Trans Phantomism - pulling back the vale...

Something that was discussed by David Icke on the alex jones show below caught my attention. The reason why is because I was thinking about this literally like 2 weeks ago...

David Icke Calls it: Trans Phantomism But essencially one aspect of it that is really strange when you think about it is that every aspect of our life has been catagorized, and we've been brainwashed essencially into believing that "it's true". And mind you some of it is true, but others are not. Yet we catagorize it all together in the phantom reality.

so for example.... (and I'm gonna try and do my best to explain this without sounding like a nut job)

But there are areas of your life that you know are "true". LIke for example your gender. so You know if you're male or female in most cases. And generally you can identify with that. However, there's a lot of areas that are "contrived" by the system, and put on us to make us believe we are "this or that".

so for example:

a) Your name is: John Albert Smith
b) You're an American
c) Your a citizen
d) Your education level is X
e) Your married
f) Your a red seal certified pipe fitter by trade
g) Your a smoker
h) You're overweight
i) You have 20/20 vision
j) You speak english

And that list goes on and on. But take another look... None of that is true. None of that. Those are just labels you've been given and or you've adopted and believe in your mind are true. But realistically, they're not true. You're none of these things. What you are infact is just a human living on planet earth. Most of these other labels we've adopted by choice or by force. We eventually built them up into a real belief about who we are as a person. And often these labels that we consider to be "fact" keep us locked into specific ways of thinking and behaving. And ultimately end up enslaving us to the system.

The nazi's were masters at labeling everything and everyone in detail and by doing so could manipulate society and control people.

But what they talked about later in the show I remember thinking about. Because it dawned on me that I'm none of these labels I"ve been given. And the way they're manifesting themselves to form my reality is be me believeing in the specific label and acting in accordance with that lable. But actually if I just thought and acted in a new direction I could just as easily be labeled as the exact opposite. But in any case these are just labels and they're not really who you are. But we've been brainwashed into believe they are.

So again for example, Your not "Dan or Jill" (your name there). You are not that person. The honest truth is you are just a human on the earth. Everything else about you is just labels given to you by yourself, others, and tptb that mean to enslave you.

Anyway, what are you're thoughts on all this???

Just a quick note letting you know that "veil" is the correct spelling for your title. As it is, it conveys a valley being pulled back.

I'll watch the video soon. I remember getting into a discussion like this before and there was a time in my life that having to have an ID and social security number really bothered me. I remember yelling at someone who said I needed an id to buy a college bus pass, "' I am me!'' anyway, I got the bus pass without my ID. I also threatened to call my Mom!

a reply to: lavatrance

Where I begin to dissagree with Icke, is in thinking that the powers that be are beyond all of this conditioning you speak about. I think that they are just as programmed and as the rest of us. A case can be made for more so.

a reply to: lavatrance

Interesting topic. I have a bit of recommended reading which I believe goes well with your OP: Quantum Psychology, by Robert Anton Wilson. Excellent read which does a great job of conceptualizing and explaining the abolition of "is" (are) from your mind. Not just for matters of self, but for all things.

Simplistic Example:
"Aristotelian Logic" - This door is yellow.
"Quantum Psychology" - This door appears yellow to me right now.

Abandoning "is" requires semantics which force you to acknowledge things "are" what we perceive them to be in the moment, which is guided by the filters of senses, experiences, training, beliefs, etc. In the above example, by not locking the door in simply as "It IS yellow", I'm open to consideration of why the door appears to be yellow. Perhaps the door had a fresh coat of highly reflective white paint, and the bright lighting in the adjacent room is reflecting the bright green walls onto the door. From where I'm sitting, the door appears yellow.

Taking it further, another person could be sitting right next to me whose pupils are more constricted, due to looking at a bright light just beforehand, diminishing or increasing the contrast of the door and its surroundings, resulting in the door's color appearing different to them.

My dogs are not scary. Some of the people who walk past my yard would beg to differ.

The same processing applies to ourselves, other people, inanimate objects, emotions, etc. Labels tend to lock in beliefs based on momentary perceptions, rendering them immutable in our minds. Doing so makes a lot of things easier, from having conversations to decision making, but it also makes us choose to be wrong nearly constantly, as we force ourselves into accepting the persistence of an ordered, objective reality, somehow existing immutable outside of ourselves (including aspects of our selves.) The reality is nothing can be defined outside of the interaction between the "thing" and our perception of it.

a reply to: dogstar23

Yes, this is General Semantics of Alfred Korzybski. Something I discovered like 20 years ago when I read Null-A of Alfred vanVogt. It's all about the definitions that we put on things, that tend to make things appear to us as if they are static things but science has proven to us that nothing is static, everything is always changing, even ourselves. What you said about not using the verb "to be" is part of the E-prime language.

