Deception

Fake cameras are a deception of war, because fighting criminals is war. War is an abnormal state, or would be if we didn't have criminals as leaders. Because we do have criminals as leaders (sociopaths), war is an almost normal state nowadays. So is criminality. And so is the business of deception, like using fake security cameras.

During World War II, elaborate staging areas of fake military material were constructed in England to mislead the Germans about the invasion of France. The Allied propaganda services tell us this ruse worked, yet the landings at Normandy Beach were very nearly a suicide mission, and they succeeded only at the cost of staggering losses. The Germans probably thought they were dealing with madmen, and they pretty much were.

 

Here's also what deception looks like.

The local food bank, who I have begun volunteering my time at, has experienced a string of break-ins. The perpetrators are as yet unidentified, but the evidence - smashed/destroyed food containers, vandalism - indicates that the perpetrators are not interested entirely in food.

The individual in charge of running the food bank cannot legally put up cameras to protect the facility.

They can put up THESE however:
http://www.amazon.com/WALI-Surveill...421_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=18Y52AJQGYDX0511J2VG

They look just like the real ones I'm putting up around my house!

 

This is also what deception looks like:

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." -- Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln told the truth and lied in the same sentence. It was doublespeak. The government he spoke of will not disappear, but it will also not endure. As long as sociopaths remain unidentified and unmanaged, normal people will never govern themselves for very long. Lincoln may have been a sociopath. I already know from studying him that he was a traitor to the Constitution and the country. And he was a master of doublespeak.

Macrocosm: Every government I know about is a dictatorship.

A dictatorship can be rule by a single person or a small group of people. What I am focusing on here is that the individual or the group dictates. And their interests are not the interests of the people being governed. That is why a dictatorship is so undesirable.

The government of the United States is a dictatorship masquerading as a democratic republic. It is neither a democracy nor a republic. Significantly, the president is not the dictator. He is just a puppet. The hidden hand that controls the puppet is the true dictator. Successful dictators today are always "hidden hands". Secrecy and deception are therefore vital components for maintaining the dictatorship.

The next president of the United States will not be elected by the people. The selection process is pre-determined by the hidden dictators, and the popular election is just a deception to placate the people and trick them into thinking that they choose the president. They don't.

Microcosm: Every forum I know about is a dictatorship.

As with governments, the status quo for forums is the dictatorship. Like governments, forums always masquerade as being something other than dictatorships, but it's just a deception. I started a forum hoping to change that, but I failed miserably. I set up a system to allow forum members to govern themselves. This idea attracted sociopaths intent on gaming the system for their own purposes, which they easily did. After the first failure, I revised the system, but I didn't realize unidentified sociopaths had infiltrated the forum. They succeeded in undermining the new system as well. This is what sociopaths live for, and this is exactly how forums (and governments) are undermined and corrupted.

At both the macrocosm and microcosm level, it is always a battle of good psychology versus bad psychology. Non-sociopaths versus sociopaths. Us versus them. Good versus evil.

And we're losing. All of us.

 

How independent is our thinking? Are we really islands of independent thought, uninfluenced by the world around us?

We spend a great deal of time being schooled, being educated, being prepared to take our place in the social and economic system (with much greater emphasis on the economic). Isn't this programming pretty much uniform? Isn't it a form of mind control? Isn't mind control the opposite of independent thinking?

If the world is full of deception, like false-flag operations, disinformation, lies, cover-ups, psy-ops, propaganda, and other mind control techniques, are these not designed to promote uniform thinking while giving the illusion of independent thought? Isn't that what “problem, reaction, solution” is ultimately all about?

When you are certain you have the truth, you are very likely to be wrong. And when you are certain you are not brainwashed, you are practically proving that you are. After all, none are more enslaved than those that falsely believe they are free. And none are more influenced than those that falsely believe they think independently.

It is said no man is an island. I think it is more useful to say every person is a parrot. When we are children, we are encouraged to parrot what our parents and teachers are parroting. We are rewarded if we get it “right” (meaning we parrot accurately), and we are punished if we get it “wrong”. Rewards are often good grades, parent/teacher approval, and other incentives, while punishments are the opposite. Then as adults, we continue the same programming, parroting what we read and hear to each other. We are rewarded for accurate parroting by peer approval (being on the right or “winning” side) and consensus (agreement), and punished by being socially excluded. But the unchanging pattern is all about parroting what our fellow parrots are parroting and copying them accurately.

