Injustices. Rules and regs.

[CodyParticipant]

Definition of injustice

: unfair treatment : a situation in which the rights of a person or a group of people are ignored.

So let us ponder as to what could possibly be considered a reportable injustice.
At this point in time, I have not come across any material,nor heard of anyone else having come into contact with a list or outline of any kind to the rules of fair play. There has been no mention of rights as bestowed by the OOA other than that of the “path to enlightenment”.
Where are the rules? Are there any? If not a society but rather a corporation, where then are the OOA’s “policies” or “proceedures”?
What could be considered “reportable injustice”?
Thoughts?

• This topic was modified 8 years, 6 months ago by  Sean (@TheGilded).

[MikeParticipant]

You only put the “simple” definition of injustice there. The full definition says:

1: absence of justice : violation of right or of the rights of another : unfairness
2: an unjust act : wrong

So when you look at these 2 definitions, it’s a little more clear on what to report. Also, you have to look at the context in which “injustice” was first used to most of us that are active in the forums, the first time we saw the phone number was the April newsletter. That basically said to report outsiders who wish to do the organization harm by telling lies and misinformation. That seems to go more along with the full definition since it gives a background as to what these people are doing and why we should report them.

While the Omega Council picture on Facebook does not give you the same background (or any) on why to call or who to report, it sends a message that there are consequences to your actions. Basically, do wrong and you’ll be reported. That’s how I took it anyway.

I don’t think they meant it in a way about rights being ignored.

[Kimberly @ElectricHippoParticipant]

@sovereignskies Thank you for opening this very interesting topic for discussion.

I’m in complete agreement with @mike, but I’d also like to add a few of my own thoughts/interpretations:

As Disciples, we are followers and students of OOA. I’ve never once heard of any rights that we as Disciples possess. I’ve only heard of potential privileges we will obtain at the discretion of OOA, such as the privilege of being taught and ultimately achieving enlightenment. Privilege will only be bestowed upon those the OOA deem as worthy.

Injustice has only been discussed in terms of injustices towards OOA. If one lies or misleads in a way that is harmful to OOA’s truths or teachings that person is deemed a detractor. Detractors should be reported to Omega. This instruction was provided in official OOA communications such as the newsletter and via Gatekeeper 5. Some of us, myself included, received phone calls specifically instructing (ordering?) us to find the detractor and report him or her immediately.

In regards to policies and procedures, OOA appears to be an institution that runs on mystery and the maintenance of control. This seems true at least as they interact with those at the Initiate and Disciple levels. Perhaps as we ascend in rank we will learn more on this front.

Is obedience what OOA seeks? Blind faith? At this point, it sure seems so. Can I demonstrate these traits? If past serves as a gauge of future behavior then I’m doomed to not meet these particular criteria. With any luck and a bit of a miracle it will turn out OOA appreciates this unruliness in me. Time will tell.

This is all purely my interpretation. I’m open to alternative points of view.

[CodyParticipant]

