FTM - E-Mail Me

WARNING You MUST read the disclaimer before viewing this website. If you have not read the disclaimer, you MUST click here NOW or Close your browser NOW. Seer Travis' E-Mail Contact Page
This page is for contacting Me, Seer Travis Truman, for further discussion of the issues presented at this website. There are TERMS ATTACHED TO EMAILING SEER TRAVIS : 1. You must be legally defined as an adult in your state/country to E-Mail Me. 2. By contacting Seer Travis by e-mail you also agree to allow Me to print part or whole of your email here, should I choose to do so. (Your E-Mail address and any identifying details will not be displayed.)
	Click the link below to EMail Me : I want to E-Mail Seer Travis and I affirm I am legally an adult in my state/country/territory. OR write down My E-Mail Address : Truthmediamail@hushmail.com However, be aware that My E-Mail is filtered, and any abusive mail will not even reach Me. I also do not reply to mail I consider to be stupid or insincere.
EMails received may be re-printed below at My whim : Here is part of a series of EMails from an aspiring Superior and Seer that has an interesting ending : Yea, in fact I personally identify with "uncle" Charlie. Ooh, Marquis de sade had just came to mind particulary his book philosophy in the budoir. I looked into camus' absurdist philosophy but I'm kinda scratching my head on that one. I've read the stranger and just started reading his essay the myth of sysipuhus, so we shall see. You have to be VERY careful when reading philosophy to always remember that most people are inferiors who are addicted to one or more societal lies that will be reflected in that philosophy. Many philosophers are even addicted to the insane god myth. Wow, those that reconise and accept forbidden truth are in deed few and far inbetween. Yes. Less than 1 in 100,000 is a genuine Seer of Truth. The fact that he [Philosopher Stephen Law] wont and even dismissed you says alot. They cant handle the truth, so they seek comfort in not only their lies, but also in their degrees and the letters behind their names. It's those things what makes them THINK they are smart. Correct. Stephen has been given every opportunity to accept Me challenge, and h will not do so. He opts instead to re-cycle the same narrow focus in his philosophical investigations. That said, Stephen does reject the insane god myth to a degree. It's like I say education and intelligence are far from each other. A person can have all the education they can get in the world, but yet lack any intelligence. That is correct. Remember, IQ intelligence is nothing without the psychological drive that wants to find and know Truth. That is the key. I myself had some victories by showing truth and the person(s) after a point couldnt say anything else, they were silenced. Which brings up something you mentioned in your truth on forums essay. I personally had witnessed this by showing truth to someone only to be insulted and such because they couldnt dispute what I said. Humans are terrorized by simple Truth. They cannot afford to debate you calmly and honestly because the very act of doing so means they have to look at and analyze Truth. They therefore resort to shunning or abusing you, then insanely claiming it is you who does these things. It is their loss. They wont know the glory of beings able to embrace and love Truth and Self. ** Oh, before I forget get a load of this. 1. You know how you say society dont want it's victim-creations targeting societal leadres themselves? Well, I dont know if you hear about this or not, but it happened in this rare case concerning an enraged victim using not only six others I believe, but also a societal leader as his poison containers. YES!!! I heard that shortly before reading this mail. What a wonderful event! Certainly, Jared defied this societal dictate, he saw through the lies of societal target selection distortion and did not target prostitutes or hobos but societal leaders, the most appropriate target for his rage. And the great thing is that Jared did not randomly target people and just happen to kill the societal whores. Jared did not target them because of some other distorted reason. NO! Jared targeted these societal leaders because he knew the represented societal brainwashing and lies!! This is a fantastic intellectual accomplishment by Jared! "You don’t allow the government to control your grammar structure, listener?" - Jared Le Loughner "In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can’t trust the current government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar." - Jared Le Loughner "No! I won’t trust in God!" - Jared Le Loughner "What’s government if words don’t have meaning?" - Jared Le Loughner Can you see what Jared is saying? It is what I said in My dictionary essay! I will add Jared to that Essay as an aspiring Seer. Of course he's being demonised. It's sad how everytime how justice is served in a mass display It's always the "loners" that get the short end of the stick I guess I can say. Yes, Jared is being unjustly and wrongly demonized, but I don"t think he got the short end of the stick. Jared has Truth, Jared is smiling in his mug-shot! The inferiors don't have Truth, they are not smiling. Jared has won! Anyway, here's the link to the article. http://www.buffalonews.com/world- nation/article307555.ece Notice how right off the bat they emphasise that he was a loner it's even sadder the lenghts society would go to associate acts of justice with being "a loner" to it's citizen slaves who in turn further victimise loners as "weird" "the odd one out" etc and just plain treat them in any negative way they can. Being a loner is a great thing, a good thing. Of course, I agree that society is trying to use that to suggest Jared was insane, because Jared has shown his society powerful Truths with little distortion not only by his courageous acts, but also by his philosophical revelations. Jared is an inspiration to Me as to the power of Truth and mental strength development. It seems Jared as triumphed over his society. I received another email in December as follows : Hey Travis. Hello. I was reading up on your updated devolution essay and it got me to thinking of another factor in the downfall of the human species. In addition to rejecting truth and natural selection being somewhat circumvented I think that another important factor has to be the marriage ritual. Yes, no doubt it has had some impact. The insane ritual of marriage is an utterly invalid societal institution that can interfere with natural re-production processes. It certainly would narrow the diversity of gene combinations. However, the perverse act of getting married is a symptom of more primary and fundamental problems within humanity and therefore cannot be a major first cause of human downfall. The problem with humanity was the development of advanced conscious cognitive faucilities with out maturity and ability to handle the Truths of life. These inferior specimens bred and produced more of the same inferior species. They used technology to circumvent natural selection and that is likely the only reason why they did not become extinct as they deserved. So anyone who clings to the