Hello All

Discussion in 'Φ v.3 The GREAT AWAKENING' started by david, Jul 8, 2016.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    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.
  4. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

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

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    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. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    The assumption here is that the political process is legitimate, when it is not. All the candidates are "plants". The whole thing is rigged and is nothing but theater.

    Again, the assumption here is that the government is legitimate, when it is not. The whole thing is rigged and is nothing but theater.

    It was like this even in 1933. That was when a group of patriotic ex-veterans in the American Legion planned a coup d'état against the United States government to return it to its Constitutional principles. This was the same year the puppet president Franklin D. Roosevelt illegally ordered Americans to turn in their gold to the Federal Reserve. It was clear the government was out of control and needed to be brought back in line. America's greatest war hero, retired Major General Smedley Butler, was asked to lead the coup, but instead chose to spill the beans to Congress. But guess what? The hearings resulted in no arrests, no charges of treason, and no publicity. The NY Times even claimed the whole thing was a hoax in order to sweep it under the rug. Why? Because the "traitors" leading the coup were correct in their assessment that the government had gone rogue. It was the federal government that was the true traitor. To keep the public from realizing who the real bad guys were, the whole thing had to be quietly buried, by the people actually controlling the federal government.

    In other words, the real story of this coup d'état should have brought down the entire government, if we had had a legitimate free press, a legitimate Congress, a legitimate judicial system, etc. But we did not, not even in 1933. It was all rigged and nothing but theater.

    Try finding the real story of the so-called Business Plot. You will only find the story "they" want you to believe. I have found very little that can even confirm my version of the story. But the official version is too full of holes and inconsistencies to be the truth.

    If our government is not legitimate, then neither are the presidential elections. And by now, many people are starting to realize that the presidential elections are a farce. It is so in-your-face, with a repeat-criminal sociopath (Hillary) about to be placed in the presidential puppet seat ("the first woman president in the history of the U.S."), that any thinking person has to see it.

    The problem is, thinking people are getting harder and harder to find.
  11. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    This election is off the charts isn't it? I am finding it troubling how often current news stories seem to arrive just as needed to divert attention from either troubling, or positive, situations. No story here, look over at there! Coincidence? I don't know. Sort of like the timing of the bombing of Iraq coinciding with the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Or, hostages released as soon as Reagan took office? Nearly the exact moment Trump was endorsed by the NRA, and happened to have done a fairly good job with his speech: Breaking News!, Gunman on the White House grounds, Obama playing golf! And, that nail-biter was all media spoke about for a couple of days sweeping political news under the rug. It so often feels as if media is being played like a chess game by puppet masters. I have wondered how far would they go to create diversions to win a presidential campaign?

    I don't personally think Trump is a plant. I just think he is an individual with an ego huge enough to believe he should be president and the means to put that desire into action. Hotels and casinos, been there done that! Shooting lions on safari, been there done that! Marry a supermodel, been there! etc.etc.etc. What does a tremendously ambitious man with billions who has done it all do next to amuse himself and satisfy his lust for power and prestige?

    I believe Trump is an intuitive, gut level, thinker who sets off on his projects believing in himself without considering details, assuming details will take care of themselves. He just focuses on his desired outcome with a simple outline and his monumental belief system trusting things will work out for him, believing he will either know what he needs to know when the time comes, or know who to contact to find out. This strategy has probably worked out for him a high percentage of the time and might with his campaign, too. A Steve Jobs type thinker:

  12. david

    david Member

    1) Is Donald Trump a plant? There was a very cogent source on Reddit http://archive.is/RffAd (he also has another archived thread which looks like it might be down), and this source suggests that Trump is not a plant. I take that into consideration because from his actions it looks as though Trump is a plant. Of course he does have history with the Clintons.
    2) Comey has yet to mention the second indictment regarding the foundation. RICO provisions were designed to go after big fish, but one weakness is when the fish is too big. I am inclined, as things look presently, to think there may indeed be a danger of implicating the entire government when bringing her down...which may well be why this second indictment is off limits. This second point is vital.

