Hello All

Discussion in 'Φ Qanon & Politics' started by david, Jul 8, 2016.

  1. david

    david Member

    Yeah I don't necessarily cosign the strategy... But vice presidents are at times best left in back off stage. Trump kind of did this to himself, or perhaps, this is his first bone thrown out to the repubs, in which case it had to be thrown eventually. Either way its designed for a certain effect and in all probability it is not to highlight Pence.

    Trump may change the party for good, move it more towards the center as the dems become more and more towards neo con. These battles have to be fought carefully. Clinton has had to fight off so much it will destroy her. Good! But if i am Trump one thing I don't want to do is go into a fight for the presidency fending off the Romney's and George Wills while fighting the Clinton Campaign.

    He couldn't have chose the fat man from Jersey... that would have been suicide because of bridge gate and the fact that New Jersey is really corrupt... almost as much so as Florida. Taxes, cops ticketing everything, etc. Its just a hated state. That leaves Newt. What do you think of Newt? I could have lived with him as a VP candidate. Hes smart and knows his way around Washington.
     
  2. david

    david Member


    Talking about grandkids and golf?
     
    • LOL LOL x 1
  3. david

    david Member

    You have decided not to accept data so it must not be true. Deliberate progaganda is an oxymoron sir. Well documented at what!? your rinky dink with 2 members? lol lol lol...Your joking right? Ive explained myself regarding why I do what I do. Propaganda is not an end result Chick, those events had a meaning of some sort and because they were disinformation in some respects (don't know if I feel that way about the Holocaust) it obviously confuses you.

    Look you want to entrench yourself into a position where you are comfortable. Its very disturbing to think there are things out there we could understand and its scary I get it. Im not scared of it. I respect your views, they are not mine.

    Finally you are not listening!! hear the keys! I never said we should know anything. Thats what you are trying to assert when I point out what I have found through the data. Knowledge is graduated and it comes incrimentally through the data. Its not a question of "Knowing" so much as understanding. You think this way because of your own absolutist view point. I only interpret data. The proof of this is I never discussed as aim to these events, merely a structure as to how they operate. Keep trying though this is fun! Unfortunately you might find we simply have a major disagreement of which I am ready to chalk this up unless you have something new to add.
     
  4. Rose

    Rose Φ Φ Administrator

    Newt reeks scandal ridden shady behavior and self-serving cronyism. Damaged goods. He can't speak a word without it sounding like deception.His wild eyed golden helmet-headed Stepford wife appears to have fried her brain with bleach. They are both reminiscent of Cheny/Bush Carlyle Group style hypocritical Dallas socialites. (Wasn't he completely against Trump before he thought he had a chance at VP?). I know I probably should not say this anywhere. But, I don't think these type of old-school republican candidates can appeal to anyone en masse anymore.
     
  5. Rose

    Rose Φ Φ Administrator

    Diebold can probably easily ameliorate any of our opinions anyway, loooool. It is more fun to think we have a choice....
     
  6. Rose

    Rose Φ Φ Administrator

    Wait, I forgot to mention the Supreme Court...
     
  7. david

    david Member

    Hes also a stone cold globalist. Yeah. in this day and age when pigeons are called soaring Eagles he is part of the old vanguard. I don't think the Repubs have a base anymore...since the left took over legislating morality with political correctness and all. Both parties are in for a shake up.
     
  8. david

    david Member

    Anarchy is a belief that people can survive with no state appuratus. It is not a need to tear down the state, nor a need to totally live outside the boundaries of the state. Many anarchists decide as a matter of principle not to participate in the state when people are being deceived. In my case I do not believe our votes count, so I do not vote. I also live according to very different values, for example my boys have been told to go to school for an education and not to get a good job. I actually told my youngest common core is nonsense perpetuated to dumb down the masses so they can tolerate boredom and slavery.

