Entry Submitted by ubiety at 7:54 PM EDT on March 27, 2017
Midwestman asked the question earlier today in a very brief post, "do you EVER question your sources after they come back to you for the 1000th time with bogus intel?" Of course, the question, not the least rhetorical, is directed at our most visible and popular gurus.
Does a single one among us question the frequency of supremely confident RV, 800#, etc. predictions? Does a single one among us question that every prediction has been 100% incorrect? Elaborate, convoluted, and absurd excuses an diversions aside, Midwestman asks a relevant question. Yet the simplicity and poignant relevance of the Midwestman Question is either emotionally or intellectually beyond the grasp of the self-appointed defenders and protectors of these failure gurus.
The diversionary tripe of insufficient vibrational speed, or that anyone asking the Midwestman Question slogs along in the (presumably) lesser 3D dimension, is childish. The physics reality of potentially infinite dimensions beyond our physical perception is no excuse for a make-believe and unsupportable construct to supply a basis for claiming intellectual and spiritual superiority. Self-persuaded visions of pseudo-experiences notwithstanding, as I said, childish.
Every, and I literally mean EVERY, attempted apologetic to redeem our most enduringly failed gurus has engaged nothing of persistent failure on all attempted predictions of the infamous 800 numbers, and of the commencement of exchange appointments. In short, not a single prediction which can be measured by success or failure of known events occurring has proven true. AND YET, everything else these gurus say is essentially deemed gospel. Would you hire a lawyer with that track record? Would you hire a plumber with such a history of accuracy? Would you even listen to driving directions from someone so frequently wrong?
AND YET, these failed gurus are venerated, almost literally worshiped. That such adulation is given to such failed efforts exceeds mere forgiveness for the occasionally incorrect. It represents a fundamental andapparently intentional disregard of what is obviously behind the Midwestman Question - a presumed desire for true and accurate information.
When the rational and common sense of the Midwestman Question is dismissed along with anyone asking it, it becomes clear that a "higher" priority is at work. A clue to this comes from the focus of the guru protectors and apologists. Consistently they speak of "vibration", they disparage rational thinking as unenlightened, and they allude to their own superior knowledge and understanding based on "4D" (or similar) dimensional consciousness. AND YET are unable to descend to lower and simpler planes of understanding to merely note their beloveds' literal and continuous failures. Of course, no one is forcing the gurus to announce wrong information - they just do. Stunningly, the simplest of such factual acknowledgments is beyond the elevated ones.
Initially, the defense offered too stridently by the defenders and protectors of these failure gurus was deeply offensive to my personal sense of rationalism and truthfulness. Now, I catch myself grinning at the outright stupidity of the near worship of these cunning failures we call gurus. To my mind, the analysis of "where we are" with these exotic currencies we all enjoy so much is in one sense very simple and then in another sense complicated by acknowledging the initial simplicity. Just as in any other aspect of life, when we have been so thoroughly failed in the accuracy of a counselor (legal, taxation, engineering, or any other area we seek advice), we dismiss as unreliable what the failed counselor has given us, and we either seek other counsel or we conduct our own study and analysis - not rocket science. Bu then, we are left with little real information about our investment - a tough place if you care to perform any legitimate analysis.
Dismissing the information we receive from a source shown consistently unreliable is fundamental to mature and honest navigation through any subject. THIS IS A BASIC PRECEPT. Use known incorrect and unreliable information from a known unreliable and consistently erroneous source at your own peril. This is not merely "3D thinking" unless in the dimensions which the guru defenders imagine to operate 1+1= whatever suits their fancy. It bears noting that even for such divergent thinkers, any hoped for currency exchange will be "in 3D" and I wager they will be distressed for a banker at an exchange to use their confused math.
For those who, at least in words posted, wish to kiss the feet of abysmal guru failures, I encourage them to try a little clear thinking in whatever dimension they wish to conduct it, and hold their insults and diversions. Try something new: RECKON WITH YOUR GURU'S ACTUAL RECORD OF HITS AND MISSES. Strip away what has come from erroneous sources, presume your favorite guru is a wonderful person, and ask yourself, "WHY DOES HE STILL RELY ON HIS SOURCES AFTER BEING COMPLETELY WRONG SO MANY TIMES?" It's actually a very fair question. The simple answer is the best. It's not an ethics question. It's not a spiritual question. It's not a "love for dinarians" question. Why is your guru still feeding you from a loaf of bad moldy bread?
The following is an intentionally gratuitous offering for Peter and some of his buddies: "according to Merriam-Webster", "according to Merriam-Webster", "according to Merriam-Webster". [I'll be looking for a complete report on the evening's festivities.]
Keep looking up, even as you stay grounded my friends.