marriage ritual, is self-hating etc is already proven genetically faulty. Society claims that it in addition to all of the made up benefits that it provides to the married couple and the children, it also could help weed out so called "dead-beat dads". This societal claim is ridiculous. Society has no intention what-so-ever to weed-out any bad parenting. The entire family unit is based on sponsoring and encouraging parents to break their children and mold them into their own distorted and sick image. Society is simply trying to upkeep it's illusion of decency by pretending it is trying to stop child abuse and neglect. "Dead-beat dads" is a demonizing label used by society to victimize societally-appointed fathers who don't follow certain societal demands such as engage in regular slave-labour work, rather than those who maltreat their chidren. That women who are "smart" and "practical" will choose the most loyal partners and that genetically, they will win out over the less devoted fathers. As you probably realize, any woman who was smart and practicle would never choose to get married in the first place. They do not, however, win out or win anything. I do understand the point you are trying to make, though. Of course the truth is that humans are not a monogamous species by nature and that male humans do not possess any paternal instinct and a man's chances of reproducing are not significantly less if he chooses not to actively take part in raising his biological children, at least nowhere near enough to have an affect on the gene pool. Correct, humans are not monogamous and most male humans have absolutely no natural paternal instincts what-so-ever, and are instead either brainwashed, tricked or co-erced by society to undertake parenting roles. The genes of the child are present at conception, and thus whether the primary caretaker is biologically related to the child will have no effect on the gene pool. If women generally select which mate they use based on his conformity to societal marriage and family unit mythology, then in general those who are more susceptable to societal brainwashings and lies would be chosen to breed more often. Thus any few and rare specimens who were not showing such perversity would be slightly less likely to re-produce or in fewer numbers. The problem is that even those who dont want to (or otherwise dont get married) are also probably Truth-hating inferiors for other reasons. I think that in reality all marriage does is enables women who are the most spirit-broken, self-hating, most slavish, and overall mentally deranged to reproduce. Because in order to willingly agree to become someone's sex slave, you have to be all of those things. And studies show conclusively that those who have the most children are those who marry. There is no doubt in my mind that it has greatly contributed to the genetic downfall of the human species by enabling unfit mothers to pass their defective genes on. I agree on your first sentence, but I must point out that they would be able to reproduce outside of marriage also. Yes, a married inferior woman is more likely to re-produce and pass on any defective genes. But as I said, they would likely pass on those genes anyway. The problem is that virtually all humans are mentally deranged and Truth-hating regardless if they choose to marry or not. Therefore, virtually all re-production involves the passing of inferior genes. So I was wondering if you would ever see this as important enough to include in that essay. It's something that I have not considered much and will look into further. Its hard to say if this would have much impact. It is also hard to pin-point when the insane marriage ritual started, but it must have been well after the fall of humanity's integrity and were already re-producing without marriage. Marraige would have then made a contribution and accelerated human devolution, however. It is a bit different to the example of religeous persecution I gave, because those who declared the Truth and refused to join holy groups were often murdered and thus were certainly weeded out. Anon writer Seven wrote to Me in late December with : Hello I was looking at your website, about 'truth'. Do you mention about entheogens anywhere in your pages? Peace No, I don't mention that. However, if you understand Forbidden Truth you will understand that the use of entheogens constitutes a serious betrayal of self and rejection of Truth. Entheogens are not only a mind-altering substance, but also pertain to insane god myths and other deranged and ridiculous religious rituals. Superiors never use entheogens. Travis. Anon writer Six wrote to Me on 28th of November with : Travis, Yes, hello. I've been watching a number of your videos and reading the information presented on your website and merely have a few questions regarding the points you propose. Fire away. Be aware, however, they are not propositions, but are actual 100% Forbidden Truths or revelations of True Reality. I'll say that while I myself have been utterly disgusted with the world at times, I seem to find some of your arguments erroneous, and even contradictory. You should be disgusted with society, it deserves the utmost disgust. My "arguments" are revelations of Forbidden Truth and are always correct. I'll begin with the first thing that caught my attention as be rather contra to what you believe. I believe nothing, I reveal Truth. In your video regarding the explanation of forensic psychiatry, you stated that "there is no such thing as evil." That is correct. Also be aware at all times with Forbidden Truths that the individual and society are treated most differently. No individual can be evil, can be legitiamtely and sanely blamed by society for his actions nor punished. You could label society itself "evil", if you defined it a certain way. You went on to claim that this notion was a mere creation of religion (something of which I personally am not a fan of...at all). As mentioned before, this was the first flaw I found in a number of your arguments. What flaw? The concept of evil is a religious derangement. That does not mean it is solely used by god-addicts. However, the concept of personal "evil" as used by religeous and forensic groups is ridiculous, false, lie-based and utterly deranged. After watching your video regarding abortion, I gathered that you were vehemently opposed to the practice. I am vehemently opposed to societal lies and myths. I reveal the Truth on what abortion entails, and why societal leaders choose to sponsor this murder form. I also mention how society is utterly hypocritical in it's stance against victim Thomas Hamilton when it sponsors children being murdered on a much greater scale. A Truth-based society would not allow abortion unless it allowed all forms of murder. Granted, what is wrong with it beyond the murder of children? Of course, if there is no such thing as evil, what is wrong with abortion? The murder of children? I never said abortion was personally "evil" or "wrong". Individuals have every business expressing their True Reality by murdering children via abortion and society is in no legitimate position to punish them for having done so. That said, obviously abortion is not a natural