30 Lesta Nediam LNC2016-07-27 0005 +Brian Hill

Lesta Nediam LNC2016-07-27 0005 +Brian Hill
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ/posts/cGuRaNxhvDk
https://pastebin.com/qFiUQSzh
__


+Brian Hill __ The term "LIE SYSTEM" is correct but if you find it too "extreme" then you may euphemistically refer to it as the (human farming) "PROCESS". https://twitter.com/LestaNediam/status/757933315575861248

__

The danger is that if it is referred to by other names *it risks being contaminated and having flaws introduced*.

The "lie system" as I conceive it may share some qualities with other existing ideas *but it remains distinct and unlike anything else ever described*.

And so there is a need for me to keep it "pure" and to guard it against potential corruption. At least until I have had an opportunity to write seriously and "officially" about it. (Eventually I'll get around to a series of essays - and then a single treatise.)

__

Since other people have also begun using the term "lie system" (those people who use the term "lie system" but are not in regular communication with me do not have my endorsement) I have at times had to refer to it as *"Lesta's lie system"* _just to keep it free from any introduced flaws._

I know what I am doing - whereas I cannot be certain that others do. And so I need to keep *my* concept of the lie system separate from anyone else's. (Again - at least until I have had an opportunity to write about it "officially".)

__

If people hear about the "lie system" from someone else *then I cannot guarantee they have an accurate understanding* and they may also be learning about a weakened or flawed concept.

__

To give a related example. You have heard about "sufficient proof". I refer to there being a "lack of sufficient proof" or an "absence of sufficient proof" or simply that "sufficient proof is missing". I do not talk in terms of "insufficient proof" or a "lack of proof".

That is - "sufficient proof" is a *specialised* concept that has a *specific meaning* in the "lie system" (and "lie system" is a *specialised* concept that has a specific meaning *according to Lesta Nediam*).

Early on I did refer to it (_though only occasionally_) as "insufficient proof" *but very quickly saw that it had the potential to lead to misunderstandings and potential contradictions*.

The key point is that I cannot be certain other people who talk about a "lie system" will have the same foresight and discernment. *They may introduce flaws without intending it*.

This side of things needs to be left to me.

__

However! I understand that for a "new person" [i.e., someone _"just starting to realise they live in a world where trusted people can be lying to them_] the term "lie system" could be too "confronting" (or conjure up incorrect imagery).

Even for someone who has spent time as a "truther" or "conspiracy theorist" - the term "lie system" can be problematic in that way (and even seem a bit "extreme").

__

Because of your own recently expressed hesitations - *I can see a need for a "euphemism" for the term*.

And so I would euphemistically refer to the "lie system" as the "process" (or the "overall process") - but I would only refer it like that if I wasn't yet comfortable with the term "lie system".

The term "lie system" is correct. That's what it is and the reason a person would hesitate is because they don't properly understand it. I will justify the term on this thread in good time etc.

But I can see that a compromise is also wise.

On our other thread you mentioned some hesitations about using the term "lie system". Could you repeat or summarise those so that I can respond to them. (In your good time.)

__

And let me know if "PROCESS" ("the process" or "the overall process") as a euphemism for "lie system" is more congenial to you (it should be - but it now risks being "generic").

Anyone you talk to about the "process" must (at some point) know that you are referring specifically (euphemistically) to the "lie system" (and Lesta's concept of it) *otherwise there is an unacceptable risk of contamination and flaws potentially introduced*.

__

Until I have written "officially" about the "lie system" I need to keep everything as "pure" as possible but until then *if you want to refer to it as "the process" - _I'll at least understand what you mean!_*

__

In summary: when you get a chance could you repeat/summarise your objections to the term "lie system" so that I may be reminded of them and at some point respond.

And would you be okay to think about the "lie system" euphemistically as the "process"? Would that enable you to talk about it more freely without having to write a term you aren't (yet!) comfortable with?

______________________________________________________________
My name is Lesta Nediam and I am cracking reality like a nut.

Lesta Nediam's YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3DalBOEZ6RqSyHk8_mGV7w

Lesta Nediam's Google Plus:
https://plus.google.com/+LestaNediamHQ

Lesta Nediam's Twitter:
https://twitter.com/LestaNediam

Lesta Nediam's Public Comments:
https://pastebin.com/u/Lesta

What does not exist - exists to exist.
What exists - exists to always exist.
As it is written - so it is done.