragedy and Hope network with the situation of those Jewish monks in the monastery of Qumran, do you? Because if you do so, I wasn't that much off the mark with my "Tragedyandhopianism", was I?

From a conversation on the T'n'H website ...
02/27'11 tt) "The Jesuits are indeed a remarkable educational order."

You should know, Rich, that I have complete understanding for your situation, in which it seems almost impossible to go to the very bottom of all the Tragedy and Hope stuff, but if you don't want to call our common friend a henchman of the Knights of Jesus, then I will.
You know, there are greater inspirations out there in cyberspace, nevertheless you have maintained your role as a shining beacon of indefatigable search for what's really going on. Your way to position yourself as a true corner stone of open-minded willingness to negotiate is uncompromised. And so by weaving all major threads together, synchronistically and synergistically, your and your friend's ambitious media network has been remained my most central source of wisdom in the English-speaking world.
Especially the focus on the trivium method elevates the project from any other conspiratorial terminology using website or community. I'm here to support and promote this promising accomplishment and also, of course, to take advantage of it: "The little bell and the big swoosh"

02/28'11 Lisa: "Hi Tosco :) When you refer to "our common friend" above, do you mean Carroll Quigley?
Indeed, Georgetown is a Jesuit university ... and Rhodes based his secret society on the Jesuits ... and the State of Israel is modeled on Cecil Rhodes's secret society which means likewise that the Zionists were using Jesuit strategies ... and going even a step further, Ignatius Loyola grew up in Spain surrounded by quabalistic/occult/mystery school teachings, his being born into the time when both the Sephardim and the Moors had been expelled ... going back further, you will note that the institutionalized plans for destruction come from a time which pre-dates the Levitical Priesthood who worshipped Moloch and atone for their destruction through the sacrifice of others ... and that repeating pattern of history illustrates a scarlet thread of destruction out of which Western civilization has been woven ...
But ... that being read ... I don't know everything, and I may learn something today which totally evolves and elevates my current understanding :)"

02/28'11 tt) Hi Lisa :) Nice to meet you here in one of the front rooms of your virtual T'n'H headquarters and thanks for taking notice that promptly. Could I ever get a better answer than this one from you? I think not.
It seems to me as if you've already perfected your warm up or introduction routine for a new discussion.
Or who else do you know who comes up with "I may learn something today which totally evolves and elevates my current understanding" among the first lines?
Carroll Quigley was a Jesuit professor like Adam Weishaupt, was he not?
So maybe we shouldn't judge the Illuminist movement that hard ... I mean, as Tragedyandhopians :)
Joking aside, it's true: I'm here to present a pivotal paradigm shift. I'm here to introduce you and Richard and the "9/11" Synchronicity community to a more complex and more precise theoretical approach.
Well, I'm here to show Richard his big blindspot, allright?
You both are enlightened, that's for sure, but from my point of view only on one eye, so to speak. And it's always better to use the other too, makes a lot clearer and easier to understand.
Are you, for example, aware of how many Jesuit top universities exist everywhere in the world today?

03/01'11 tt) You know, you sometimes blink with the second eye but somehow you can't open it up :)
"Peace revolution" podcast no. 15 "Compassionate communication – How to mitigate conflict in our thoughts"
Richard @ 40 min:

"Both religion and politics, the church and the state are one and the same creation in the past. They split and gave us the illusion that we have freedom from church and state. But church and state, when you look at the history and who is in control now, have never been separated, because to believe in the separation of church and state is to believe in the illusion of government and religion in the first place, because you don't understand the piece of grammar which is the additional knowledge base of the noble lie. Once you understand that there is that thing called the noble lie that has been used for thousand of years successfully by all these rulers [...]