and moral behaviour for a society. Obviously to any sane thinker, the conflicting, hypocritical societal stance on abortion, war, assissinations and legal murder completely illegitimizes its stance on illegal forms of murder. Only an utterly insane, sick, cathartically enraged and deranged species would violate its nature with acts of genocide using technological implements because it needs to murder its offspring in ritual structures in order to restore emotional homestatsis. In this sense, society and humanity is collectively immoral and insane. These are not local units acting under local (True Reality) rules. These are societal-level acts, and are carried out with societal sponsorship and special technological and medical assistance. There is just no legitimate and sane reason to need to murder of womb-trapped children en-masse, especially when it is illegal to murder non-womb-trapped children. This alone 100% proves that the human species if violent, insane, malevolent and emotionally/psychologically ill. You also fail to address the religious component of abortion. Religion demonizes abortion, and why? Because it is "evil." I don't care what those mentally deranged bigots think. There is no legitimate religeous component to any Forbidden Truth, simply because the insane god myth is a genocidally malevolent, lie-based and deranged delusional societal myth. The Forbidden Truth is always 100% pure and free from lies and myths. Therefore, there is nothing to address. Yet apparently there is no such thing. By religious and/or Dr. Stone's definition and application to individuals of the word "evil", no. So why does a perceptive man like you take issue with this? You refer to abortion? To reveal Truth. To tear the guts out of societal lies. To highlight how humanity is diseased and deranged. You also mention a shooter named Peter in this abortion video. I don't recall that off-hand, I did feature Thomas Hamilton. However, I do mention Peter Knight on My website, a powerful philosopher and thinker in his own right, (and not because he shot people). From what I heard, he entered the clinic with a gun and the intention of possibly burning it down, and shot a guard. People were evacuated and, as you speculate, some of the women did not go through with the abortion, thus saving that unborn child's life. Thats correct, although Peter planned to definately burn it down, with the humans trapped inside it. You proposed that by Peter shooting and killing a guard he also saved a number of lives by deterring some of the women there from going through with the abortion. That is not a proposition, that's a fact. They were saved, for how long is another matter. I do not, however, suggest that this was Peter's primary motivation. Peter probably intended to murder them all. Your claim was that by killing one, many were saved. That is not a claim, that is a statement about what transpired. I do not suggest that Peter's actions were altruistic. There certainly is a philosophical problem with murdering to prevent murder. But there is a greater philosophical problem with blaming and punishing an individual such as Peter for doing a murder on behalf of murderers themselves, by a society that revells in and sponsors genocide. What if Hitler had been aborted? That would be a single act of societally-sponsored murder. Would you lay down your "will-power of iron" for one abortion, one "murder that would save millions upon millions of lives, lives of men, women, and children not just the victims of the Holocaust, but World War II as a whole? No Truth-based society or philosophical position can allow a human to be abortion-based murdered regardless of any proposed "reasons". It is interesting that you equate the non-existence of Adolph with these events. Would simular genocide be wreaked if Hitler was never born? Likely. But that is not what happened, nor is it the thrust of your argument. It is not a Truth-based propositon because : 1. To murder to prevent murder (even if so) is a philosophical contradiction. 2. There would have been no way to predict what Adolph would become. 3. Any act of murder under the "abortion" label would not be motivated by such reasons, but personal True Reality motivations. 4. It would still be an act of murder all the same. I'm sure you've read on the stances on abortion as a method of dealing with rape. I'd be interested on hearing your opinion on this. Opinion does not come into it. The correct answer is that abortion is murder. The identity of the biological creator, or the lack of choice to become pregnant, cannot change these Truths. Thus, abortion is still an act of murder. A Truth-based society could never condemn a child to death because of the actions of the biological father. Nor would the women be expected to keep the child, unless she wanted to and passes Truth-based mandatory parental licensing tests. The mother could apply for aid, and compensation from her Truth-based society. "Dealing wth rape" ... how exactly does that make sense? It does not! It was in the past, so you cannot change that. Nor would murdering the womb-trapped child prevent any future rapes. I suppose you could argue that the traumatized women wants to use her womb-trapped child as a poison container. She wants to lash out and murder. But why the womb-trapped child and not a stranger, then? Why not anybody? Why not her rapist? A Truth-based society could neither ajudge or punish her for murder, yet could not allow or sponsor any act of murder .... unless it allowed all forms and all instances of murder. I'll say that it seems you don't fully comprehend the implications of carrying a child for nine months of your life. I'll say that, as a man, I don't either. I guess it's just that I would be much more persuaded on this matter by a mother, especially one who carries the product of rape. I am persuaded by no-one and nothing. I coldly and calmly evaluate and find Truth. One thing is certain : hardship is not worse than death. We can only weigh the death of a child as more important than any hardship. Abortion is just murder. Discomfort cannot change that Truth. You must realise that when women do bear children who are the results of rape, that they do not harbor some overpowering demeanor of warmth towards these offspring. So what? Most mothers don't have any real warmth or love for themselves or their biological creations. It is not natural. That's part of the sacred mommy myth of the family unit myth. See My latest video. Thats why zoo staff must stand-by during births, and months after, in case the mother rejects her offspring. Most human mothers harm and abuse their children in some form or another. And certainly, the societal dictate of biological creators of children being the automatic custodians of them is utterly lie-based, malevolent and insane. So what happens after birth is 100% irrelevant. At least, you certainly paint society as cold and cruel to even planned children. I paint nothing, I just tell the Truth. My child abuse essay explains that, as does Media Stories. Why would children born from rape be treated with any more kindness by the society you see? Why would they treat these children with any kindness at all? They probably wont. But that