    However.... an anarchist need not abstain from all social and political activities. Foremost, one just cannot. While freemen and other assorted state abolishinists are always ready to cry foul regarding contracts we are drawn into, I would refer people to Socrates who, in The Apology, makes the case that we cannot help entering into a quasi contract with the state. We all use sidewalks, trash collection... we all benefit from farmers subsidized, which is why food is so cheap in this country. We are part of a social contract. In Louisiana for example, when there is a hurricane and the roads are blocked people drive until they arrive at a felled tree, where upon home owners in the immediate area give out chain saws while others push limbs...when the tree is cleared beers are passed out, and on to the next one. Actually this social contract makes it so that by the time the state attempts to clear the road, it is already cleared.

    For Socrates, in fact, we are de facto reared by the state, protected by it and even educated by it. He says that his own free will and act of protest grows out of his education at the hands at the state. He passionately disagrees with the state on the education of the young and will protest out of love for the state. I would agree that this is a good simple argument for why even repulsive structures like the political establishment and Common Core Nonsense in education, can create the seeds of rebellion and progress towards the very end of the political state even as these structures are made to deceive.

    I believe that I can choose how and when I want to participate politically, thats called being practical. While I won't be deceived I won't assume that people can have no control in this system. That is my own particular view. Again let me stress this is an opinion, nothing more, it is not data driven. If the powers that be had such control over us, would they ever allow for the seeds of rebellion? Yet precisely in their matrix at the most omnipotent parts, lay the very end of the very foundation of the matrix. I hope this does not sound like Hegal, as I hate Hegal but alas...
     
  9. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    What you call data is propaganda. Propaganda is a mixture of true, false, and missing data. Learn the difference.

    An oxymoron is "a combination of words that have opposite or very different meanings". Most propaganda is created to deceive, and is thus created deliberately. That is no oxymoron.

    No, you're denigrating. The quality of the information on a forum is not dependent on its membership count. That you would even imply this reflects on the quality of your information.

    Propaganda is a means of deception to obtain a desired result. I suggest it is you that is obviously confused, being unable to define the meaning of those four events, or even know the way you "feel" about the Holocaust. Doesn't your "data" give you proper direction? It doesn't, because your data is propaganda.

    You are thoroughly lost, as you amply demonstrated in your opening post, and continue to demonstrate here. For that reason, I have little respect for your views.

    I am not listening, I am reading. You are simply not writing coherently because your ideas are not coherent. And when your views are composed of incoherent ideas, I cannot have much respect for those views.

    You're funny. You haven't been able to recognize anything new up to this point, and I don't expect that to change, so you will no doubt chalk it up as a major disagreement.
     
  10. Gemma

    Gemma Member

    Our Social Pathology is Imitating Psychopathy, (or for those that prefer, imitating a lack of empathic morality), and desperately needs to be addressed to assist us with transitioning and transforming our inherited cultural memes, infrastructures, organizations, and governing institutions. I thought the following paper by Peter Joseph could be useful to this discussion.

    http://peterjoseph.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Social-Pathology-Peter-Joseph-2011.pdf

    EXTRACT: “Social Pathology” March 13th 2010, New York City By Peter Joseph

    I've entitled this "Social Pathology." I decided to use the metaphor of disease to describe the current state of social affairs and the trends it foreshadows and perpetuates. I was first introduced to this idea of relating social state to a cellular state by a man named John McMurtry who wrote a book called "The Cancer Stage of Capitalism." The rationale is pretty simple. Just as human beings have to deal with pathogens invading and harming their life system so too does the social system we all share. Of course, these societal diseases are not generated by ways of physical germs or the like.

    Rather, they come in the form of presupposed principles of preference cultural "memes" that transfer from one to another based on values and hence, belief systems. These "memes" or patterns of perspective and behavior are what eventually result from or comprise the cultural manifestations around us such as the ideas of democracy Republicans, Democrats, the American Dream, etc. In Chapter One we will examine the symptoms and hence diagnose the current stage of disease we are in.

    Then in Chapter Two we will establish a prognosis meaning what can we expect from the future as the current pathogenic patterns continue. And finally, in Chapter Three, we will discuss treatment for our current state of sickness and this is where the concept of a Resource-‐Based Economy will be initially examined. However, as an introduction to this I am first going to describe what I call the "invisible prison". This is the closed, intellectual feedback system that consistently slows or even stops new socially altering concepts from coming to fruition. [It] stops progress. Let me explain.

