Hello All

Discussion in 'Φ QANON & POLITICS' started by david, Jul 8, 2016.

  1. david

    david Member

    When people are quick to denigrate Trump they also tend to forget something very important. he is a protest candidate. He is someone outside the power structure. This should always be an important consideration along the lines of the Brix ordeal...namely, after the bankers forced the Euro down the throats of Europe, and destroyed how many economies? and after the European Union acted like benign dictators...And after getting sick of Cameron, people found the gumption to protest by leaving. This is imo analogous to the "Trump" situation... He is preferable to things projected as usual.
     
  2. david

    david Member

    The government is controlled... and it is so in our face that the media and crisis actors regularly stage events that defy common sense. There are two questions I have about the mechanism of control:

    1) Is there ONE big central controller, or, are there different groups with controlling interests? My research indicates among other things that in the military for example, one can see groups like Kay Briggs husband's hit squad (colonel Briggs). She is credible imo and lays out a frame work where Brigg's group, basically a neocon, Ann Raynd, Existential/Zionist hit squad, has tremendous power to control drugs and power in the military. YET at the same time we have other groups like Aquino, the professed Satanist who is implicated by many credible (and many not so credible lol) witnesses as part of a hit squad, drug running, pedo ring. There may well be more of these drug, pedo, power groups trying to control things. I cannot presently find a connection between Aquino and Briggs which makes me wonder. I could not be looking hard enough, but perhaps things are more heterogenius in this power stuggle.

    If this is the case then conspiracies and other developments have lines of engagement and perhaps fault lines to be explored. A great example of this would be the State department. They appear not to be in on the conspiracy in so far as they took Killery Clinton to task on her transgressions. I think we can safely say that Obama, the Justice Department, the Democratic National Committee are all in a conspiracy to get Hillary elected. Are there groups that will oppose this?

    The other question I have and am researching is, given the level of control...whether we want to assume we have not had control since the federal reserve act, or since Kennedy... is control absolute? or do we get windows of opportunity? I should say in the spirit of disclosure that I am an anarchist and have never voted because I do not believe our votes count...But I have an open mind. Did the British catch the elites with their pants down when they left the union? Is there a way to protest Hillary despite the media, political and social conspiracy?
     
  3. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    I'm sorry to burst your balloon, but that is the illusion we are supposed to fall for. There are no candidates outside the power structure.

    That's exactly right. So how can you claim Trump is outside the power structure? This kind of cognitive dissonance is fascinating to observe.

    There is a hierarchy (sociopaths thrive on hierarchy). There is some one or some group at the top, and influence / direction networks down from there. But there are also many feedback loops that return to the top, so everything has a dynamic quality to it. So it's not a question of is it A or B. It's far more complex than that.

    The key word is "appear". Appearances can be deceiving. Controlled opposition is a standard ploy used by the master deceivers. You do realize the Executive department heads are all carefully selected by the puppet masters that control the U.S. president, right? So if the department heads are their obedient minions, do you really believe they let their departments get out of control?

    The control is not absolute, because the unexpected does happen, even to the top level controllers, despite the fact that they try to anticipate the unexpected. We do get windows of opportunity. The ruling sociopaths do make mistakes, because they are still mostly human.

    Not exactly. They had a vote, that's all. They haven't left the European Union. The ruling sociopaths (I won't call them elites because sociopaths always believe they are superior) have contingency plans for such a setback. It's like a chess game between the ruling sociopaths and the public. The sociopaths know the game, the rules, the strategies, the tactics, the openings, the tricks, and their opponents. The sociopaths almost always look several moves ahead, as a precaution. The bulk of the public, on the other hand, hardly even knows there is a game going on, much less how to play it. It's almost no contest, and it's that way by design.

    There are lots of ways to protest, most of them futile. Voting for Trump is not a real protest, because he's bought and paid for just like Hillary. Most protests are a bark with no bite. That too is by design.
     
  4. david

    david Member


    I see the situation as more fluid regarding Trump. He is not old money. Does this mean he is clean? Not necessarily but it is relevant. As Dick Gregory says "Trump has no money." and what he means is that Trump is not part of the power elite (Cecil Demille's term).

    My claim for entree into the power structure is based on the idea that there are multiple structures at play. I don't know of any loop that feeds back to the top indiscriminantly...I have no proof of that. Could be. What I have found is different groups competing.

    Chick I will use an old story to illustrate this next point. I was a philosophy major undergrad and like a lot of kids, I wanted to challenge everything, every thinker...not a bad impulse, its how we learn actually... Well I had this teacher Dr. Pasqual, who was trying to establish with me some epistemological structure. In my infinite wisdom I pushed it to the point where there was no epistemological structure (very common & silly thing that beginning philosophy students so lol). So Doc says to me "well if you don't want any structure, if we can't have 2+2=4 because of doubt, why argue anything?"

