Is there such thing as “controlled opposition”? Absolutely. It is naive and folly to think otherwise, and I do find much of the evidence presented in this video (see below) compelling, and some of the reasoning and conclusions as well. However, there are four things we need to be careful of in regards to coming to reasoned judgments when calling out people and movements, because it’s important that we stay objective and in alignment with universal principles when arriving at our conclusions, and prior to taking action.
The first is the genetic fallacy in which an argument is discounted due to the person who is speaking. While looking at a person’s character and past can provide context into what they’re saying and why, their message must be judged on the merits of the argument itself, and not on the genetic origin of the speaker. Even if David Icke or Madam Blavatsky have questionable pasts and/or some questionable beliefs, that doesn’t mean that everything they have or are saying is wrong, just as it doesn’t mean somebody that we judge as righteous is always saying something that is correct. Said plainly, an argument is true or false based upon the merits of the argument itself, and is not based upon the speaker’s character. Of course some have a better track record than others, and this can be considered, but that doesn’t grant us the ability to judge everything they’ve ever said and done carte blanche. For example, many people completely dismiss what Noam Chomsky has said in the past which may be very very true, due to his current stance on following the medical cartel’s and government’s advice on plandemic measures; while he may very well be behaving like a hypocrite now, that does not discount some of the things he’s said in the past that were based upon strong reasoning.
Second, we must be careful not to presume too much about a person based upon their past attitudes and conduct, as people change, and intellectual humility tells us that we cannot know for certain where a person is currently at in their own personal evolution, because we did not grow up as them, we did not think their thoughts with them, we did not feel what they felt every moment of their lives, we did not behave as they behaved, and we are not able to read their mind or intentions, past or present. People, wanting simple answers to life’s complex problems (egocentric oversimplification), often project their own shadow onto those they do not like based upon reasons that are repressed and suppressed within their own unconscious and subconscious minds. Instead, they would be better served if they were to deal with their unconscious shadow and subconscious beliefs through self-reflection and self-observation, and then approach others in a neutral and non judgmental manner; this would allow them to judge what is being said rather than the person saying it. Neutrality and fairmindedness does not imply spinelessness nor submissiveness, but rather allows for a fair and reasoned judgment of each argument based upon their merits.
If you imagine someone who is brave enough to withdraw all his projections, then you get an individual who is conscious of a pretty thick shadow. Such a man has saddled himself with new problems and conflicts. He has become a serious problem to himself, as he is now unable to say that they do this or that, they are wrong, and they must be fought against… Such a man knows that whatever is wrong in the world is in himself, and if he only learns to deal with his own shadow he has done something real for the world. He has succeeded in shouldering at least an infinitesimal part of the gigantic, unsolved social problems of our day.
~Carl Jung, “Psychology and Religion” (1938). In CW 11: Psychology and Religion: West and East. P.140
Third, egocentrism is “me versus you” thinking, while sociocentrism is “us versus them” thinking, and such thinking implies that the me and us are at war with the “you” and “them”. Instead, it is better to take responsibility and ownership by working through the upset to gain self-knowledge and clarity of purpose, as this helps a person to align themselves more and more with an internal state of self-ownership and governance. War is an effect of duality consciousness, it is the inability to synthesize the thesis (problem) and antithesis (reaction), and it results in the two sides fighting it out in a “power over others” grudge match—it is considered dialectical thinking in the weak sense.
Dialectical Thinking [is] “dialogical thinking (thinking within more than one perspective) conducted to test the strengths and weaknesses of opposing points of view. (Court trials and debates are, in a sense, dialectical.) When thinking dialectically, reasoners pit two or more opposing points of view in competition with each other, developing each by providing support, raising objections, countering those objections, raising further objections, and so on. Dialectical thinking or discussion can be conducted so as to “win” by defeating the positions one disagrees with — using critical insight to support one’s own view and pointing out flaws in other views (associated with critical thinking in the restricted or weak sense), or fairmindedly, by conceding points that don’t stand up to critique, trying to integrate or incorporate strong points found in other views, and using critical insight to develop a fuller and more accurate view (associated with critical thinking in the fuller or strong sense).” ~CriticalThinking.org
Dialectical thinking in the strong sense is fairminded, and is able to filter out the incorrect while integrating/incorporating the correct; it is able to synthesize opposing viewpoints into a higher truth. Rather than the thesis and antithesis going to war to determine a victor, which is essentially what happens in a court room, dialectical thinking can be a tool of ascending to higher planes of thought through collaborative discussions and arguments. Let me say that again, ascension is the direct result of the dialectical process, but buyer beware, as those who rely externally upon the dialectical process, and have not harnessed it internally as a process to neutralize limiting beliefs and traumas, can be manipulated into a counterfeit ascended state of consciousness that does not have their best and highest interests at heart. The Hegelian and Marxist dialectics are two examples of external models of dialectical processes that are harnessed in a manner that effectively enslaves people. Conversely, the cure to being manipulated by external dialectics is the mastery of the dialectical process within one’s own mind, thinking patterns, and being, and as an added bonus, it has the ability to cause one to transcend the various drama triangles encountered in dualistic thinking and behaviors.
Lastly, many people are guilty of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, for example, “a hammer and nails were used to crucify Jesus, therefore all hammers and nails are evil.” I have seen people use such monological and simplistic thinking when condemning universal principles that are used by occultists, just because occultists use them. For example “witches and occultists use the universal laws of nature, therefore the universal laws of nature are evil”, and “the Satanic statue/pictures of Baphomet use the ‘as above, so below’ symbology, therefore ‘as above, so below’ is a Satanic principle”. In reality, “as above, so below” is the hermetic principle of correspondence, which is a universal law/principle, and has corresponding real world counterparts in things such as “data mapping” and “port mapping” found in computer science. A gun is not evil because it has been used in evil acts, just as a gun is not good because it was used in self-defense—a gun is just a tool, and it is the person harnessing the tool that determines the manner in which it is used.
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.
[crypto-donation-box type=”tabular” show-coin=”all”]