Total Pageviews

Showing posts with label expose. Show all posts
Showing posts with label expose. Show all posts

Monday 11 March 2019

Honest Exposure



Written by Mathew Naismith

“Being honest may not get you a lot of friends but it’ll always get you the right ones.” 
― 
John Lennon

For those who love both the truth and friends, piety (righteousness) requires us to honour the truth first.
- Aristotle

Is being positive in the absence or ignorance of negativity or a state where one confronts negativity for what is truly is honestly? In all honesty, being positive isn't of the absence of negative, it is the honest realisation of what negativity truly portrays. If I was to witness a child being molested, to stay positive, would I ignore this negative or see the violation of a child as being vile. Of course words today like vile are also a negative these days, when they simply clearly state an honest evaluation or observation. How much of the world today is being violated just because we want to be positive therefore ignore these negative violations?  It is obvious world peace isn't come by doing this.

I recently joined a social network group called Youme. This social network site seemed plausible and attractive to uninhibited socials interactions, where open minded free thinking honesty can be implemented and expressed.  After endorsing Youme as of open minded free thinking honest social network site, I found out, quite accidentally through an altercation with another moderator and the owner of Youme, that this was far from the truth. I of course had to undo my endorsement of Youme to the same extent I endorsed Youme in the first place.              

I posted a post on FaceBook in relation to this and one of the responses I received was as follow with my reply to this response. This site is wholly run and controlled by atheists, and a like, of extreme atheistic doctrines it would seem. The bias related to atheism was too evident especially from the owner of the site. Atheists simply don't have to be this uncivil but too many on the net are sadly enough. Even after I asked mysefl to be removed from this site and deleting the owner of the site as a friend on FaceBook, they harassed me a number of times after this. No professional social network site owner would harass people under these circumstances like this would they?          


Reply
At least you know where to send your energy now Matthew. There are lots of us here who respect and value your thoughts.


My Reply
I very much appreciate this Heather, I adore the way you think too. I did deserve what I got from them, in a sense, as I ended up exposing them for what they are, not what they portray themselves to be. The reaction I received showed me how close to the bone (truth) I got in relation to their real intentions and character. I hope for other people's sake I have exposed this social network group for what it truly is. And I was silly enough to endorse this group.

The funny thing is, if I was as badly behaved as they are trying to now say I was, why wasn't I removed straight away? When you consider that I was not well liked by many of the moderators and admin, and that I posted a post about atheist beliefs, why wasn't I removed straight away? Because I didn't actually break any site rules, I simply exposed them for what they truly are. Actually, they really exposed themselves. If I didn't cut so close to the bone (truth) psychically, they simply wouldn't have reacted as they did, they would have laughed it off and told me to grow up or something.

If someone told me that I was the vilest person in the world, I would simply smile and say to myself, "You have no idea what you are talking about." Now, say this to a person who is vile, the reaction would be completely different as these people on youme clearly showed me. As you know being a policewoman, people's reactions tell a thousand words, they have no idea of this. I didn't state vile in my reply to them but I did state indecent.

All I did was to confront an obvious violation. I have no regrets in how I confronted and exposed this violation but I am apologetic in what this exposer of violation actually exposed. It seemed I exposed something far deeper than I expected on a personal level, this was not my intentions. It is difficult in how our own violations go, at times to the core of our subconscious, but we must be honest with ourselves if we want to influence the world away from being conditioned to violating other people and other nations.                    

Sunday 8 January 2017

Obscurity v Exposure


Written by Mathew Naismith

The following is going to be quite controversial for a number of people, especially where I supported some of these views. One thing to note with what I write as always, nothing that I write is either right or wrong, negative or positive, bad or good, I'm really not sure why it has to be one or the other all the times. While explaining about consciousness, it is unwise to write about consciousness in cement or rock, it's just too variable, knowing this, there is no true right or wrong, just an expression of a particular variable.
            
___________________________


I recently received some interesting perspectives in regards to my post titled, " Matrix and Finite Consciousness, the following was in response to these perspectives.

___________________________


WWIII started some years back, it's certainly not a conventional war. Many other wars were to obscure the real war and assist this darkness in the mean time.

The more we become aware, especially of the dark, the more of the light we become. It's actually a good thing in becoming aware of the dark, as it shows how much of the light we have become. The dark is all about obscurity and secrecy, this needs to be exposed for all to witness, only in this will we purge the dark within ourselves.

Many people are tying to avoid exposing the dark because it's a lower vibration. This is exactly what the dark wants us to do, keep it obscured as opposed to exposed.