And we are all saying, like well trained parrots, that we think for ourselves.

 

I am not saying any of these things that you ascribe to me:

• individuals are (nothing but) automatons
• (the opinions of) individuals who's very livelihood depends on accurately/adequately detecting sociopaths is invalid
• it's endemic and therefore all professionals are incredible
• individuals that operate from a skeptical standpoint have flawed thinking

What you are doing here is a deceptive arguing technique called "building a straw man". You deliberately misrepresent my observations to create a false perspective that you can easily rip apart (like a man of straw). This is exactly how a sociopath argues. You'll have to produce genuine and honest arguments if you expect me to have a useful debate with you. But if my assessment of you is correct, you aren't after a useful debate. You are simply running a smear campaign.

 

You make some excellent points with this recent post, but there are observable omissions and failures to incorporate those same points in your line of thinking. First off, if individuals are automatons, then that's a double-edged sword. Whether one concludes/agrees individuals are automatons depends entirely on what perspective one approaches the subject from (i.e., subjectivity).

For example, you assert a lengthy period of studying sociopathy, but if everyone is essentially an automaton than likewise. The suggestion about 'authorities' was (I'm assuming, not my comment) geared at indicating that individuals who's very livelihood depends on accurately/adequately detecting sociopaths is invalid, but yours isn't is a complete fallacy. I don't contest that there are observable instances and contexts in which your point is agreeable, but to suggest that its endemic and therefore all professionals are incredible is quite literally, incredible.

Are we to disregard the psychologists who you present as credible, by way of your other points? Where does one draw the line?

If we're to have a reasonable discussion about sociopaths, it cannot occur if based on biased and self-serving agendas/motives; to wit, that's what sociopaths (not exclusively) do. I don't contest that sociopaths are an issue to be addressed, but doing so in such a manner only serves to skew the conversation in a manner that is disingenuous and non-conducive.

Simply put, just because individuals operate from a skeptical standpoint does not mean their thinking is flawed, and asserting (whether implicitly or explicitly) is a dangerous slippery slope that invalidates the whole discussion.


(skip to point #4 at ~11:40, or the summary at 20:26)

 

Rose mentioned recoiling at the suggestion that humans are merely automatons. It is a repulsive idea. No one wants to believe that he is an automaton.

So what is mind control? Brainwashing? Hypnosis? Programming?

That got me to thinking...

To a large extent, we do not think for ourselves. We are told what to think. We are conditioned from birth in this very manner. The parent-child dynamic is our first exposure at being told what to think. Then comes schools. We are “taught”. When we arrive at adulthood, we think we think for ourselves, but all we have known is being taught by others. By experts. By authorities. And they were taught just like us.

There are those who believe that I do not have the authority to judge someone to be a sociopath. The argument is that only a clinical psychologist can do that. If the clinical psychologist says it, we will believe it, even if it is not true. And if a bigger, more recognized authority says the clinical psychologist is wrong, then we will believe THAT, even if it is not true. This happens all the time in the media, in the courts, and pretty much everywhere you look.

My interest for the last 10 years has been studying sociopathy, on my own. If I judge someone to be a sociopath, it is based on all that I have learned through my own research into sociopathy and my own experience with sociopaths. I then compare all that to the alleged sociopath's behavior. I will be able to give a long list of flags and markers that led me to my conclusion. I don't expect people to simply take my word on the matter. I expect people to think about it, just like I have been forced to do. I expect people to question the evidence, and not dismiss any of it without real justification, just like I have been forced to do. I expect people to realize that I could still be wrong, just as I could be quite right. The bottom line is that it is not just me making the judgment. It is also you. It is what you decide to do with the evidence, the flags, the markers, the information available on sociopathy, and the sociopath's behavior itself.

If people prefer to let someone else do that thinking for them, that is their prerogative. But they move closer to being an automaton.

 

Oh it was definitely Bandler and Grinder who invented NLP but the case studies they did (modelling behaviors and success) were on Erickson, Bateson and Chomsky. Actually, it's pretty funny, Bandler actually credited Erikkson with the handshake interrupt method of hypnosis but actually Erickson wasn't actually able to shake anyone's hand due to symptoms of Polio. But that's just kinda how Bandler is lol

 

Milton was good, you guys should check out Richard Bandler (creator of NLP). I did a Master Prac with him back in 2007 and it was life changing for me

 

So, since you understand Milton Erickson's work with the unconscious mind (hypnosis), and you have watched the Derren Brown video highlighting covert conversational hypnosis, and you have experienced the con-artistry of Bill Ryan and Stephen, do you still think the influence of unconscious programming ends around 4-years old?

