The Trauma of the Truth…

TruthShock – awakening is a traumatic experience, and those who are compelled to awaken others must approach it as such.

When I created this blog I wanted to call it ‘The Forest’. Short for ‘one can’t see the forest for the trees’. An analogy that when one is in the ‘middle of it’ they cannot see what is really going on. One cannot see the whole because they are lost in the details. This confusion or blindness is deliberately created. But every bloody variation of this statement was taken on WordPress. Frankly, I’m not sure where ‘TruthShock’ came from. I did not have an alternative name when trying to create ‘The Forest’ on WP. I’m actually most skeptical of any entity that uses ‘truth’ in its identifier. The professional deceiver always wrapped themselves in truth. Which means you should be as skeptical of what I write as anyone else you expose yourself too.

But from somewhere in my conscious/subconscious ‘TruthShock’ emerged. It is short, easy to remember, easy to spell, gets one’s attention, and surprisingly was available on WordPress. If you do a search on ‘TruthShock’ almost every link on the first page is to the website, or a website posting one of my blog posts. So it is also a very ‘searchable’ name. Kinda weird to do that, I refuse to do searches on my name, so narcissistic. Anyway, the more important point is the name is also very accurate. First it explains what I am about; the truth. It’s almost like I can’t help it. I am driven to understand how things work, the facts, what actually transpired… also known as simply; the truth. And because of the sheer volume and depth of deception that we live in then learning the truth actually is shocking, not to mention the sheer audacity of some of the grand deceptions. So ‘TruthShock’ is an apropos name.

‘The Forest’ is this gentle, inviting, unassuming title. ‘TruthShock’ is bold, challenging, warning. It’s not that my plan is to SHOCK people with the truth. It is not in my personality to shock people. No, my goal, agenda, plan is to awaken the masses to the world of illusion we live in. In order to do this then one must become aware of the truth, and for most this process will be shocking. So I want to share and expose the ‘truth’, and I see no way for this to occur without the accompanying ‘shock’. Especially for those deeply asleep.

I’ve been reluctant to share the truth in person because of this potential shock, and fear of rejection. I’m still struggling with what is the best, most appropriate, fastest way to spread the truth. But it is what I am to be about. And ultimately in person. Not online, not YouTube videos.

I have no desire to traumatize people. Unlike the psychopaths who have stolen our sovereignty, and quite obviously relish the opportunity to traumatize, enjoy the moment of trauma, feed on it. I, the empath, am the exact opposite. I do not want to cause trauma, friction, distress. And yet I must, you must, we must.

So then it begs the question; how does one awaken others responsibly? How do we awaken someone else to the truth, which therefor means shock the shit out of them, without causing harm? How do we shock, without causing them to; run away, strike back, cower in fear, or outright denial? Think about approaching someone with a cattle prod, telling them you’re a friend, you mean no harm, you want to help, and then shocking them with it. What kind of reaction would you have to that situation? And yet that is exactly what we are doing when sharing the truth. How do we shock without causing someone to go into shock?

I see several possibilities here, and I am very open to thoughts, suggestions, experiences from others. Certainly one approach is simply, I intend to shock the shit out someone and suddenly; and then have a plan of action for each of their possible reactions, which fall under the three broad categories of; Fight, Flight, or Freeze:

Retaliation – the Fight response, and by this I mean verbal, in which the person is reacting out their frustration/anger. Patience, calmness, allow them to vent. Then address their position from a sympathetic position. Remember you need to defuse their reaction. Calmness is key. Do not take their attack personally. Remember historically how ‘messengers’ are treated! Physical retaliation is possible and depending on the situation might be appropriate to allow the physical outbreak (assuming it’s harmless) or it might be best to remove yourself… and quickly.

Denial – denial is a Fight reaction. It is an active mental blocking action. They are fighting; but just defending themselves, not attacking. As compared to Retaliation where they person is attacking. Patience. Don’t be aggressive. Communicate clearly that the person is denying, persuade them to admit it. You want them to explain why they are denying and then address accordingly. They might actually verbally deny it, saying something along the lines of “I refuse to believe that”. Remind them that denying a reality does not make it go away, does not stop the effect upon them, does nothing to change it, and is psychologically unhealthy.

Exit stage left – or Flight reaction, unless you have a relationship that would allow blocking flight or you know you will see this person again (friend, family, workmate), I’m not sure what else you can do. Maybe give a card/flyer with contact info/website before the shock or before they run off? For those who you know you will interact with again approach the person with caution. Let the person verbalize their position. Do not be surprised by retaliation or denial.

Withdrawal – is a mental Flight reaction. So instead of physically retreating, they internalize it and perform it mentally. This requires support and encouragement. Explain that their reaction is normal. That reacting in fear is to be expected. The goal is to pull them out of the withdrawal. Encourage them, give them courage. If they withdraw then they most likely accept the truth but are reacting in fear. See ‘Shock’ below.

Shock – mental/emotional shutdown, the person has froze. The good news is you know they heard and understood the message. Sympathy, kindness, hugs all needed here. This is not the same as denial. Denial is an active response, shock is a passive response. Fight, flight, and the other common reaction… freeze. This is what the shock response is. Need to talk them out of the shock. Gentleness and patience are needed, but be firm. It’s important to get them to verbalize.

A different approach with the above is to give warning, before the shock. However, one possibility is that by warning the person they will ‘dodge’ the shock and hence not ‘listen’ to the message. Or at least blunt the shock, if they cannot dodge altogether.