You can read this topic in which I talk a little bit more about definitions and what they do to us www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thats the thing... my opinion is if you're born in a g20 nation you're brainwashed into thinking that our system is "the best" and we're one of the "best nations" on the planet. Yes perhaps in some ways. But as you start to realize how overly structured everything is, how tyranical the system is to enslave you in every way shape and form imaginable, you begin to realize what a HUGE LIE it all is!!! I'd way rather be born in some pitiful country that isn't at the point where they're trying to turn the whole country into a prison. Like you wake up an realize you're living in an open air prison coloney. It's like "oh shoot" how the heck do I get out of this trap and where Do I go???

a reply to: lavatrance

My name is far more than a control mechanism.

My name was given to me after much consideration, references the faith of my mother and father in my first name, the verdant valleys of Wales in the middle name, and the name of my ancestors on my fathers side, in my surname.

My name connects me to my heritage, to my progenitors, and theirs before them. The name does not control me, or define me. I define what that name means to those who know me, by my thoughts, deeds, and words to them over the years. Meaning of a name is applied by the owner, not the observer.

I don't agree, some brains are naturally gifted at labelling whereas others are naturally gifted in arts. It has nothing to do with programming as such. Obviously governments do take advantage of our mentality by inserting thoughts that interfere and sway our belief systems to empower actions that would otherwise be objectionable. But generally their actions are primarily mantra's repeated continually by media until the falsehood becomes truth, From accepting one falsehood, other falsehoods are inserted into our now faulty belief systems until we all believe that we are at war with one other instead of facing a oligarch made up of old sickly men that would fall over if you breathed on them.

* If we all knew that the world was on the brink of economic collapse we all would have seen the 911 event for what it was, a means of plundering oil rich nations.
* If citizens realized that the worlds people were totally disinterested in our nation, or our way of life, we wouldn't allow governments to spend 50% of the federal budget on military trying to defend it. We would want it spent to benefit us.
* If we knew governments were aiming to dumb down society we wouldn't allow our children to attend those schools.

How about everybody first coming to grips with who they are?

"I am that, I am"

Projecting or self realization?

David Icke sadly is just another fraud. His fake confrontation with fellow fraud Jessie Ventura was comical. His constant collaboration with Zionist Puppet Alex Jones should be proof enough.

a) Your name is: John Albert Smith
b) You're an American
c) Your a citizen
d) Your education level is X
e) Your married
f) Your a red seal certified pipe fitter by trade
g) Your a smoker
h) You're overweight
i) You have 20/20 vision
j) You speak English

What he has done here is simply play mind games with those who are in the process of awakening.
You are not John Albert Smith - Bull#, you are John Albert Smith.
You are not an American - Bull#, you are an American.

Agenda being pushed - Your Personal Beliefs about who you are is Negative to your Personal Growth. Believe what your Guru Says, Not your Heart.

This is the New Age way to take away your individuality and self belief in who you are and what you believe.

Following this flawed logic makes you a New Age Hive/Group Thinker.

Language has evolved with people. Words are what we use to define what we would like to convey verbally.

I really don't see a conspiracy here.

For instance you said we are just human beings...That is a labelled catagory also.

Are we to do away with words that define things?

For instance, at the moment am I watching talkie funny man show on the multiple projection device or am I watching Fraser on my tv
Without evolved language we would be taking forever explaining
what something is when all it needed was a label
The male bipedal creature usually partakes in inhaling prepared plant matter orally is much easier said with a few choice words... The man smokes.

The word is not the thing that it is meant to represent. The map is not the territory. I can call you John, that doesn't make you a "john", whatever that means. I can call a piece of land America, that doesn't make that piece of land an "america", whatever that means. If my name is John, that doesn't make me a "john", because I am made of an incomprehensibly complex structure with so many relations that we can't count them, starting from the smallest form of matter up to the highest abstraction my mind is capable of, and it doesn't matter I have chosen my name or if someone else did. Same thing for everything that exists. Whatever you say about something, you are always wrong.

a reply to: gosseyn

That is factually inaccurate.

However, your factual inaccuracy does not prove the rule. It is not always the case that every time one speaks about a subject, or thing, that one will be automatically in error. It is the case that some people are, but that is because some people have no capacity for critical thinking, and others still have no capacity for any kind of thinking at all, beyond reacting to hunger, horniness, and broodiness, and other entirely mundane and tiresomely biological stimuli.