 

In the meantime, you may want to read up on Milton H. Erickson, who was one of the pioneers investigating the programming of the unconscious mind. The video below makes it fairly evident that the unconscious mind is still being constantly influenced even in adulthood.



Derren Brown Conversational Hypnosis

 

If we're going to split hairs to THAT degree, perhaps you would care to backtrack and support your,... lengthy set of claims and positions?

You don't have to of course,....

P.S. Beware of 'beliefs'; "I have difficulty agreeing" would be more accurate.

P.P.S. What's the phrase? Something about 'Before you work to take the speck out of another person's eye, you should tend to the log in your own' IIRC.

 

That's news to me, and news that I find difficult to believe. Do you have any support for that claim?

I can see why you might believe that, given your above claim regarding "unconscious programming ends when we are around 4 yrs. old."

I would expect that to be his cover story, as the justification for his coming manipulations.

Are you able to see that this is THE method "controllers" use to take away our freedoms? It's the "we have to imprison you to keep you safe" argument that sociopaths always use.

This is the common meme administrators/moderators use to justify their jobs. There is, of course, some truth to it, but how it is abused! Avalon springs immediately to mind. Most of that Avalon abuse is well hidden and securely packaged with the argument I just mentioned ("we have to imprison you to keep you safe").

 

I doubt I am thinking of you in the way you seem to imagine. I feel you are misunderstanding again and jumping to conclusions. My comments were not about you specifically, but humans in general, and that includes us both.

I'm afraid we all do, to some extent.

None of us really do this. You might find my comments a little "woo woo", but we are part of a process that is bigger than the thoughts we think we originate.

Again, I feel you are not understanding. I'm talking in general. When we learn to write, we pay attention to the procedures of other writers, like our teachers. When we learn to navigate the forum world, we pay attention to the way others navigate that world, including moderators, administrators, and forum owners. We are influenced by them consciously and subconsciously.

You wouldn't have posted it if it were clearly a sensitive matter. Here again, we (in general) are influenced by the attitudes of other forum members as to what constitutes "private" information. Group consensus shapes our opinions, and group consensus can often be dead wrong.

You shouldn't even be concerned about what my opinions are. But I think I understand why you are and where it comes from. Challenge my opinions when you feel the need. I welcome that. But do not seek to force their direction. They will evolve as they are meant to. Even I do not force their direction. I've learned that I just get in the way, and that this was part of the mind control enforced by our sick society.

I disagree, and I hope to have the opportunity to challenge him on that.

I see your perspective as a carry-over from Stephen's former direction, based on what you've described as his vision for this forum. I view forums in less limiting terms, and discussion (leading to learning) is a vital part of their true value, in my opinion. Why do you think Stephen tried to hobble natural communications in the forum? Why do you think he tried to pen the members into corrals doing as he commanded?

You will, of course, take this forum in whatever direction you want, should you follow in the footsteps of other forum owners, like Bill Ryan, Richard, or Atticus. Or you can allow it to shape its own evolution. Or anything in between. The choice is yours, but don't think you haven't been influenced by the sum total of your forum experiences and all the biases contained therein. It happens to all of us, and the first step to really changing things is to recognize that. Otherwise, we just rinse and repeat.

 

Your comments in those responses (and mine) were correct and appropriate. They should remain where they were made, in my opinion. I think you would see, if you put them back, that they are important to the flow and development of the thread. We tend not to realize it in real-time, but hindsight is 20/20.

One of the problems of being an administrator is you have a hammer and a mindset derived from watching other administrators use hammers. What they saw as nails, you also tend to see as nails. The problem is, most administrators see too many things to be nails. I'm speaking from experience here, as I also had to "unlearn" my mindset created by the examples I saw in the forums I grew up in (Avalon, Nexus, Atticus1). As a result, there is no "Members Only" area at United People. Nothing is private or privileged information on the UP forum. Everything is public, because it is a public forum.

And consider our examples. The administrator of Avalon is a sociopath. So was the administrator of Atticus1. So was the administrator of Nexus. The tendency in humans is "Monkey see, monkey do." We repeat the behaviors we have seen without thinking. From watching those administrators, we have an expectation in our own minds of what we should be doing as an administrator. That needs to be seriously questioned and examined, in my opinion. When you do that, the results are revealing, and things change.