is not the issue. Are you suggesting on the off-chance that a child will be harmed it should be murdered? If so, you are insane. I was abused by My family unit. I was molested as a toddler, tortured, emotionally and psychologically abused, forced to live with mentally ill caretakers. Does that give society a legitimate ability to judge if I should live or die? Of course not. So, while you protest abortions, you disparage a society that might abuse an unwanted child? Simple : BOTH abortion and child abuse are malevolent and lie-based societal policies. Society abuses and breaks all citizen-slaves when they are children. You included. The problem here is with societally-sponsored child abuse. To then suggest the solution is to continue that dictate, and then additionally commit murder-level acts of child abuse to "prevent" child abuse is simply utterly insane. Of course, planned children are abused every day. This is undeniable. But your arguments ultimately make this end seems acceptable. My arguments do no such thing. If it "seems" that way to you, I suggest your brainwashed mind is malfunctioning. I made it clear : abortion is murder, it is also child abuse. How is that an add for sponsoring child abuse??? My child abuse essay makes the Truth on child abuse quite clear. I would like to know your sources regarding the matters you speak on. For example, do regular psychiatrists and forensic psychiatrists really have exactly the same qualifications? The field of psychiatry is the same. Take the science of botany. You cannot have a "court" botanist and a non-court botanist, because BOTH would simply be biology experts. There is no such thing as 2 botanys. There is no such thing as 2 psychiatrys. A forensic psychiatrist is just a poor psychiatrist who is selected due to his views and loyalty to society and the justice system. This is an area of great personal experience for Me. I'll tell you for a fact that they get paid regardless of what they say in court, whether or not it is in support or denial of law enforcement's desires. That is a fact that I know well and can back up with evidence if need be. Incorrect. You might want to use precise quotation of what you refer to in future emails. I dont recall using those terms. The fact that any individual is paid at all, and gives any lie-based statement instantly renders them a societal whore. I never said that they dont get paid if they suggest "x". Thats not what I said. But their career and continued employment (i.e. being called to court for example as in the Theodore Kaczynski case) relies on them lying, mis-representing psychology and psychiatry where supposedly "appropriate", agreeing with false and wrong findings in the field of psychiatry and rejecting Forbidden Truth. All forensic psychiatrists sponsor society and the justice system. Like lawyers and judges, they know it is their job to present things a certain way. The ones who have the "right attitude" and play the game are promoted etc. Of course, prosecution and prison psychiatrists are malevolent, and much more inclined to hold biased and lie-based positions. I know of one case where a man in jail, Justin, murdered a family member after being abused all his life at the tender teenage years. The psyche-whore claimed he made it up, was delusional, even though it would have been 100% impossible for them to have determined that, even though all the psychiatric evidence clearly indicated Justin was so abused. In fact, if any judge, or officer of the court ever started revealling Forbidden Truth and rubbishing the justice system, he would be barred from his profession, under the insane smoke-screen of ethical standards. This is not to suggest that it is impossible that an individual may not try and do these things. But they understand that their careers hang in the balance by doing so. Any Truth revealed will simply re outright rejected by the legal system. You claim in the comments section of your youtube page that you use science and philosophy as your sources, and I'd like further insight into this. Ultimately, philosophy is subjective, Travis. And, just like your arguments, philosophy and science are sometimes in opposition. I am never in opposition to My Truths. That is not possible. You need to quote exactly what you refer to and where the quote is from, as I am not sure what you are referring to. Be aware that most philosophy is lie-based. Rene Descartes comes to mind - what a disgrace! A lot of science is also bogus. This is because these individuals are beholden to society, and brainwashed by society. I'd also like to know your level of education. It stands to reason that an argument made by a man of little education should hold little significance. It does not stand to reason at all. 2+2=4. Thats correct regardless of who made it. Who made the argument does not change the argument what-so-ever, as seen in the previous math example. I realise that philosophical education cannot be measured conventionally, granted, some would not consider a knowledge of philosophy an "education." They can consider all they want, they are inferior and deranged citizen-slaves who understand nothing. Truth-based philosophy is the most important education possible. If you read this far, and read everything this far, I do congratulate you. I don't hate you, Travis. I don't necessarily believe that you're "wrong," and certainly not "evil." I don't wish for you to be silent regarding these radical ideas. In fact, part of me wants the entire earth to hear this "Forbidden Truth" even if it only results in people simply taking a mere second to think about the world, even if you're somewhat or entirely wrong. There is 0% possibility I am wrong. I am well educated, and philosophically, too. Nietzsche is one of my favorite thinkers, and he shared similarly radical and critical notions. Nietzsche was a Seer of Forbidden Truths. Education, however, is largely comprised of societal brainwashing. There is zero Forbidden Truth content in public education. Right now I feel that I have made a civil and persuasive argument against some of the things you've said and written. I have neither read nor seen everything of yours, and thus concede that I might be missing points critical to your argument. Your arguments have made no dent what-so-ever in My Forbidden Truths. Some seem to simply be because of no knowing My positions thoroughly. Some arguments were utterly insane. After all, you were educated by an insane society. All I ask is that you dignify this email with a response. I answer all EMails I deem to be sincere. Curiously, 8 Anon writer Five wrote to Me on 25th of November with : >Hello Travis, just wanted to say I find your site very >interesting. This strongly indicates that you are a rational and sane thinker. >Clearly you have gone a very long way down the rabbit hole to find the information and I commend the effort it must have taken to get this site up and >running. I deserve to be commended. >I too have ventured deep into the rabbit hole (perhaps too deep) and so I can respectfully say that I am not surprized by your findings. You can never have too much Truth. >I do emphacize respectfully because I am all too familiar with the madness involved when one