Also, let me point out one of the thousands upon thousands of reasons that using my name to attract my attention, and identify me to others, is a better idea than being strictly definitive.

Referring to me as Peter, is an awful lot more efficient than referring to me as "Hey, you improbable assortment of complex molecule chains and neural networks, organs, and meat grown therefrom, standing on a rocky world floating through the depths of space, which is just one object orbiting a star, which itself is just one star in a galaxy, which itself is but one galaxy in the universe, a space so big that considering its entire scale might well be impossible for a human brain to do all in one go!"

No... It is far better to refer to me by my name, because otherwise you could be referring to any one of the human beings on the Earth!

a reply to: TrueBrit

But calling you Peter is not an attempt to define you. You are not a "peter", this makes no sense, just like a chair is not a "chair". The words are not the things that they are meant to represent. Words are just a classification, a map of the territory, and the map cannot have the same level of detail or resolution as the territory it represents, otherwise the map would become the territory, there would no difference between the model/map and the real thing.

You are talking about the practical advantage of calling you Peter, that's an entirely different matter.

originally posted by: gosseyn
a reply to: dogstar23

Yes, this is General Semantics of Alfred Korzybski. Something I discovered like 20 years ago when I read Null-A of Alfred vanVogt. It's all about the definitions that we put on things, that tend to make things appear to us as if they are static things but science has proven to us that nothing is static, everything is always changing, even ourselves. What you said about not using the verb "to be" is part of the E-prime language.

You can read this topic in which I talk a little bit more about definitions and what they do to us www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you for this, I'd read about the work in the past but had't read it itself. The reminder this thread brought to mind IS great to come across. Now another source for further reading myself, even better My initial delve into the topic was about 20 years ago as well. I gave a 10 minute speech about it for a Business Psychology course, all in E-Prime (what I was calling Quantum Linguistics.)

I got an A+ on it. The professor said to me that he typically expects simple topics about how to keep employees motivated and high performing through rewards and punishments. My response was something like, "they'll probably be my managers."

a reply to: lavatrance

And that list goes on and on. But take another look... None of that is true. None of that. Those are just labels you've been given and or you've adopted and believe in your mind are true. But realistically, they're not true. You're none of these things. What you are infact is just a human living on planet earth.

Human and earth are also labels/names created in language to name our species and body we live on.

The honest truth is you are just a human on the earth. Everything else about you is just labels given to you by yourself, others, and tptb that mean to enslave you.

Like above, to repeat myself like you have, human and earth are also labels, so they are as much true/untrue as the name our parents give us, the word used to describe our gender, race, profession ..... whatever.

I get the point of simplicity and removing labels from nations and national pride, removing labels from beliefs which as history has shown leads to confrontation.

I like to simply say I am a human from earth when asked what is my nationality.

Is this what you are getting at, removing the more dividing labels to create of large unity, a planetary unity where race religion or nationality is a thing of the past?

If so, its something I hope for but am certain to achieve something like this, humanity must go through suffering and destruction that we have never seen or heard of before to be able to unite in such a fashion.

a reply to: glend

ya but you're saying "people aren't sheep", when infact most "are". It's less than 1% that think even a little outside the box like people who say come on here and talk about crap. Everyone else is a bonnified certified zombie. And don't get me wrong, you can't blame them, put them down, or accuse them of anything. It's the system they've been brought up in programming them over decades to make them never think outside the box. They're imprinted with they systems "reality". Like the 6 oclock news: "hello people ...this is reality...this is what happened....believe it and don't question it...and survivor is on at 7pm". Like it's nuts. So no people follow the paths they've been pushed down for the most part. I'm here talking about this yet most of my life I spent and still do follow set norms. Although more and more I'm sort of waking up, at least I hope.

a reply to: SLAYER69

I am what I am .... -- lacsha fall

a reply to: Now2016

Ya I see what you're saying (and you make a strong point) but still, why do we have to lock ourselves into all these stupid labels of life? But I suppose maybe there's some benefit to it to. Back in the caveman day there was the "farmer, the hunter, and the gatherer", each had their role, which was necessary for survival. But again, we've somewhat evolved into an era where all these stupid labels aren't as necessary. The other thing is that in reality you are none of those things because that would mean the moment you stop working you no longer would be "that type of worker".

But I think the main point I'm trying to make is simply that all these labels interfer with our ability to enjoy and have freedom in life. Even inner psychological freedoms.