    Here is his point and my point regarding the limits of control by a nefarious force: If everything is just hopeless then the necessity to act, is null. Its almost impossible to verify, in the same way as it is impossible to prove a negative, that there is an evil controlling force that controls everything with no weakness, no good people in the midst. One would have to virtually find every individual corrupt with no exceptions. Is this possible? yes. Is it probable? Interesting question really. How much does any probability really take hold when we as a species have been around a mere second, when life on this planet has been around, still a flash in the pan? The truth is that nothing regarding the future is so probable that we can simply categorize it as without exception.

    There is cause for research and understanding about the extent of influence in the so called matrix. There might even be some who are not corrupted. You come to the conclusion that the state department is part of the charade, I don't assume as much. I do think the state department might have other aims and hte Clinton...and I wouldn't assume their aims are benevolent exclusively because they hate Clinton... But there might be information that tells us what different aims might be in this power structure.

    Regarding controlled opposition: controlled opposition is a little like someone who tells someone else that if they go in a room the ants will crawl up her leg and itch it...so the person shrugs it off and then starts to wonder as they get a little feeling on the skin, maybe a hint of a bite...Hummmm? Is it the ants?

    Controlled opposition is a tool, it is used, including by the media and others, and its even noticeable! Which is great because it means we can start to recognize when it is in play and not simply assume...you know like when the person's leg just gets a little strange? Like can she see any ant hills? are there any ants on her leg? Yes, Controlled opposition is hard to root out, and it scares the shit out of me...Is Alex Jones controlled opposition!? (probably). But alas, every last person acting in conflict is not controlled opposition.

    I would suggest that one look carefully and make the effort to try to recognize controlled opposition when it is present and not simply assume it exists in all situations. Another example: We KNOW that Obama and Hillary HATE each other. Its documented! And... sociopaths (psychopaths in Hillary's case perhaps) hold a grudge, we KNOW Hillary hates Obama for beating her for the spot if nothing else. YET there he is biting his lip endorsing her (he was so obviously unhappy doing this!). Again, we can see this, just like we can see Alex Jones kicking hate up at all times, and see how often he is off on a prediction that never-the less continues to divide individuals. Trump, given his background (family was not part of elites), his actual wealth (not that much), and his relationship to Washington (not different from most business people), demonstrate to me that his loyalty is an open issue.

    As I said to Rose I am undecided as to whether he is a plant, or not...I do however know that he is a protest candidate in that a vote for Trump is a way of saying, " I want people to know I do not respect the system as it operates now in Washington." The point here Chick is that whether Trump is a plant, an enabler for the Elites, or another form of controlled opposition, a vote for him still expresses the same protest by the average American. So this should tell you why this is not so dissident as it may appear cognitively.
     
  5. Rose

    Rose Φ

    It is my opinion Trump began as a protest candidate and the degree of public support he acquired was an unexpected fluke. Slowly, but surely, he, of course, came to realize the only way forward from the unexpected plateau he reached was to pledge complete allegiance to the "Grand Old Party. He, in no way, can be considered a renegade now. If he picks Gingrich for his running mate, he will be over his head in stodgy stale murky republican waters and I don't think he would have a chance in hell to beat the Democratic machine. If he were smart, I think he would continue to buck the system and move further forward with his counter-system campaign and choose someone like Jesse Ventura for VP. Promise the truth about 911, etc, etc. Otherwise, it will just be another boring Republican attempt to win with their ancient evangelical law and order right wing bs. I don't think same old, same old, characters and thinking will work for the Republicans this round any better than it did the last two.
     
  6. Rose

    Rose Φ

    I have worked in governmental agencies. You must fully consider the degree of incompetence among the obedient minions. It is a huge factor.
     
  7. Rose

    Rose Φ

    Trump could easily, and I have wondered, represent a different group of money, perhaps strategically international. (I am in no way suggesting our current monied elites are not international.) But, I would suspect, if this is the case, Trump himself has already chosen his potential desired international financial allies. I am not necessarily thinking this would be an arrangement detrimental to the American public if it were to be the case.

    It was a vivid dream I had including Trump years ago, before any public indication had occurred regarding him competing in this presidential race, that leads me to this idea that the deals he might have had in mind to attempt could actually be good for all countries concerned: A new Jekyl Island?

    I agree about multiple structures. In my experience, almost as soon as the ink has dried on any "contract" for new "leaders in charge", a group of two-faced Janus "mutineers" are already plotting a takeover. So at any one time, more than one structure is always at play.

    If Trump is dumb enough to pick Christie for a running mate, then I was certainly mistaken about my former thoughts and he is way too flawed, or controlled, for any of the former ideas I mentioned to be in play. I also think he is probably sociopathic, but they all are.
     
  8. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    It is still cognitive dissonance to protest when you understand that your protest will not only accomplish nothing, but has actually been prepared for you.
     
  9. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    I agree it is a factor. A bigger factor is their paycheck. If you don't perform for the department heads, you tend to get fired. The money ultimately controls the behavior of the employees.
     
  10. Rose

    Rose Φ

    Not for governmental employees in my experience. The entire department may be restructured due to a national administrative change, and desks moved considerable distances, but government employees are difficult to get rid of. And, unless the GAO is due to arrive "tomorrow" for an infrequent inspection, informational security is extremely lax.