goes this deep. There is no madness involved at all. Truth can never be a form of madness. It is society that is literally mad and insane. >I do believe what you have posted on your site is true, for Truth, when looked upon objectively is always self evident. Superior and sane thinkers can always recognize Truth right away when it is delivered. [edit : I would say blindlingly obvious rather than self-evident] >Could objectivity be the vessel that will deliver us to the Forbidden Truth? One question will answer this: is it self evident? Forbidden Truth is always based on concrete facts. The way I reveal Truth makes Truth undeniable to any sane rational mind. >Of course to even attempt to take root in the Forbidden Truth society must truly and completely become objective. This will be very >difficult as society in itself is defined by its subjects (you, me, everyone) who unfortunately tend to be far too subjective, and often >unconsciously so. The main issue is actually with the inability to recognize and embrace Forbidden Truth. Forbidden Truth is equally valid to all human beings if they can recognize and embrace it. A Forbidden Truth society would, however, recognize True Reality as subjective considerations also. >I'm guessing you have already peeled off the lie that says subjectivity matters. Matters to whom? True Reality matters a great deal to the individual in question. Forbidden Truth is no replacement for expressing True Reality. Subjectivity does NOT matter, however, when assessing the Forbidden Truth of society themselves. Here, subjectivity is not relevant. >It saddens me that this is one of the Truths that the masses refuse to accept. It does not sadden Me. The masses refuse to accept every single Forbidden Truth. >It is in this sadness that madness resides which I am sure you already know, Travis. This is not correct. There is no madness in knowing the Truth. >To observe the world we live in from the depths of Truth is very hard and very lonely. For Me it is easy, glorious and I love Truth. Superiors are not lonely, to be shunned and ignored by humans is a blessing because they are all toxic, diseased and insane. >We cannot help but to desire to make things better, but with multiple layers of smoke and mirrors convoluted into an untangleable web >that people dillusionally believe can be untangled, it is hard to convince them that the solution is actually quite simple. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am not trying to make things better for anyone but Me. The Truth is for Me. You cannot make society better - it is too sick to be saved. >Forget about trying to untangle the web. The web was built on lies in the first place. I have untangled the "web" of lies and myths of society. >It is evident to me Travis that you do in fact know Truth and accept that you choose to call it "Forbidden". I assume you call it >"Forbidden" simply because so many of us just DON'T want to know it. This is one reason why. Forbidden does not mean "hidden". It is like if a certain room is "forbidden". Society conditions its slave- drones to not want Truth, to hide from Truth. It forbids them to publically discuss or reveal Truth. >Your journey into Truth has revealed many lies and you present plenty of evidence to support this. This being self evident, I don't >question it. When claims are made, evidence must be presented if appropriate. The insane god myth is obviously one case of no evidence...leading rise to a claim that just can't make sense. >You know as I do that when society accepts Truth as its premise, the world will be, by default, a better place. Correct, but society will never accept Truth. >There must be a way to sell Truth to the masses, otherwise, what's the point of being here? There is no way to make Truth accepted. There is no point to being here, we are just here. There is no such thing as the god creature. There is no "point" to our lives. >Tim** Take care, Tim. Keep studying Truth. It is a life-long journey. Anon Four wrote to Me again on 11th of November with (previous EMail after this one) : >I would refer you to your own work on the forbidden truth of "the insane god delusion" as you just used the very same logic. You >essentially stated that simply because it is possible that true reality be separate from forbidden truth that you or certain individuals >around you have accomplished keeping them separated. I believe the phrase you use is backhanded negation. This email does not make sense. I presume you are trying to suggest I should prove something, but I will not speculate as this email is too unclear. Be aware, however, that True Reality and Forbidden Truth are not of the same type of thing as the insane god myth. True Reality and Forbidden Truth are priori arguments. The insane god myth is a posteriori claim. Here is a link that explains the two : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori Travis. Note : It is unlikely this inferior will receive further replies unless he ups the quality of his emails. Anon Four wrote to Me again on 10th of November with (previous EMail after this one) : >Allow me to illustrate to you a fallacy in your logic then one that shatters your entire concept. If you can do this, then the entire concept of Forbidden Truth philosophy will be defeated. >You state aptly, that what you call "true reality" is "the totality of your uniquely perceived life experiances that society reflected onto >you, including all lies and falsehoods" (ironically misspelled). Yes, that is stated about True Reality. Spelling is not My strong point, Truth is. As long as people can understand the intended meaning, spelling is unimportant. >Yet you also claim there is a "forbidden truth" that exists to describe lies of society. If you follow this through to conclusion you will >realise, if all people have their own perspective truth, then all forbidden truth they reach (whether a conclusion based on factual evidence >or not) is tainted by this "true reality" that they all have. I have come across this before. It is based on a mis-understanding of Forbidden Truths. Firstly, Forbidden Truths apply to societal claims, ideas etc rather than personal ones. True Reality deals with the personal core motivations of individuals. I have both. I am able to keep them apart, like two train-rails that never meet. They are not derived from one another. They are not because of one another. They are seperate. True Reality does not prevent Me from being able to decode the Forbidden Truths. For example : the Truths of the insane ritual of war. >This makes it impossible to even comprehend forbidden truth unless a person is completely and >absolutely never affected by any form of >society. Wrong. It is possible. >The problem here of course then comes in the fact that even in the animal kingdom apart from human society, a person would be subject >to the social behaviors of animals (which can include anything from the idea of "family units" to "love"). Yes, but these behaviours and experiances are within the natural and normal bounds of the animals nature. Society subjects individuals to perverse, sick and insane behaviours. Animals dont have a family unit mythology, nor any romantic love myths. Animals CAN love, as they