Of course he is the first to discover those things: they just made those points up.
It is in history of the republic this idea that is set forward, so it is that one lie, the idea, and then it's the use of that idea to create the status quo for the past several thousand years. So when you're looking at chemtrails, well, that's part of the noble lie. The noble lie is like this veil behind which everything that is going on in reality is known, but it's not being shown to the audience.
And so we are all trying to lift this veil and that's what apocalypse is. Is the lifting of a veil so you can see what's really going on. And once people see what's really going on for the first time in human history, it's no wonder that the Bible is scared of this apocalypse because their corporation is over, their control over people will cease to be in control.
And if people use the Bible as an inspirational spiritual book – great. But it's no longer gonna be used as a control system in the future once people understand the nature of why words were structured that way, to have people judging each other and have all these crazy words put up there, that purposely put people into conflict and give a very small percentage, one percentage of people on this planet, all the power while the 99 percent of the people sit here and some of them are under the belief that they are in power and free and what not, but when you look at the history it has not happened yet. But it can happen if we learn from our history."

tt) Well, it took me by surprise recently when Lisa initiated me into the private concept of the T'n'H community, because I had no idea that I could be seen as kind of an identity leak with my behavior as a person who runs a cojo (short for comment journal). Now, after she explained me your "8th Estate Media & Research" strategy in detail again, I guess I have to outline my own methodical considerations behind things like cojos, comment agencies, or a central "Stewart-Burien Comment Exchange" (working title) as a new international non-corporate business and banking platform.

"By transcribing the private discussions that take place within the T&H community and posting these private discussions on your public website, you are making them 'google-searchable' – and thereby making opportunities for predators – those who would seek to silence such discussions and communities – now and in the future (as that is the nature of google)."

One of the key sentences in Lisa's request to stop my "leaking" (of course, she never used that word as the lady she is) of – let's say – identifiable lines of thought from the private public among the T'n'H club membership.
The problem is that since November 2007 I'm heavily into making everything that's interesting to me gooooogle-searchable. The main reason, for example, why the first cojo came into existence at all was my desire to bypass any traditional opinion-maker (bloggers, journalists) who still believes in censoring critical reflections of others. So, here comes why I need every important bit of information searchable on the web, and this is actually quite easy to understand, I think:

First, I have to find single thoughts or trains of thoughts again as quickly as possible. Which means that all those accentuations in bold and red letters aren't primarily meant to help other readers, technically, they're there as sort of orientation guides for me alone to let me be more efficient in recognizing archived texts. That does regard the thoughts of others as well as of mine, because second, I find it absolutely necessary to have a chronological protocol – as rough as it may be – of my very own way of thinking. And I need it completely transparent out there in full daylight, so to speak, because third, I don't want to repeat myself over and over again.
Altogether this entirely web-searchable body of knowledge gives me the opportunity to communicate without greater loss in terms of waste of time, you know, and, in so doing, every new comment can become the next step or the next passage on this journey of discovery, this adventure trip through cyber"space – the final frontier" :) And every new comment should be an advancement of what was before!

As to the thing with the identity, I don't really see any necessity for myself to do this kind of mining work or foundational research under my real name like you and your friends, pretty much all authors of conspiracy-theoretical books and reading matter, or book authors in general. I'm neither in the position to come forward as a whistleblower of any sort, nor I really do have a party to join, you know, as long as I believe that our culture or civilization is no more a conspiracy than a corporation is a conspiracy, or, to put it plain and simple, that piety matters over conspiracy. So I'm standing alone with my focus on the interaction of all the different belief and value systems and how they are being managed based of a combination of spiritual and financial needs, and to create some space of sanity within this post-"9/11" mess of two opposing main opinion streams that are escalating each other's impact into an all-swallowing maelstrom of non-understandable information overload isn't something for me that has to be connected with becoming famous or having followers or so.
Meanwhile, I'd mostly prefer unknown commentators to publicly correspond with and I wished every real face on facebook had an anonymized separate avatar for exactly this highly political as well as a highly intimate area of much-needed non-corporate and non-conspiratorial social communication, especially with regard to that ubiquity of conscious and unconscious mutual thievishness that comes automatically with the ubiquity of modern Jesuitism in successfully and thoroughly infiltrated societies.
All I'm really fighting for is to contribute to develop a new and comprehensive understanding of what's really going on, which I look at as one of the probably most dangerous things you can do in a world where the supposedly biggest benefactors are in fact the worst criminals. Because if I don't there will be no choice other than being chased through the streets of my town by the next man-made pyroclastic clouds, metaphorically speaking.

