Discover more from Unacceptable Jessica
Who are the good guys?
Using professionalism as a measuring stick
A dear friend of mine said some really wonderful and sage words to me the other day. She said - and I am summarizing with my own language here - ‘if you walk into a pit of vipers, you can’t expect not to get bitten’. I actually use the analogy of caves with bears in them and not going in but basically, same same.
It might seem obvious to a sensible person not enter a cave because there might be bears in there, and it might seem obvious to a sensible person not to enter a viper pit because there are surely pit vipers in there, but the fact of the matter is, sometimes we find ourselves in caves and pits in spite of our sensibilities. When you take away the analogy and apply this reasoning to the realm/reality of people and what we do to each other, it becomes less obvious what might seem obvious.
I find it hard to believe what people do to each other - especially for empty reasons like money. I find it hard to believe how very many people lack emotional intelligence (maturity). I also find it hard to believe how very many people demonstrate exceedingly poor judgement so much of the time.
I mean sure, snakes bite. Bears eat meat. But people? Aren’t we meant to be less bitey and eaty of our own kind? Aren’t we supposed to be mature as adults and excellent role models to our children? And as adults, aren’t we supposed to be ethical beings with refined decision-making skills?
In the realm of the human snake pit - the special place that I have found myself exploring in the past three years - I am discovering a mélange of all sorts of beings: some vipers and some garter snakes. Some are smart and some are not so smart. Some are agents and some are regular civilians. Some conduct themselves in a professional manner, some do not. Some are excellent sources for knowledge base expansion, others, no so much.
At this point in time, I put professionalism above all else when making judgements concerning who to trust as sources for knowledge basing. I made up this expression ‘knowledge basing’, and I really like it. To me it means the act of developing and expanding a knowledge base which, incidentally, is a way of living for me. It is really important to me to have professional sources for this knowledge base, and to know how to recognize a source as professional. It’s no easy task, but I have some tools that I think work pretty well.
I think bad people are easily defined: they hurt others with intention. I think good people are also easily defined: they can also hurt others, but without intention. Good people can, and often do, improve things - like their ability to make good decisions - as they mature. But, both bad and good people who hurt others, lack professionalism.
Beyond bad people inherently having abilities to hurt others intentionally for such ridiculous ends like money, it amazes me just how many good people hurt others unintentionally (sometimes also for money), simply by being thoughtless. I think that thoughtlessness is bad conduct, and that it is inextricably linked to a lack of professionalism whereby the outcome of lacking professionalism can be devastating to another - even though the conduct itself may appear to spawn from ‘good intentions’. I would guess that most people fall into the ‘good’ category whereby they are good people - just misguided and likely making bad decisions - if others are being hurt by their actions. Nonetheless, they are lacking professionalism and therefore, the question of whether or not they are reliable as a knowledge source, a friend, or a business partner, is raised. But what is professionalism?
To me, professionalism implies a consistent and demonstrable embodiment of three core qualities:
Although 2. and 3. are intertwined they are still distinct, in my mind. I think these three core qualities can be used as a measuring stick by which we can all gauge who is worth listening to for knowledge-basing, and who is not. If any one of these three qualities are lacking, then professionalism can be called into question and by default, the person is likely not worth listening to. Well, I mean, unless entertainment is the goal. This is an important distinction to make: if the goal is knowledge-basing, then professionalism is important (ie: facts). If the goal is entertainment, then professionalism is not as important (ie: gossip).
I am not personally interested in gossip or in stories about who got concrete injected into their face. I am interested in finding out why and how things work and solving the mysteries of life. Granted, some people who inject concrete into their faces are mysteries of life.
Ultimately, if professionalism (as defined above) is lacking, then relevance of message is as well. In other words, if someone consistently demonstrates a lack of either integrity, maturity or good judgement, then one can be quite sure that this person is not a good source for knowledge basing.
We all know what integrity entails, right? A person of integrity is indeed, integral: whole. Integrity has been defined as the following:
Integrity is the practice of being honest and showing a consistent and uncompromising adherence to strong moral and ethical principles and values.
A principle is a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of beliefs or behavior or a chain of reasoning.
Value denotes the degree of importance of some thing or action, with the aim of determining which actions are best to do or what way is best to live (normative ethics in ethics), or to describe the significance of different actions.
So to have integrity, to me, means to live honestly and ethically according to the laws of nature, and this necessarily implies not intentionally hurting other living beings - honoring life/living/animals/ecosystems themselves.
What about maturity?
I think maturity can be equated to emotional intelligence.
Emotional intelligence (EI) is most often defined as the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions.
So to be mature (to me) means being in charge of balanced decision-making ability that is founded in recognition and proper/careful handling of emotions in oneself and others.
This is why I think maturity is very intertwined with good judgement because of course, the ability to be in charge of making good decisions relies on good judgement.