love themselves. >You stipulate essentially that you, having been a part of society (or you wouldn't have obtained a computer), have somehow blown >completely past your own preconceived "true reality" and seen something beyond that which is MORE true than anything anyone else >can see. I never went "past" True Reality. Forbidden Truth is seperate from True Reality. >Allow me to suggest that this very mentality in itself is a societal construct we call ego, that is meant to deal with the less easily satisfied >members of society, ie. you. Suggest whatever rubbish you like. We both know (and you probably deny) that the tone of this email is due to your receiving the response to the last one. I have answered your question. If you are not satisfied, or have new questions, you may EMail back. Anon Four wrote to Me on 9th of November with : >I love truth, I've sought it all my life By the looks of this email, you are yet to find it. >and been greatly appalled by the lies society believes in. But I have >pity for society, not anger, and upon >reading (and enjoying some) of your thoughts and ideals, These are not mere "thoughts", they re solid 100% proven Truths. >I simply have one question of concern about it all. I see that most of what you write >or stipulate is how things are invalid or wrong in society, I demolish societal lies and myths, yes. >but even cults and various other concepts we have of what is clearly brainwashing >are known for having "90% truth" in them. Cults are less toxic and harmful than all mainstream societies. However, you quest for Truth is futile because you base your ideas on things being rumoured rather than concrete facts. No societal lie, myth or institution has any shred of Truth to it. None. >This leads me to suggest to you that society in order to effectively brainwash > must have a reasonable amount of truth going for it. Then your brain is inferior and malfunctioning. Your whole premise and conclusion is utterly wrong, and also reveals that you did not understand a thing about what My website had to reveal. Brainwashing is always done to deceive and delude, to break and control, the citizen-slave masses. >Thus, leads to my question: What, if anything, do you believe in? Nothing. Superiors have no beliefs, only rational evaluations. >I am not talking about a broad or vague conceptualization like "True Reality" I define True Reality exactly, and that is NOT a belief. >or "Forbidden Truth" but in actual tangible things. Tangible? Such as what? My website reveals My position on societal lies and myths. For example, abortion stance is clearly outlined. You have a lot to learn and think about before you can recognize and embrace Truth, if you ever acheive this feat. Travis. I have a new EMail for October/November, as Anon Three wrote : > Hi, seer Travis, Hello. > I recently came across your website and I must say brilliant. It is brilliant, because that is what I am. If the human race was sane, smart and had integrity it would beg Me to save them from a society of endless genocidal lies and myths. Instead, australian society is subjecting Me to unjust and endless attempt to harm, silence and persecute Me and thus proves it is beyond saving itself. > In it you speak the Truth the whole Truth and nothing but. That is correct, if indeed you recognize such a broad spectrum of Truth you prove yourself to be Superior. Your quest and respect for Truth is to be commended. > At any rate, I was wondering something about True reality, Of course I know it's a person's right > to express his/her True reality, but the thing I was wondering about is say if a person > has feelings of inadequecy, do the exercise their right to express that feeling > or is that something a person should change within their True reality? My money > as they say goes on the former. Any human with feelings of inadequacy has a 100% legitimate right and business to express that True Reality. Society is 100% responsible for creating feelings of inadequacy and these feelings are actually moot because there was never any legitimate societal obligations to adequately meet - but that is another subject for another time. In Truth, it is no different if one fell over and hurt their ankle, or if a pig-thug broke your ankle on behalf of society. To expect one to spend thier life denying this event and refusing to express it verbally and physically is utterly deranged and harmful. Just because feelings of inadequacy involves a mental, psychological or emotional element of the person in no way changes this simple Truth. So yes, there is every legitimate right to express and embrace this part of their True Reality and there can be no legitimate expectation by anyone else or society to do otherwise. There is no such [sane and legitimate] thing as "should change". Of course, that does not mean this could change. >Also, or as lon as I can remember I havent been able to feel sympathy and empathy towards no >one or thing, so, with that lacking isnt that what >essentially make someone a psychopath, or does those long list of criteria that psychs list makes >a psychopath a psychopath? These are common traits of psychopaths, but not the only ones. Psychopaths have no "conscious". What an absolute psychopath really is is someone who can rationally and coldly assess a situation and act on for their own benefit or desires. You cannot choose to be a psychopath, society foisted that upon them, and there is certainly nothing wrong with being a psychopath. Being a Truth-seeking psychopath is Superior than any citizen-slave. As far as humans go, no human actually deserves sympathy or empathy. Society claims humans must show these traits for each other, and then insanely turns around and commits acts of genocide and expect any citizen-slaves involved to show no sympathy or empathy. >All those lists of criteria never made much sense to me as a defining factor in what >makes someone a psychopath, but the main thing of lacking sympathy, empathy >and a conscience always seemed to me to be the only legitimate criteria in determining that. These criteria are reasonable. The important thing to realise is that society's negative connotations it attaches to the psychopath are invalid and lie-based. Psychopaths are Superior, although that is not the only factor of Superiority. The more Forbidden Truth the psychopath understands and embraces, the more powerful, sane, legitimate and free his thoughts and actions become. http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath_2.htm is a fairly reasonable assessment of the psychopath, but it does contain tainting by non-psychopathic and societal influences. Quote : "The sociopath is that truly self-absorbed individual with no conscience or feeling for others and for whom social rules have no meaning." That Me to a tee. These criteria make Me Superior and Truth-embracing, not sick or a monster. It is society that is the monster, and it tries to reverse everything. (http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm) - Quote - "In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world. You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered." Again, that's Me and I prouldly embrace this trait as a Superior. This is simply Mental