I'm feeling truly honored, Richard, to be endowed with such a detailed answer from you – I really mean it. Thanks a lot for your time and your attention. You know that I am a great admirer of you as a personality and of your media work as "Mr. 9/11 Synchronicity".
Unfortunately, I don't have much time in these days, but I thought it would be the right thing to do to first offer you an open discussion about this idea of "a new kind of money and media machine" à la Walter Burien, Jon Stewart, your "9/11 Synchronicity" approach, and the concept that Jane McGonigal is pushing in form of a comment exchange or a piety or attention bourse, however you want to look at it.
You said:

"Transmute your research into a step-by-step presentation which allows those who are not as aware of such events as you to start their journey towards understanding that which you're attempting to articulate. That way, those pieces will act as components, and as you compose each blog, the audience will likewise be able to be empowered by your perspective."

On which I said that I don't like to blog or lecture, although I really appreciate your advice and will definitely keep it in mind.
The thing here is, writing without a counterpart is a very lonely work in my eyes that doesn't pique me at all.
I thought about writing two or three books so far but my own "pulsating ellipse of cohesive understanding" seems to be too much in the move yet to be able to aggregate some secured and solid systematic stuff already. So if you want to have me systematically you have to watch out for summaries, or maybe I just need the right questions, critiques or annotations, because I like to correspond. Take my comments as those components and compose them according to your "pulsating ellipse" and then confront me with every unanswered or uncleared aspect and I'm pretty sure we will have a fascinating conversation and a lot of fun too. And in case you're not that interested to enter into an open correspondence with such an impersonal and invisible foreign Tosco character I'll make the same offer to a commentator from the Gnostic Media website who writes under the pseudonym Gene Matto.

The big question, I think, is if we can do business together in a less conspiratorial, deceitful and despicable manner at all, and the open discussion I'm offering you and Gene and anybody else with a similar desire for honesty out of transparency and clarity out of synchronicity instead of over-centralized Kafkaesque power out of piety should particularly turn on real possibilities for that. And to get a first glimpse of what I bear in mind with such a finance exchange about comments, to do charts, debates, round tables and all other sorts of online involvements, I imagine it's like a counterdraft to twitter and facebook in terms of in-depth communication.
On March 3rd I've asked you how do you feel about this comment (11/11'09) 16 months later?
Now I ask you if you want to discuss and develop the basis for business of "Jon's arbiters" with me, which will be a more competitive game compared to what you or Jan Irvin are practicing at the moment, but it theoretically will show everybody where she or he stands with her or his understanding and opinions and how corrupt professional propagandists actually are. By the way, what's with Stewart's "I thought both men took rhetoric to another level. Too see the use of litotes, puns, syllogisms ... I was truly blown away. Cicero himself would have ..." – no help with that or can't you understand the word neither?

Thanks for the Unhived Mind link:

"The most powerful man right now in the conspiracy over this world is a Roman by the name of Pepe Orsini of the powerful Roman Papal Bloodline the Orsini also known as Orso and the ancient Maximus family.
There is no one more powerful than this figure who is really the Grey Pope.
The Papal Bloodlines are the secret shadow hierachy of the Jesuit Order even behind the Black Pope touted at the no. 1. [...] Both this Black Pope and the White Pope aren't of Papal Bloodline, they are both commoners. I've named the most powerful families on the planet.
I've named the Grey Pope the one inbetween the white and black but unseen."

I've never heard someone calling these bloodline parties Zoroastrian ("The Real 13 Zoroastrian Bloodlines").
"9/11": Black Nobility

And have you seen this yet?
Dimitri Khalezov – WTC Nuclear Demolition pt 1 of 26 on – playlist pt 1 & pt 2