Judgement which means the evaluation of evidence to make a decision.
So good judgement means that one has done a thorough and proper evaluation of as much evidence as possible, prior to coming to a conclusion and finally, making a decision.
I pay special attention to this third quality when trying to decide if someone is conducting themselves in a professional manner.
Are Actions in alignment with Intentions?
A quickie question I find myself asking in my assessment of the trustworthiness of others, is whether or not their Intention is followed by Action, and whether or not these are aligned. An evaluation of the specific intention must be carried out. In other words: Has the person in question clearly expressed their intentions? Also, an evaluation of action must be carried out. In other words: Has the person in question taken action, and if so, has this action been in alignment with their stated intention?
Hint: If their actions go against their stated intentions: listener beware. My own gut feeling on application of this simple question is that it can be used to suss out agents. Agents won’t have clearly defined their intentions because their intentions are already clear to them: I have a job to do. No one else needs to know anything about their job and therefore, no intentions need to be declared.
Aiming the guns at myself
Am I an agent? No. As fun as it sounds, I am not. I could never be because I hate being told what to do. From the start of this ‘two weeks to flatten the curve’ nonsense, I have clearly stated my intentions: I want to help people know what’s going on in VAERS. I have a unique background that allows me to do this. I can help, so I will. I don’t want money. I don’t want fame. I want to help because I can. Clear. Well-defined. I took action by applying my skills and making a lot of pretty pictures, writing more than I ever have, submitting works for publication and traveling quite extensively to speak at conferences and meetings to get the pretty pictures seen by as many policy-makers as possible. My actions are in good alignment with my intentions. I am professional. I hope so anyway.
Aiming the guns outward
As part of these thought experiments I give myself to try to figure out what the hell is going on in the world and also who is good and who is bad, I also apply this simple question ‘Is Action in alignment with Intention’ to others involved in the game of ‘control the humans’. The first thing I realized when I did this was that I had no idea what the intentions of some of the people in this ‘game’ actually are! To my shock and horror, I realized that some people have simply not clearly defined their intentions. Now, to circle back to my agent idea, it makes me wonder if these ‘undeclareds’ aren’t simply agents. Can I draw this conclusion? Is it helping me to do so?
Said in another way, if I had to answer the question: ‘What is this guy/gal trying to accomplish?’ I had no clear answer, in many cases. In fact, in some cases, although the appearance of good intentions were oozing, the actual answer I had was: ‘To divide’. In one particular case, a presentation was given where the entire thesis was based on dividing people - with actual lines - into categories, based on how well they were falling in line with a single idea. In another, a presentation under the guise of ‘unite to fight’ was given where it eventually reduced to a gossip session where some very unpleasant things were said about alleged ‘colleagues’. In other instances, the work is good, but the presenters are bat-shit cray cray. Sometimes, I give the cray cray a pass if the work is solid.
I had to think carefully about this because some people are really good at appearing to be good guys trying to figure things out, and some people are actually just confused good guys trying to figure things out. How can anyone be sure? I ask myself questions like: Are they trying to help people? Are they actually helping people? Are they trying to make money? Are they making money off of others’ suffering? Are they trying to discredit others? Are they discrediting others? Are they end-gaming division? Are they dividing people successfully? Basically, are they causing more harm than good?
And if so, have they actually declared their intentions? This particular question is useful in discerning between good and bad and also, perhaps, who is an agent. If you find yourself asking these questions, it might seem like answers will come easily, but they don’t. In any case, if intentions are not made clear, then actions cannot follow or align, and therefore, a necessary lack of professionalism stemming from a failure to embody good judgement ensues.
There is no reason in my mind to listen to someone who has not clearly defined their intentions. This is also what scares me about many of the psychopaths manipulating the narrative and why I do listen to what they say and take it very seriously - ‘they’ have very clearly defined their intentions (equatable to threats): inject everyone with experimental transfection tech, ensure everyone owns nothing by 2030, reduce carbon (you’re carbon), make sure the useless eaters are happy. They’re so confident in their puffed up billionairity that they clearly state their intentions - they don’t even try to hide them. This, will be their downfall; as over-confidence always is.
There is also no reason in my mind to listen keenly to someone who has clearly defined their intentions, but whose actions are not in alignment with these intentions.
Let’s have fun with a few examples and scenarios. Say a random person - let’s call them: Wuzzuuuup, defines their intended goal as ‘wanting to work together with all others to fight and defeat a monster’. Good goal. Sounds like something I would be interested in attaining as well.
So I guess the first question could be: What is this person’s declared intention?
A: To work together.
The second question could be: Is this in alignment with their actions?
Scenario A: Wuzzuuuup claims to want to work together but consistently talks shit about others who, strangely enough, have the same stated goal. It doesn’t even matter what the reason for shit talk is because ultimately, to shit talk is to demonstrate bad judgement. I would raise a red flag on that one: their actions are not in alignment with their declared intentions.