Freedom at work. And yes, he got one thing right : It's an advantage. EMail Me if you have any further questions. Travis. In August, Anon One wrote: >"Hello Travis!" Yes, hello. Your EMail has been adjudged to meet My quality control standard for a reply. >"Before you continue reading, I want to say I do not intend to insult you in any way by this mail." If you did, your email would likely be filtered, and otherwise you would have been banned. Inferiors need to insult and abuse anyone who reveals the Forbidden Truths to them, as they hate and fear Truth. >"Because I'm a psychopath I possess no feelings of empathy or sympathy, so you just read my mail as it is." I always read it that way regardless of the sender. >"I've been laughing my head off by all the shit they throw at you at forums," Why exactly is that? Their reaction is driven by a fear and inability to cope with and handle simple Truth. They are pathetic, and their response proves My revelations of Truth. Any Superior would laugh at them, not Me. You don't say which way you go. >"but I think your agenda is valid and I'll now throw you some new weapons for your cruisade. An uneven battle is no fun to watch." I require no "new weapons". There is no battle for Me. I have won. The only lop-sided aspect of the "battle" is in My favour : Truth. >"I've been reading on you site for some time and I have to say I agree with you on many thoughts." This indicates that you may be a potential Seer of Truth and Superior. There are always new updates coming, such as on the crime essay. The website is not even 10% complete. >"I've also seen you spam?? forums about your site and how real serial killers are, that makes a needy, attention-seeking picture of you that noone takes seriously." I use forums to spread My website and the Truth. I also participate, however, since I post the Truth, I get ignored, banned, shunned and insulted. This makes Me happy, as I know why they reacted this way. I could not care less about what "picture" others see from My posts. I then have to move onto the next forum. >"I know why you want to spread the word, I understand why you are angry," That is incorrect. You do not understand. >"but people aren't ready, they can't hear or accept what you have to say. You can't force anyone to think like you by physical or linguistically violent behavior." I am not attempting to change anyone's thinking. They can be unready all they like. I don't care. >"It's the individual TRUTH you write about, it's exactly their same individual truth you are trying to change, you can't force them to think like you, you have to be smooth and talk to people and make them change them selves." I write about personal and Forbidden Truth. I don't expect them to even attempt to change themselves, because that requires facing up to the Truths of life, which they are too pathetic to be able to do. >"I fully agree with you that child abuse is a terrible thing. I grew up in a home where my sadistic psychopath father had complete control and his truth was the only one accepted. I never accepted his truth... and as a kid I was very close to fulfill my plan of ending his time here on earth, but I managed to beat him in other ways." Your childhood abuse was societally-sponsored via the family unit mythology/institution of your society. Yes, your father had complete control, just as society granted him. You were abused by society. All men are your father. All women are your father. Just because your father was abusing you in a cold and distant manner, does not mean he is a psychopath. Perhaps you have other reasons for stating that. I don't get what you mean by "his Truth". You were his poison container. He needed a poison container to reflect the negative emotional and psychological states he interpreted in his True Reality. Your plan to eliminate your father is a noble and Truth-based one. One of the primary reasons why there are "murder" crimes and torture prisons for children is to threaten and terrorize children into accepting abuse and the insane dictates of society. >"I'm one of the few non-criminal, self aware psychopaths out in society. I do have the ability to control myself, but I am also aware of my true self.. or "the beast inside" or "predator" as some say. " There is no legitimate obligation to commit crimes. The "predator" inside you is just a reflection of the need you possess in your True Reality to use others as poison containers in a distorted reflection of what society did to you as a child. >"The predator is a hunter and does not care much for what the prey feels. It is a matter of choice, you can play by the rules or you don't. Maybe it's easier to do if there is no emotions messing things up." Being a psychopath itself is not a matter of choice. You can make choices to do certain actions, or not to, depending on your level of control at the time. There is no reason to believe that any control in the past will be guaranteed in the future. >"Also I know exactly how to manipulate emotion-people to get them exactly where I want them to be." This can be a useful tool to have. Use it wisely. >"Take these words from me as a tip or what ever you want. Or throw them in the trash. You have to use the psychopath-way to make people change their minds... Make them unaware of the change, your thoughts will be theirs. As politicians." I am not certain what you are getting at here. I lie. I can, at will, pretend to be a god-addict if it suits the situation. I can play many ways. The Superior always considers lying to others, using what will being advantage or manipulation as he personally deems fit. There is no motivation for Me to use such tactics on My website. >"I do not want friendship or any other relation with you just because I've sent you an email. I don't relate to people." The feeling is mutual. Travis. Earlier in 2010, Another man (Anon Zero) wrote : > "Hello Travis. It's Me again. Thanks for the reply." I reply to all mail that meets My quality control standards. > "Now on to the reasons why I don't completely come to your side on the issues of abortion and the parental license. The main reason is that in both instances you advocate government force as a means to solve the problem." No, that is not your real reason, because else that would apply to ALL abortions at all stages of womb-trapped child development, as well as other acts. Your issue is with accepting the Truth that a stem-cell or womb-trapped child under a certain age is a life-form and moral Superior to you. Your further error is that society itself already has total control over all the important aspects of the lives of it's citizen-slaves. Government power does not matter. It matters what the government DOES with that power. > "I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the notion that forcing people to do things at gun point or by any other means of coercion in the name of doing the "right" thing is a good thing." Yet you would support the notion of forcing the loss of life via abortion. No, your objection is with another issue. The Truth of what abortion is, IS. It cannot be changed by consequences or practicalities. Abortion is murder at any stage of womb-trapped child development, that is the Truth. A Truth-based