Another approach is a graduation process. Start with a lesser, smaller, less controversial, or older event. Try and present an event you suspect they have no emotional attachment to; Pearl Harbor, JFK, Gulf of Tonkin, maybe OKC Bombing. By starting with a lesser reality the hope is that they will be able to accept the bigger ones. This avenue does not eliminate the possibility of shock, but hopefully it allows the shock to not be debilitating.


After writing the bulk of this post I recalled the Stages of Grief model. This model was originally created by Dr. Elizabeth Kübler-Ross in response to her care of terminally ill patients. Originally and often listed as the 5 stages of grief, there has been added two more stages of which one I believe is critical. I’m going to list these with explanations and then respond based on what I’ve written. There are numerous variations of the 5-7 stages. I focused on those whose position was dealing with ‘bad news’ in general, versus dealing with a death of a loved one or dealing with the news of terminal illness.

The Kübler-Ross Grief Cycle (7 stages of grief)

Shock*: The first reaction on hearing the bad news is one of classic shock. This initially may appear as if there is no reaction at all to the news. The person may nod and accept the news without appearing to be troubled by it. Inside, they have frozen out the news that has not really taken hold yet. To get the news through, they may need to be told several times. This is followed by a more external shock, where there may be physical reactions such as paling of the skin, shortness of breath and physical freezing.

Denial: After the initial shock has worn off, the next stage is usually one of classic denial, where they pretend that the news has not been given. They effectively close their eyes to any evidence and pretend that nothing has happened. Typically, they will continue their life as if nothing has happened. A classic behavior here is a ‘flight into health’, where previously-perceived problems are suddenly seen as having miraculously fixed themselves.

Anger: The next step after denial is a sudden swing into  anger, which often occurs in an explosion of emotion, where the bottled-up feelings of the previous stages are expunged in a huge outpouring of grief. Whoever is in the way is likely to be blamed. The phrase ‘Why me?’ may be repeated in an endless loop in their heads. A part of this anger thus is ‘Why not you?’, which fuels their anger at those who are not affected, or perhaps not as seriously so.

Bargaining: After the fires of anger have been blow out, the next stage is a desperate round of bargaining, seeking ways to avoid having the bad thing happen. Bargaining is thus a vain expression of hope that the bad news is reversible.

Depression: After denial, anger and bargaining, the inevitability of the news eventually sinks in and the person reluctantly accepts that it is going to happen. In this deep depression, they see only a horrible end with nothing beyond it. In turning in towards themselves, they turn away from any solution and any help that others can give them. Depression may be seen in a number of passive behaviors. It can also appear in tearful and morose episodes where the person’s main concern is focused on their own world.

Testing*: Even in the pit of depressive despair, reality eventually starts to bite and the person realizes that they cannot stay in that deep, dark hole forever. They thus start looking for realistic things that they can do. These may be taken on as ‘experiments’ to see if doing these things help the situation in any way. As this activity starts to work, at least in some ways, it is found to be preferred to the depression and so the person crawls out of that dark hole.

Acceptance: The final stage is back to one of stability, where the person is ready and actively involved in moving on to the next phase of their lives, no matter how short. Acceptance is typically visible by people taking ownership both for themselves and their actions. They start to do things and take note of the results, and then changing their actions in response. They will appear increasingly happier and more content as they find their way forward.

*  are the two additional stages, of which I think the Shock one is critical. I perceive Testing as just being part of the Acceptance phase, or after it.

So matching my ‘possible reactions’ and the Stages of Grief;

Stages of Grief

Possible Reactions
Denial & Exit stage left
? I see this as part of Acceptance
I did not include an Acceptance section

So then basically my ‘Possible Reactions’ are the stages of grief. I do not believe one must go through all 7 stages. Which stages visited will be different for each individual and occasion. The other factor is how long a person stays at any one stage. Which could range from seconds to years. I do not agree with the statement above about Shock; ‘Inside, they have frozen out the news that has not really taken hold yet’. Oh it’s taken hold alright, which is exactly why they are in shock. As for Bargaining; it’s trying to mitigate the bad news. It seems to be a form of denial. In the case of learning an ugly truth I believe a typical bargaining response is believing that the official narrative is a lie, but denying who the likely guilty parties are. So in the case of say JFK, they’ll admit Oswald did not act alone, that there were multiple shooters, but will not accept that LBJ, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police were involved. I suspect a decent % stay in this stage. It’s a safe compromise. They can accept the evidence that proves the official narrative is false, but deny the evidence (which many times is not as concrete) or speculation of who the real perpetrators are.


Revealing the truth breaks the spell of the lie. You are breaking the ties that bind the mind and spirit. This is both a mental and spiritual experience. Possibly it is the breaking of the ‘spell’ that creates the shock. Trauma was used to create the spell of 9/11, I suppose then it should be no surprise that breaking the spell of 9/11 creates trauma.

Regardless of how the person reacts I think it is important to share your own experience of awakening. This allows us to sympathize with one another. Share your own trauma experience, so that the person understands their reaction, regardless of what form it takes, is normal.

There is no one right or best approach. The person(s), environment, relationship will all factor into how best to reveal the truth. I suspect the more we do it, the better we’ll get at choosing the right method of approach.

TruthShock. I will bring forth my own version of ‘Shock and Awe’. And my weapon of choice is a most powerful one… the Truth. Speak the truth in love. And you have the ultimate ‘Dynamic Duo’. Now that is power.

Please share your thoughts, suggestions, experiences. I am very interested in others own personal journey through the stages of grief and personal experiences with sharing the truth with others.

Peace, love, and courage


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s