Truth and lies. They say sanity is reality and insanity is unreality. These days you can be an ordinary (somewhat sane person) with ordinary views and appetites but doing insane things every day because the mass-psychogenic-society nuturted by anti-Christ ‘authorities’ imposes lies. Take the climate change political madness as a seeming driving ‘moral’ motivation for government policy on the one hand and on the other not so secret agreements for a 120 acre large data centre sucking 7 litres of water per second and using more power than the entire national grid of a small country - just to spy on the ordinary and not so ordinary folks. Doing insane things like attending an invalid mass celebrated by an invalid priest because an invalid pope says so while being aware that they are doubtful. Peer pressure makes one do insane things, like saying a triangle is a square because ten other people in the room say the lie out loud.
I always thought myself crazy, then to my disappointment found myself among the sane during covid.
Then again, most horrible people I've ever met were very adamant precisely on their reason, moderate sensibilities and rationality. Spiritual pride, I guess. Fr. Coleridge was spot on when he said true friends warn you at the first sign of it.
Your article made me ponder whether noticing things and speaking about them in hopes of receiving others’ input on them, is tantamount to being uncharitable or worse, excommunicated, sorry I mean insane. The Chesterton text addresses noticing and flagging, and it outlaws it, but ist examples are addressed to ‘naive’ 20th century people not 21th century people who have been forced to experience stuff that in 20th century if it happenrd, did so unnoticed, unanalyzed and unproven, under less advanced technological circumstances.
It's a balance between not saying bad things about others yet being able to retain the possibility to flag potentially significant deviations or patterns. Maybe those don't even need flagging. In most cases this may be so, but which are the few cases where flagging was needed? Some bad things are just objective observations of ambiguous factual circumstances and the badness would not be in the observation but in the thing observed, potentially, and the context in which circumstances seem to warrant scrutiny, is a world and reality in which much has advanced since Chesterton’s beginning of 20th century. Much has happened since then, much has become known. Methods have become known. Hard-to-believe, improbable events have taken place and been analyzed, events which led to certain outcomes that benefitted the further progress of certain ideologies. So, forbidding analysis and flagging of things that happen out of the ordinary, out of a moral prohibition and because the seen risk is supposedly imagined, can easily border on gaslighting and the commandment “when in doubt, thou shalt gaslight thyself and others pretending there is no doubt”, because notiving is not only immoral but who knows, it might even be mentally insane.
I agree that he was speaking to a different age. This was, in essence, what was meant by the the introductory comments – although even in his age, noticing and commenting would also have been possible.
But look, as I also said, the problem isn’t noticing patterns. It’s inventing patterns that aren’t there, or need a lot more work to make them seem even probably true.
Well, you did mention certain very suspect unnatural traces in the sky, and you also mentioned that those who control world politics belong to a particular nation and religion which the current order considers immune from all criticism, so it is possible that it was automatic censorship by Substack.
Truth and lies. They say sanity is reality and insanity is unreality. These days you can be an ordinary (somewhat sane person) with ordinary views and appetites but doing insane things every day because the mass-psychogenic-society nuturted by anti-Christ ‘authorities’ imposes lies. Take the climate change political madness as a seeming driving ‘moral’ motivation for government policy on the one hand and on the other not so secret agreements for a 120 acre large data centre sucking 7 litres of water per second and using more power than the entire national grid of a small country - just to spy on the ordinary and not so ordinary folks. Doing insane things like attending an invalid mass celebrated by an invalid priest because an invalid pope says so while being aware that they are doubtful. Peer pressure makes one do insane things, like saying a triangle is a square because ten other people in the room say the lie out loud.
I always thought myself crazy, then to my disappointment found myself among the sane during covid.
Then again, most horrible people I've ever met were very adamant precisely on their reason, moderate sensibilities and rationality. Spiritual pride, I guess. Fr. Coleridge was spot on when he said true friends warn you at the first sign of it.
Your article made me ponder whether noticing things and speaking about them in hopes of receiving others’ input on them, is tantamount to being uncharitable or worse, excommunicated, sorry I mean insane. The Chesterton text addresses noticing and flagging, and it outlaws it, but ist examples are addressed to ‘naive’ 20th century people not 21th century people who have been forced to experience stuff that in 20th century if it happenrd, did so unnoticed, unanalyzed and unproven, under less advanced technological circumstances.
It's a balance between not saying bad things about others yet being able to retain the possibility to flag potentially significant deviations or patterns. Maybe those don't even need flagging. In most cases this may be so, but which are the few cases where flagging was needed? Some bad things are just objective observations of ambiguous factual circumstances and the badness would not be in the observation but in the thing observed, potentially, and the context in which circumstances seem to warrant scrutiny, is a world and reality in which much has advanced since Chesterton’s beginning of 20th century. Much has happened since then, much has become known. Methods have become known. Hard-to-believe, improbable events have taken place and been analyzed, events which led to certain outcomes that benefitted the further progress of certain ideologies. So, forbidding analysis and flagging of things that happen out of the ordinary, out of a moral prohibition and because the seen risk is supposedly imagined, can easily border on gaslighting and the commandment “when in doubt, thou shalt gaslight thyself and others pretending there is no doubt”, because notiving is not only immoral but who knows, it might even be mentally insane.
I agree that he was speaking to a different age. This was, in essence, what was meant by the the introductory comments – although even in his age, noticing and commenting would also have been possible.
But look, as I also said, the problem isn’t noticing patterns. It’s inventing patterns that aren’t there, or need a lot more work to make them seem even probably true.
I see chemtrails over the comments section.
For some reason my comment is hidden.
I don't know why
Maybe I did something when I published It. I am new with this thing
Well, you did mention certain very suspect unnatural traces in the sky, and you also mentioned that those who control world politics belong to a particular nation and religion which the current order considers immune from all criticism, so it is possible that it was automatic censorship by Substack.
Yes. 😅 Maybe.