To Dinarians who choose to THINK,
But also to the authors of the "sitreps" and the The Ice Cream Shoppe Boys,
After reading this referenced post, the most striking thing about it is the title, "SITREP Truth". I encourage you to read it for what it is, an attempt at rationally justifying years of manipulative deception. http://inteldinarchronicles.blogspot.com/2016/10/sitrep-truth-guest-post-by-ice-cream.html
If we can get past the explicitly oxymoronic quality of the post title, and as well disregard the troubling similarity with the historic and calculated deception of the so-called cabal, you see an open and unashamed admission of consistent lies.... for our benefit (of course).
"SITREP Truth" can be fairly understood as in response to the numerous posts obviously calling out intel providers for patently preposterous fabrications and distortions. It's fair to characterize this open admission of ongoing deliberate falsehoods disseminated as "intel" as condescending and manipulative. Among other things, we're scolded to "be more concerned about having your heart ready." And if we're upset by being fed lies by the "messenger" (meaning, the sitrep reports), then our hearts are not "ready". That's pretty high minded for a confessed long term outlet of calculated intentional deception. It's interesting to note how we "learn" the condition of our "hearts" is tied to having or stating objections to their admitted lies. I think we can all agree that's quite inverted, yes?
The easily understood implication included ("Higher minds are running the show. If yours was such a higher mind, you'd have been chosen") is that we are too ignorant to 1) be included in the process, and 2) well, simply, we're just not among the "higher minds". Did I say, condescending? There is apparently a "circle of high minds" - you're either in the circle or you're not. These folks lying to us want us to know they are inside the circle and the dinarian audience is outside the circle of "higher minds". I'm not feeling the love there - anyone? And, did anyone shoot the messenger? No, the audience finally woke a little to hear these people behind the so-called sitreps lying absurdly as though the admitted lies are interesting truths.
Here's a thought to Banana Cream (the signer of the referenced apologetic), we are indeed high minded enough to know that what you say in these pseudo situation reports is ridiculous. It is not what only the "high minded" folks know. The truth is not somehow incomprehensible to us common folk. Your unfolding narrative is silly enough that you would feel embarrassment if you had the circumstantial awareness you claim you have. You need not be defensive - no one will "shoot the messenger". But, you ought to be ready to hear some rational questions when you make assertions which border on (if not are deeply afield in) irrationality. Communicating from behind the increasingly thick-witted veneer of a bad dime store spy character is insulting and unacceptable.
It is no solution to merely send away those who call you to task for absurdities or outright lies, which lies you now admit with the excuse that it's to "keep us safe". That one really has been worn fully threadbare. You are not addressing children. The very "research" you seek to send your critics off to distract them, is the very reason we know the protection story is a manipulation - an old, tired, and frankly, stupid sounding manipulation. You are keeping no one safe by your arrogant deceptions which serve only to sell the illusion of your importance and highly placed position among those "in the know". The only consequence to you telling all details you think you actually know would be that your following would diminish to zero. It would no longer be amusing to wait to see how more outrageous your sitreps are from the last. No, your audience is MUCH more desirous of and served by true facts and good information than they are the make-believe safety you use to justify years of lying. So, no, we don't agree your communications with the dinarian audience "needs to be done this way".
I will resist the temptation to address the farcical attempt to shame readers using pseudo spiritual equivalencies. I will, however, cast one vote (I think among many) that "sitrep truth" damn well ought to be exactly what it says without the pretext of paternalistic protection or with the contemptuous notion we are simply insufficient to the task of understanding real facts and honest truth.
Being and staying "grounded", according to Merriam-Webster, means "mentally and emotionally stable; admirably sensible, realistic, and unpretentious." Being so is not negative, contentious, or defeatist - just honest.