society would have to treat ALL murders equally. > "Human history has clearly shown that this [EDIT: Government forcing people to do things] has been a major cause of the degeneration of our species." The cause of human degeneration is the inability of humans to embrace and recognize Truth, and emotional and psychological needs for poison containers. Governments that neglect or refuse to use laws that force its citizen-slaves to refrain from actions that do not represent societal-level Truth are lie-based, diseased and inferior. Any society with a government MUST enforce Truth-based societal policies to be legitimate, not neglect them. > "If you advocate government action, then you advocate institutionalized violence which is far worse than criminal violence." It depends on WHAT the action is. I advocate Truth, nothing more, nothing less. If the government act in accordance with Truth, then it is legitimate and OK. If not, then it is illegitimate. Government inaction will ALSO lead to violence, in the case of abortion to murder. Society already sponsors abortion. Yet you ignore this. Your problem is that you cannot see the Truth that SOCIETY has control, that SOCIETY creates and faucilitates these problems. It is not a matter of government in principal. The only reason that the government is "bad" is because society is "bad". It reflects. In a Truth-based society, the government would have some legitimacy. > "Government is illegitimate since it gets to do things that they deem "criminal" for the private citizen to do and the government leaders are also nothing more than reflections of their society just like anyone else and are therefore not exempt from any of the homicidal rage that the average citizens feel." Yes, that is correct, but not the principal of this matter. Society and culture is illegitimate because it is based on lies, myths and derangements. > "So it is easy to see how irrational it is to advocate government control based on the premise that humans are too dangerous to one another if they are not under control since those very same human beings are in positions of power and are often time more mentally dysfunctional than the ordinary citizen. " It is not irrational. You just cannot grasp the principals of Forbidden Truth. The major problems are only because of society, and the lies, myths and idealogical derangements it is based on. A Truth-based society would seek to rectify these problems. The Truth is that your stance suggests that society just leave children to die. That is because your core True Reality still reflects the societal lie that young children are worthless garbage. > "Not to mention the fact that the violence they undertake such as war is far more destructive than what a criminal or could ever do. " Correct, but that does not and cannot change the Truth on what abortion entails. > "For your justification of the parental license you responded to the conundrum of why the same society that creates child abuse in the first place would or should be trusted with the task of trying to eliminate it........... " Wrong. These {Edit : In previous mails, we discussed what a Truth-based society would do : create a parental license, as opposed to the current state of society}are two societies. The OLD society is gone, that would be a lie-based society. The NEW society is the Truth-based one. I thought I made that clear already. A NEW Truth-based society would not sponsor child-abuse, in fact it would be ANTI-child abuse via policies such as the parental license. > "....it by the parental license by saying this would happen under a Truth-based revolution. So I would ask you then, what would this truth base entail in the physical sense?" Physical sense? See below. > "Obviously, part of that Truth-based revolution would be mass amounts of people waking up to the Forbidden Truths of life. " Correct. Governements would admit every lie and myth, admit 100% fault and guilt, and then broadcast the Forbidden Truth and it's new policies. > "What I mean in the physical sense is what actions would be undertaken after this awakening. Are you advocating a Truth-based government? " Obviously. But that is also impossible. This cannot effect the Truth on what abortion entails, or what society would NEED to do in order to have Truth-based legitimacy. > "I noticed on one of your forum posts one time you started a thread on the parental license and one user stated that you seem to abhor any kind of government control and that it was hypocritical that you made an exception for this. " Government control is not the issue with Forbidden Truth. Lies, myths and CURRENT societal institutions are. Society is, culture is. > "And I don't quite remember, but I believe you responded by making a distinction between government and society and stating that society would protect children. " Wrong. Inferiors use such foggy memories to argue and think with. I made that distinction, but society will NOT protect children, a theoretical Truth-based society WOULD. This Truth tells the Superior that society has the OPTION of preventing child-abuse, but CHOOSES not to do so because of malevolent intention towards all human children and the human race as a whole. > "And on the abortion issue, when I stated that abortion has a very long history, that was in no way meant to make an appeal to tradition. Appeals to tradition, unless they can be show to empirically work like the development of scientific knowledge, are completely insane and invalid. I was merely trying to point out how futile it is to try to protect EVERY single unborn human. " You did appeal to history. You tried to claim that because abortion has a history of occuring, that it would be hard or impossible to prevent from happening. This fails to take into account the obvious flaw that societies have all been lie-based [and thus sponsored abortion murders and allowed a sense of false moral legitimacy to them]. It makes every sense for society to TRY and protect every single human literally. Anything else does NOT and cannot represent Forbidden Truth or sanity. > "Anyway, I hope that this helps you to understand why I am not 100% with you on these issues. " You are rejecting Truth, that simple. It is not for the reasons you claim above. You use so many words, too many. You are making something simple complicated. Your replies must be short and to a point. I dont want long, ranting points because those cannot be answered properly or as effectively. The problem with abortion is easy : You do not accept the womb- trapped life form as worthy of life, and thus think it can be casually murdered to suit an evil society's whims. Parental license is more compliacated, but is seemingly because of both a link to the above issue re children, and trying to make a "practical" solution to the problem. I am starting to wonder if you are "David Truth" or that guy from "DIY-AV Forums". Neither of these inferior humans are capable of becoming a Seer of Forbidden Truth, or embracing all the core Truths of life. David Truth is also permantely banned from EMail, as he is both a troll and a Truth-denier. Feel free to EMail Me, but do try and address any points on the same issue beforehand, and make them simple and principaled.