This is not a problem with the material, so much as it is the way the material is more or less shared.
There's no care as to the outcome of what a whistle blower tries to sound the horn on. That really makes a difference as to the importance of said information being disclosed.
for example. If a person wants to talk about extraterrestrial disclosure, and has evidence to share. there's no way to tell whether that's a good thing or not. It's that vague. And what a lot of whistleblowers try to do, is just go on interviews with no sense of understanding why they're really there. Other than to answer questions.
but if this were truly the case, would we not see people happy with the results? I could honestly say the same thing for journalism. It's as if people expect it to happen all along. Nobody appreciates the uniqueness of the field. It's only the family members who see the danger and hope for the best for those people to be okay.
Just because you're taken care of on the job, doesn't make it any less or more real. What makes it real, is that people really does something with the information. Instead of sitting at home, and looking for the latest documentary to watch before forgetting about it altogether. So when people start posting about why nobody is truly being the change in the world they wish to see, and act like bullies on other forums, censoring the real information someone believes in is valuable enough to share. It makes me question. Are whistleblowers really what this world needs?
The truth about existence is that nobody has anywhere to hide to. You can put up walls around you but they're visible, always. You can have someone tear down what you've built but the evidence still remains. Intentions tell the story. they lead you on the path to discover clues and then piece them together, a real detective or slooth will say as much. It never truly disappears. IN order for that to happen, you'd need to figure out a way to combat reality itself and since possibility won't do it for you, what you're left with is a difficul situation to try to make amends with as best you can.
What I mean by that is ... once a truth talker, always a truth talker. You might change your tune, but you'll never get rid of how you feel about things. The only way that can change, is through circumstance. Which brings me to the point of this discussion.
What is the nature of the circumstances surrounding journalists and whistleblowers exactly? Because it seems to me, as if appearances may not only be deceptive, they may be staged entirely. that's not to say there isn't a real component involved, but if that's only ever been you and me directly. whose to say we need representatives of any kind to speak for us, when we can just simply do it ourselves.
We know what's true, and we know what's real. Perceptual differences in opinions will only complicate matters because the information isn't first hand accounts. Even if the ruling is of an insane nature. I'm talking generally, about everything from government plans of control to extraterrestrials and practically any other field requiring a whistleblower to so called get to the bottom of things. Too much emphasis is based on opinion, and not facts in this world. We have to be happy with the outcome of our efforts, which is the reason why whistleblowers can be considered heros. The only scenario in which this is possible, is if we the people sponsor this to become a reality for Earth.
So the next time I see a whistleblower, I want to ensure the evidence is factual, true and above all, benefitial and informative. Not all topics are going to make us feel great, but the truth isn't supposed to hurt. It's supposed to be liberating. And that leads to euphoria. So just be mindful of the state of consciousness you are in when you see a video or a picture or document claiming like wiki leaks for example, to support the governments secrets. Security of government files do depend on secrets to survive, however if something's too good to be true, it will often deceive you into belief first, questions later. Just remember that. Getting to the bottom of any situation requires intentions to be factored into account, before actions. You prove intention by creating actions, not destroying or blocking them afterall.
the true intent of many whistleblowers out there has yet to be determined. Which is why I'm hopeful for the field, but prefer a more positive meaningful outcome of the results they bring anyways. I'd advise others to look at solutions, as opposed to finding more problems unless the problem a solution addresses is a problem in and of itself. generally speaking, the source will always lead to a resolution as it is one and the same with the problem at hand. The real source, the one backed by truth, facts and living data. That's you and me, in case you haven't noticed. :) <3