    Can anyone think of a logical reason why indicting Hillary on treason, vis a vis the foundation, as opposed to the emails, which I have always believed to be a straw man that the media can use to divert, HAS TO pull the entire government down? They are already arresting super delegates left and right on corruption charges. These have to lead to her and, if we believe the Reddit source and leaked info, there were emails related to the foundation found on her email. Also there will be more emails coming from Wiki leaks, Russia, etc that will confirm that she was treasonous. So what does Comy think he is accomplishing by not acting on her role in the foundation?

    Regarding candidates, I want Bernie, but he may well endorse her, something his followers do not want... Trump I feel is less dangerous. Hillary wants war with Russia because her donors requested it. The Ukranian independence movement was started in the state department, by the wife of a diplomat. She is on tape asking Vitali Klitsko not to run as president. Klitsko, the former boxer, was a decent individual. But this action of trying to move the Ukraine to the E.U. was for all practical purposes, a declaration of war.

    I will start with this. This election is unprecedented. We are in about the fifth inning and I have a feeling there is more to come! Thoughts?
  13. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    The elections are indeed a rigged game, and have been for a very long time. The conspiracy goes far beyond just putting Hillary in the White House, however. Even so, what have you been able to figure out so far?

    Note that my proposed solution for dealing with the sociopath problem, i.e. identify and disqualify, would also solve the problem you are trying to address regarding sociopaths putting one of "theirs" in the White House.
  14. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    If it is me you feel is being manipulated by sociopaths here, that is not the case.
    Looking forward to hearing you calling em as you see em!
  15. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    I am very interested in hearing about the Clinton conspiracy. Yes, she is lying.
  16. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    Chico has made absolutely no play for power. I have no idea why you would assume that. I disagree with that assumption completely and I am the one who would know the truth. He is listed as an Administrator here because he was asked to take a look at some technical organization of the site at my request. He is a computer programming professional, as you may know. Titles here are system generated based upon access to tech areas. Chico's title does not give him any power over other members here.

    I also disagree that this forum is difficult to contribute to as described in my previous post. I think you will find that is a misconception if you consider carefully my proposed structure. InPHInet moderation is not a hierarchy clique based system as in forums as usual. It is an attempt at a self moderated structure, a co-op of contributors so to speak. It is also not a community clique of "yes people" where everyone must like or agree with everyone else. I will say again, everyone has the right to their own opinions.

    Sam Hunter and Shezbeth were also given complete control to self moderate their threads. Neither ever spoke of any particular difficulty or wish to moderate anything before leaving. They were also not run off except in their own minds.

    I also disagree regarding Zook looking well adjusted, but we are all entitled to our own opinions here. I certainly do not believe I am always right about everything.
  17. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    I do not agree about Chick, but everyone is entitled to their opinions and their friends here.

    I found Gypsy an intelligent and interesting person in our brief encounters.

    Brook was not driven off the site. I must disagree with that point. Brook was offered complete control with extra privileges over her thread and could have automatically ignored Chico so she would not have to read a word he said. She was allowed to self moderate and delete anything he posted in her thread. But, this was not enough control for her. She insisted upon going to his thread and trolling him there rather than continue on with her own beautiful work.

    As I explained to Zook, when he began trolling here, we should think of our threads as aisles in a bookstore. We have complete control of our own aisles. If, in our mind, someone interferes with our aisles, we may self moderate and correct them. But, we cannot go to their aisles and tear them down. Brook left of her own accord because I would not remove another member. She was not run off.

    No member has the right to insist another member's aisles be removed. That said, Brook is still a member and welcome to return if she ever so chooses.
  18. Rose

    Rose InPHInet Rose Φ Administrator

    Thank you. :)

    I agree completely about Hillary and the Super Delegates..

    Definitely interested.