    The social order, as we know it, is created out of ideas either directly or as a systemic consequence. In other words, somebody somewhere did something which generated a group interest, which then led to the implementation of a specific social component, either in a physical form, philosophical form, or both. Once a given set of ideas are entrusted by a large enough group of people, it becomes an institution.

    And once that institution is made dominant in some way while existing for a certain period of time that institution can then be considered an establishment. Institutional establishments are simply social traditions given the illusion of permanence. In turn, the more established they become the more cultural influence they tend to have on us including our values, and hence, our identities and perspectives. It is not an exaggeration to say that the established institutions governing a person's environment is no less than a conditioning platform to program that person with a specific set of values required to maintain the establishment.


    Hence, we're going to call these "established value programs". I have found the analogy of computer programming to be a great way to frame this point. While there is always a debate about genetics and environmental influence which Roxanne Meadows will go into at length later in the program it's very easy to understand in the context of values meaning what you think is important and not important that information influences, or conditioning, is coming from the world around you. Make no mistake, every intellectual concept which each one of us finds merit with is the result of a cultural information influence one way or another. The environment is a self-‐perpetuating programming process and just like designing a software program for your computer each human being is, advertently and inadvertently programmed into their world view.

    To continue the analogy, the human brain is a piece of hardware and the environment around you constitutes the programming team which creates the values and perspective. Every word you know has been taught to you one way or another. Every concept and belief you have is a result of this same influence. Jacque Fresco once asked me "How much of you is you?" The answer is kind of a paradox for either nothing is me, or everything is me when it comes to the information I understand and act upon. Information is a serial process, meaning the only way that a human being can come up with any idea is through taking in dependent information that allows that idea to be realized.

    We appear to be culturally programmed from the moment we come into this world to the moment we die and I'm not going to drill in it much more than that. However, consequently, the cultural attributes we maintain as important values are most often the ones that are reinforced by the external culture. I'm going to say that again. The most dominant cultural attributes maintained are the ones that are reinforced by your environment. If you are born into a society which rewards competition over collaboration then you most likely will adopt those values in order to survive. The point is, we are essentially bio-‐chemical machines.

    While the integrity of our machine-‐processing power and memory is contingent, in part, on genetics the source of our actions come fundamentally from the ideas and experiences installed on our mental hardware by the world around us. However, our biological computer, the human mind has an evolutionarily-‐installed operating system with some seemingly difficult tendencies built in which tends to limit our objectivity and, hence, our rational thought process. This comes in the form of emotional inclinations. You know, I'm sure many people here have heard the phrase "Be objective!" No human being can be fully objective. That's one of the important things I learned, actually, from Mr. Fresco.

    Therefore, there's a very common propensity for us humans to find something that works for our needs given the social structure, and then to hold on to it for dear life regardless of new conflicting information which might rationally expect a logical change to occur. Change tends to be feared, for it upsets our associations. And, by the way, when it comes to maintaining income in the monetary system, you see this propensity in full force which I will talk about a lot more later.

    Therefore, any time someone dares to present an idea outside of or contrary to the establishment programming the reaction is often a condemning of the idea as blasphemy or undermining, or a conspiracy, or simply erroneous. For example, in the academic world investigation often becomes confined to self--‐referring circles of discourse: closed feedback loops which assume that the foundational assumptions of their schools of thought are empirical and only these experts, as defined by their established credentials are considered viable authorities therein often dominating influence over the public opinion.

    This is a doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis and please excuse my lack of Hungarian pronunciation but he was a physician who lived in the mid 1800's who performed childbirths. Through a series of events, he realized a pattern that there was a relationship with the transfer of disease and the fact that the doctors of the times never washed their hands after performing autopsies. The doctors of the time would handle dead bodies in the lower elements of the hospitals and then they would go up and they would perform childbirths without washing their hands.

    So, this doctor, realizing this pattern he started to tell his colleagues about this. He said "You should wash your hands before doing this before performing any type of surgery or childbirth especially after handling a dead body."He was laughed at. He was laughed at and ignored. He published papers and they were dismissed and ridiculed. And after many years of trying this issue, he was finally committed to a mental institution, where he died.