@mike I apologize for the omission, Usually you would find me to be the one thoroughly defining. You are correct.
Perhaps section 2 of the definition helps with perspective application but I myself see it covered by section 1. No harm Loss or Fraud, as these are the rights we share by virtue and are also recognized fundamentals by Law (not to be confused with statutes,acts, bills or other “fictions of law”) . These are basic truths I already know.
If we were to take it one step farther and enter into the “fiction of law”/corporate realm the word “injustice” can apply to a great deal more than the basic common meanings.
So let’s take a look at some legal or psudeo lawful definitions and interpretations.
“injustice: noun abuse, bias, bigotry, breach, crime, damage, denial of justice, discrimination, disparity, error of the court, evil, fault of the court, illegality, imposition, improbity, inequality, innquitable action, inequity, infraction, infringement, infringement on one’s rights, iniquity, iniuria, iniustitia, malfeasance, maltreatment, miscarriage, miscarriage of justice, misfeasance, mistake of the court, mistreatment, offense, omission of a court, oppression, outrage, partiality, partisanship, persecution, prejudice, transgression, tyranny, unevenness, unfair action, unfairness, unjust treatment, unlawfulness, unrighteousness, violation, violation of right, wrong, wrong verdict, wrongdoing
Associated concepts: social injustice
Foreign phrases: Fictio legis inique operatur alicui damnum vel injuriam.Fiction of law is wrongful if it works loss or harm to any one. Lex nemini operatur iniquum, nemini facit injuriam. The law never works an injury, or does a wrong.See also: corruption, disservice, error, grievance, ground, inequality, inequity, infringement, injury, mischief, misdeed, misdoing, misjudgment, nepotism, oppression, partiality, prejudice, wrong
or
INJUSTICE. That which is opposed to justice.
2. It is either natural or civil. 1. Natural injustice is the act of doing harm to mankind, by violating natural rights. 2. Civil injustice, is the unlawful violation of civil rights.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

So you see this is why I was looking for more clarification. Is there such a thing as looking to deep? hah.
Seriously though, @electrichippo says shes been asked to report detractors immedeatly. So how do you hunt a detractor without knowledge of what is viewed as a detractor by the OOA? “If one lies or misleads in a way that is harmful to OOA’s truths or teachings that person is deemed a detractor. Detractors should be reported to Omega.” So then, name me some OOA “Truths” Name me some OOA “Teachings”. One cannot be defined without the other as I see it. Ive studdied a wide variety of subjects as a result of this…whatever it is.. but these I would not considder OOA teachings as these tyoes of research frenzies are habitual to my nature. So then… Where are the lessons and where are the truths? They are needed to determine adequate use of the omega line.
they seem like legitimate questions to me. hah.

Interpritation is key as we all share different perspectives. Ones wayward perspective could be the meme to anothers insightful realization. Openness is always an important factor while on the path from dark to light and wandering the unique trail that is ones enlightemnent.
thanks for the thoughts. Any more?

[DaelaParticipant]

I agree that it would be helpful to have more defined “doctrine”.

1a. The latest videos have emphasized surveillance, portraying it as frightening and behavior-modifying.
1b. The OOA has encouraged and enacted surveillance, from the camera on the “Losing One Emboldens Another” page to the injunctions to watch one another closely to the statement “WE SEE ALL”. (I also received a phone call in which I was told, “You should modify your behavior. We are watching you.”)

2a. We have been told to walk in the Light.
2b. We have been told to surrender to our paranoia, fear, and anger, and that this is good. Typically these feelings are associated with darkness, not light.

3a. We have been told to report detractors, and some of us have even been pointed toward specific Apostles of the Beginning, and yet
3b. The OOA has confirmed that the detractors we were set against were not detractors at all.

Perhaps cognitive dissonance is the “Tension” we are supposed to embrace?

I also wonder if we, the aspirants, are to some degree supposed to discuss doctrine and shape it ourselves, conforming to hints from Light2Dark and others. Megan’s recent communications from Light2Dark (“[the clock] most certainly is being wound [I’d venture to say from both ends now]”) and

*SPOILERS*

the statement “reality is malleable”

*END SPOILERS*

seem to suggest that we are responsible, in some part, in shaping this experience. It may follow that we are responsible for shaping – or at least bringing to light and enhancing – OOA doctrine.

I’m happy to be corrected by Gatekeeper 4, Light2Dark, or any others if this is not so.

[DaelaParticipant]

Another example of cognitive dissonance being encouraged: the slogan “There is no conspiracy,” which, I mean. Are we supposed to act like we believe it when we definitely don’t?

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by  Daela.

[CodyParticipant]

“I also wonder if we, the aspirants, are to some degree supposed to discuss doctrine and shape it ourselves, conforming to hints from Light2Dark and others.”
I have wondered this myself as well.

[CodyParticipant]

Hah

[Author]

Posts