The perception of light basically represents awareness and freedom, the dark represents deliberate ignorance and servitude.

The matrix needn't have represented ignorance and servitude, it could have been far more of the light than what it is at present.

You presented some interesting perspectives here WT, thank you.

P.S. The more of the dark we become aware of, the better. No one of the dark is able to see their light because it's obscured, the exposure of so much darkness is a very good sign.

 ___________________________


First of all, as I have stated in my reply to WT as above, obscurity represents the dark, a state of consciousness that exists in deliberate ignorance, an ignorance to it's truer being, in this case represented by the perception of light.

Exposure represents the light, a state of consciousness that exists in deliberate awareness, an awareness to it's truer being, in this case or our case,  represented by the perception of light.

So is our truer being the light as opposed to the dark?

The ego within us all would love to think this but in truth, we are truly neither one or the other nor are we not of one or the other, within this, all is neutral until we perceive one is above the other in some sense. Basically, the exact same perception of light neutralises the dark and visa-versa. It's really not a good sign that we need to perceive/create so much light, as this depicts how much dark  has been created in the first place. People like me are quite happy existing in a reality of the perceptions of neither dark nor light, negative or positive, as each is attributed to the other. Basically, one can't exist without the other in the whole scheme of existence as a whole.

Yes I know, this is very hard to comprehend as it's of no known teachings, as I have presented it here, that I know of.

WWIII, when did it actually start?

How do you give a starting date when our infinite consciousness started exposing our finite consciousness for what it's created, especially considering infinite consciousness is not based on time? The sixties seem to come to mind but was not the sixties just a prelude to war between our finite and infinite consciousness? Sorry, no date comes to mind but what I do know is this war is between our finite and infinite consciousness. When did our infinite consciousness, overall or collectively, became threatened by finite consciousness, a consciousness of obscurity and deliberate ignorance?

Actually, the real question is, when did our infinite consciousness  truly start exposing finite consciousness for what it created? The sixties is only a prelude to this because finite consciousness was not predominantly in control of this reality, the sixties is a sure sign of this because we could still express freedom without being oppressed to any great degree.

Music is a good indication here of the time when we started to really become repressed. Disco music was certainly still of the same freedom of the sixties, however, when did the love of the sixties turn into blatant lust for example? Blatant lust really started in the disco era but freedom of expression was still very evident. If you know anything about the disco era, it was deliberately crushed by numerous people.

Another good indication of a starting date of WWIII, is when rap music was deliberately introduced to fill privately run prisons in the US.



I find it strange that WWIII is seemingly attributed to the US in almost everyway. Don't get me wrong, this isn't stating that US citizens are the cause of this, it's the oppression within the US, upon it's citizens by dark energies, that is the root cause of WWIII.

This now brings us to the perception of dark and light energies. Anything that is perceived/judged to be dark and light, negative and positive, good and bad, is but a perception that creates a particular reality depending on what is being perceived.

If you observe the whole world, each and every person around the world has a different perception of what is negative or positive, so which negative and positive is truly negative or positive? You see they are only perceptions, however, what is and isn't destructive is another matter but in saying this, there are people who will state that war is constructive!!

Our actual perception of light and dark, refers to the light being of awareness and freedom where's the dark refers to deliberate ignorance and servitude. Basically, one consciousness is limited where's the other is limitless, one consciousness is finite where's the other is infinite. Basically, the dark doesn't want to be exposed where's the light wants to be exposed.

Being unwilling to being apart in exposing the dark because it's too negative, is assisting the dark to stay obscured. We might think while deliberately ignoring the dark and becoming the light, that the light will expose the dark. Light is based on awareness, not obscurity or deliberate ignorance, the perception of light is purely based on exposing the dark, not the exposure of light. The last thing the dark needs is to be exposed for what it creates. We basically need the perception of the darkness within human consciousness to be exposed before we can evolve, this also means that humans will indeed be expressive of this darkness at times.

The process of evolving from one state to another, relies on cycles to give consciousness motion, without this motion, human consciousness is unable to evolve. Human consciousness is noticeably in a cycle, if we take motion away from this cycle, all that will occur is that human consciousness will stagnate and basically rot away from within. All consciousness that is based on time/finite consciousness, needs motion to evolve. It's highly unadvisable to help hide or ignore a destructive part of any consciousness.


Obscurity has nothing to do with freedom, so free yourself of your obscurities that will in the end free your consciousness from it's created limitations. Be exposed and unlimited within your own consciousness.