    It was many years after his death when Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease that his observations were finally understood and people realized what a horrible mistake had been made. In the words of John McMurtry, professor of philosophy in Canada "In the last dark age, one can search the inquiries of this era's preserved thinkers from Augustine to Ockhamand fail to discover a single page of criticism of the established social framework however rationally insupportable feudal bondage, absolute paternalism divine right of kings, and the rest may be." In the current final order, is it so different?

    Can we see in any media, or even university press a paragraph of clear unmasking of the global regime that condemns a third of all children to malnutrition with more food than enough available? In such an order, thought becomes indistinguishable from propaganda. Only one doctrine is speakable, and a priest caste of its experts prescribe the necessities and obligations to all. Social consciousness is incarcerated within the role of a kind of ceremonial logic operating entirely within the received framework of an exhaustively--‐prescribed regulatory apparatus protecting the privileges of the privileged.

    Methodical censorship triumphs in the guise of scholarly rigor and the only room left for searching thought becomes the game of competing rationalizations." People tend not to criticize the social order because they are bound within it. We are running a thought program which has been installed on our mental hardware which inherently controls our frame of reference.

    To use a different analogy, it's like they're in a game and the idea of questioning the integrity of the game itself rarely occurs. In fact, members of society often become so indoctrinated by their socially acceptable norms, that each person's very meaning is framed by the dominant established value system and the interpretation of new information is consciously, or even sub--‐consciously, prefiltered to be consistent with their prior biases. Now, this basic idea understood let's hone our focus and briefly consider this mind--‐lock phenomenon as you could call it in the context of economics specifically, market economics.

    Actually, a more accurate term at this stage would be 'economic theology'. For, as this presentation will explore the majority of people on this planet not only have no idea how they are being affected negatively by the market economy at large, they actually, on average hold a steadfast commitment to its principles based on nothing more than the traditional indoctrination.

    I got an email once that said to me "If you're against the free market, you're against freedom." (Laughter) And naturally, I shuddered at this state of mind control that the dominant established orthodoxy has successfully imposed. Of course, this is how power is maintained and has been maintained by the dominant established orthodoxies since the beginning of time. And the trick, again, is to condition people so thoroughly into the established value systems, that any thought of an alternative is inherently ruled out without critical examination.
    [...]

    And to show how deeply pervasive this phenomenon is you will notice that virtually all the activist organizations in the environmental, social, and political movements of the day always exclude the market system itself as a determinant of harmful effects. It doesn't even occur to them. Instead, they focus on individuals and certain groups or corrupt corporations and while it is needed in a per--‐case basis to target problematic areas it avoids the mechanism which is essentially creating the problem. This is the fatal flaw of what's happening in the so--‐called activist community today.


    Once we successfully took to the skies and could easily traverse the globe did our global leaders get together recognizing the phenomenal potential that technology had brought to humanity's table for uniting resources to ensure not one person was displaced in the global social structure resulting in homelessness and starvation, (let alone displaced via enforced ignorance due to coveting and suppression of innovation and education)? No! Why Not?!

    And why is this not considered, let alone questioned by our institutional leadership today, apart from the counterfeit orations to placate the masses amidst the declarations of patriotic fervour that does little more than ignite hostility? Why has this fundamental "logical" question not received the "meme-ship" it deserves? Could it actually be because "psychopathic logic" does not partner very well with "ethical logic"!

    Why are we as individuals so conditioned within our social constructs to accept that evolution and progress requires starvation, homelessness, and war? Whose psychological "logical" game are we actually playing? Why are we repeatedly deceived into accepting that no other system could be intelligently thought of, let alone implemented, to evolve our global civilization?

    [And by the way, there are innovative ethical global systems already on the table but they haven't gained enough traction yet to get to the fore of discussions for change. Why? Could it be because we have a global civilization dominated by psychopathic leadership? And if so, how do we fix this? Identifying the causality may be a good place to start, don't you think?]
     
    • love it! love it! x 1