Scenario B: Wuzzuuuup claims to want to work together and consistently presents the results of scientific papers and case studies, and is up-to-date on data and stats in order to reveal the injustices being perpetrated on people. Wazzuuuup also regularly references others and never uses them as stepping stones. Their actions are in alignment with their declared intentions.
Let’s look at another random person - let’s call them: Blargenblarg. Blargenblarg defines their intended goal as ‘wanting to save the planet’. Another good goal. Sounds like something I would be interested in attaining as well.
Declared intention? A: To save the planet. Clear. Is this in alignment with their actions?
Scenario A: Blargenblarg claims to want to save the planet but consistently flies around in a private jet to have meetings and symposiums about how to reduce jet pollution. I would raise a red flag on that one: their actions are not in alignment with their declared intentions. And no, somebody doesn’t have to do it.
Scenario B: Blargenblarg claims to want to save the planet and starts a cooperative where people can exchange the goods and services they provide freely, and as required. Their actions are in alignment with their declared intentions.
Let’s look at one more random person - let’s call them: Fartenslacks. Fartenslacks defines their intended goal as ‘proving that the COVID-19 measures caused irreparable harms’. Yet another good goal.
Declared intention? A: To prove that humans caused harm. Clear. Is this in alignment with their actions?
Scenario A: Fartenslacks claims to want to prove humans caused harm and consistently presents excellent data showing clear evidence of harms from people. including date on lockdowns, suicides, injections, and more. Their actions are in alignment with their declared intentions.
Scenario B: Fartenslacks claims to want to prove humans caused harm and supports others bringing forth clear data. This is in quasi-alignment with their declared intentions in that they are not actually proving anything, even though they may want to - they are merely supporting others who are. And this, to me, doesn’t violate core professionalism qualities.
Scenario C: Fartenslacks claims to want to prove humans caused harm and supports others bringing forth clear data, and also brings forth some supportive evidences of harm, but does so in the context of creating considerable confusion involving subject matter unrelated to the intended goal. This is a tricky one. Fartenslacks might be doing this for any number of reasons so we certainly have a duty to question motive. But, it is important to keep things simple, and the simple truth is: this is not in alignment with their declared intentions.
In this scenario, Fartenslacks, has interjected ‘non-necessaries’ that do not promote achievement of the goal to prove that humans caused harm. This contradicts a desire to want to simply prove humans caused harm, in general, and demonstrates poor judgement specifically, by my assessment. In this scenario, I would guess that Fartenslacks is more concerned with notoriety than proving humans caused harms.
Confusion is the realm of the lost, and clarity does not live there. Perhaps more disturbingly, confusion can be created.
As I see it now, there is good and bad, in everyone. Ebony… and ivory… ♫♫ Most people are good, but simply lack a little integrity or maturity or good judgement. The good news is that all three of these things can be worked on and improved!
I recommend stepping back from everything that you read and listen to, and to exercise simplification of the messages therein. For example, I often ask myself: What did I learn here? If I am left having read something or listened to something feeling confused by the message therein, then I consider that I might have been confused intentionally. Even if someone is just bad at explaining, that’s also irresponsible, and thus not professional. I also consider that I might simply not have grasped the subject matter. So I tend to listen to things repeatedly to be sure.
The only way we can win any fight against bad guys is to unite as benevolent and thoughtful people. The bad guys know this, and they prey on it and use our good intentions - and bad intentions - against us. All of the time. Part and parcel of manipulation of masses are successful psy-ops and they’re running all the time - like code in the background - and most of us have no idea how, or even that, we are being manipulated. There are indeed players in this game who are educated on how to manipulate the masses - these so-called agents. You can call them infiltrators, intelligence, agents, whatever - they all have a job. But with all people with jobs that involve following orders, there is a pattern to be recognized. The pattern here might be that they do not explicitly declare their intentions.
As a final dig, if someone describes themself as a ‘discreet’ person, but then chooses to follow this self-description with a gossip session about others, then you probably should not trust that person as a source of knowledge basing, in my opinion. Entertainment, sure! After all, enquiring minds want to know!
So who are the good guys? I think without a doubt, people who conduct themselves in a professional manner are good guys. I think that many people who are currently lacking professionalism are also good guys who need to step up their integrity game. Gem stones always have the potential to sparkle. Most people are good guys by my take.
Who are the bad guys? That’s easy. The liars. The people who intentionally hurt others. The ones who truly feel that we, the people, the good guys, do not belong in their billionarium, and that if we must get sick and die to appease their twisted desires, then so be it.
But I have a message for the bad guys.
Lean in close: I do not feel the way that you do.
The act of acquiring knowledge to build a database of information.