For other Wisdom Teachings summaries click here.
As we have seen within past episodes, there has recently been a steady stream of soft disclosures dispensed by the corporate media. It seems that this quickening of revelations within a historically secretive and underhanded establishment is leading to something big. Though the cabal responsible for this secrecy may not be willing to completely relinquish their hold on the undoctored truth, the revelation of Full Disclosure could easily be considered an inevitability.
The prospect of Full Disclosure is very familiar to us at this point. Free energy, new healing technologies, food materializers, star-gate technology, teleportation, and numerous other technologies are not simply ‘possible’. These are reported to currently be in use, and will be made available to the surface population after the full disclosure takes place. Until then, we have much to study, to learn, and to discern from the testimonies of those who have witnessed and used these technologies.
During this discussion, David Wilcock continues his reveal of the numerous aspects of cabal-manipulated half-truths dispensed through the mainstream media. Though these corporately-approved disclosures may be partial, they give us an eye-opening picture of just how far the cabal is willing to go in order to save their own image. The discussion starts off on the subject of the deployment of the psychological weapon we know as the pseudo-skeptic.
The Script of the Pseudo-Skeptics
If there is one thing that I am passionate about, it is doing my best to ensure that truth is delivered to the people untainted and untampered with. (Though I do tend to have a bias toward the positive perspective on various situations.) Consequently, when it comes to blind pseudo-skepticism, there is a certain obligation for those who value truth to uncovered their overt bias on information. In my own view, self deception, dishonesty, and religious fundamentalism have no place within accurate truth, and in order to maintain the integrity of any information, it is important to be aware of such hazards so as to avoid them.
There is one particular website which I respect very much in their goal of objectively presenting the other side of the story with regard to the underrepresented aspects of modern science. This is the site, Skeptical about Skeptics. It is this site which David Wilcock mentions on this topic. Let’s take a look at a passage from the “About Us” section of the site.
Why Are We Skeptical About Skeptics?
Why are we skeptical about skeptics? Isn’t skepticism about approaching new ideas rationally and examining evidence objectively before jumping to conclusions? Shouldn’t we avoid believing anything and everything that comes our way? Of course we should; that is the foundation of science after all.
But it is also possible to go completely overboard on skepticism to the point where it’s just overwhelming bias against new ideas. They are rejected out of hand and evidence is disregarded before it is even seen. This is actually quite common. You can pick pretty much any controversial topic and there will be a wide range of opinions ranging from true believers to dogmatic deniers, whether we’re talking about climate change or UFOs or bigfoot, it doesn’t matter. There will be people of all types.
This site focuses on the people who fall in the dogmatic denier category because they present themselves as being the most truthful and objective, which they are not. They call themselves skeptics and they would be harmless save for the fact that they have a lot of influence in academia and the mainstream media and are invested in making sure that mainstream sources, such as Wikipedia reflect their point of view. (And only their point of view.)
Nearly any controversial subject you care to name has another side to the debate that you probably haven’t heard. It is the goal of Skeptical About Skeptics to show you the reasons why you’re only getting one side of the story.
An interesting fact to note about most fundamentalist skeptics is that very few of them have any scientific background at all. In fact, it is not at all necessary for these people to have any scientific knowledge in order to work as professional skeptics. Yet the establishment turns to these people to play the typical role of thought police.
The subject of this type of false skepticism brings to mind a time when I came across a certain Youtube series. I won’t name the channel because I don’t intend to call anyone out, but in general, this was a channel devoted to “disproving” the “myth” of free energy.
Free Energy – Dr. Steven Greer 2014 – Part 1
The channel included the demonstration of a number of devices which were said to be designed to create free energy, and were presented as being tested in fair objectivity. However, each time the author made a video, the answer seemed to always be the same. There was one instance when I noticed that a demonstration the maker was performing was clearly incomplete. There was a key step which he was missing which was present in every successful demonstration of this particular device.
I kindly let him know that he missed a step, but instead of testing my suggestion, this person plainly told me that “no free energy devices work” in so many words. He said that, “You can’t get something from nothing”, which is true. The catch is that in our universe, there is no such thing as “nothing” (hence the principle of vacuum energy). Even when we have “nothing” (or vacuum), we can still measure energy within it.
It is understood that some people have not caught on to the current, 20th-century physical models of fluid spacetime. However, it is not very common to have such a well-funded Youtube channel, advertising a century-old model of physics, and feigning objectivity while telling masses of people to completely distrust the idea of free energy unless there were some sort of intensive for an individual to do so.
Many of us are likely to have noticed that most, if not all subject matters discussed within theWisdom Teachings series have had pseudo-skeptics assigned to distract and detract people from ever reading on these subjects. This attempted detraction seems to be so common that it can even be a helpful at pointing out which sources are the most accurate. It could even be argued that the more pseudo skeptics a subject attracts, the more reliable it likely is (though this is not an excuse to defer discernment). Simply put, the system does not typically attack frauds.
There are a number of reason a person may turn to deliberately misleading masses of people. A person doesn’t necessarily have to be paid by some third party in order to lie about new scientific discoveries, ancient history, or modern conspiracy. A person could simply enjoy feeling powerful from their ability to manipulate others. Maybe they have a fear of change and cannot imagine a world they don’t completely understand. Maybe the thought of having to adapt to new surroundings scares them, and they feel the need to maintain some sense of familiarity. (This may be a reason why some may swear by physical models from the early 1900’s.)
Skeptical About Skeptics – Pseudoskeptics Revealed
(One point which Wilcock makes is that these pseudo-skeptics pretend to be the voice of logic and reason when in reality, they are only attempting to prevent people from thinking beyond mainstream ideology. In my observation, when these false skeptics say, “Let’s be reasonable here,” or “Let’s stick to logic,” they are actually demanding that people stop thinking for themselves and obey convention instead. This is mental manipulation, and cannot rightfully be considered a healthy or honest means of communication.)
There could be a number of reason why pseudo skeptics preach their unfounded, fundamentalist message of corporately-approved reality. However, there is not much sense in judging these people as much as there is reason to clearly identify their tactics, their inaccuracies, and the truth their ridicule constantly attempts to hide. If nothing else, we may consider it a blessing which can help us stay mentally sharp.
CONTINUE READING @ discerningthemystery2000plus.blogspot.com
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.