March 31, 2011

Clint Richardson

American Feudal Fiefdoms (10/25'10 Clint Richardson with Dale Williams)
Corporation Nation lopo
Synchronicity Whisperweb

04/01'11 My conversation with Tom
04/11'11 My conversation with Martin – chapter two
04/11'11 Where Walter Burien meets Jon Stewart


10/21'10 Clint Richardson on The Rabbit Hole with Edward Mock (pt 2), and he's on fire but in a cool way

@ 37 min) I basically love Walter to death and if you sit there and talk to him you can understand a lot of what he's talking about. I – whether it's a curse or a gift, I don't know – can take something really complicated and turn it into something that anybody can understand.
So, I guess the point of this is just to be able to give it to anybody and say we've got a problem, watch this, trust me, by the time you finish watching this ... I mean, it blows my mind and I'm the one who made it.
All I want to do is inside a peaceful revolution that just simply takes the money back and makes our life so beautiful and a livable quality of life, everybody should be high on the hog right now. There should be no hunger, there should be no taxes, I mean everything is just right there before the taking, but we've got to actually do it.
And, you know, if that's my legacy in life, I would die happy, you know. That's basically my cup of tea here, right? I'm not in this for profit, because profit, you know, all this usury that goes on – that's what interest is, it's usury – every religion in the world is against it, except one of course. You're basically talking about pure, blatant, harsh, horrible usury that's been going on for all this time. And it's so simple to get rid of this. Like I said, these corporations they can just be dissolved. These fonds, these moneys can be taken back. [...]

He's charging also, he is trying to raise money like three dollars a view, which is ridiculously cheap, to actually be able to fund his live, because he's been so beaten down by the government for trying to expose this. And I'm afraid the same thing is gonna happen to me, to be honest, so ... You know, I don't have an agenda, that's the beautiful thing about it, and I don't know if anybody has ever really felt that feeling before to actually do something completely charitable, something completely not for profit, just for the good of their fellow people. I don't think most people can comprehend what that feels like, but I'm imagining a society that is based on that. I'm imagining a society that is based on rewarding employees for honesty and integrity instead of being the best thief. You know, the best of the best of traitors go work for the government, the worst of the worst of them go work for these trading companies like ... anyway. I just want to see things change because the way we're going this whole thing is gonna be over in no time at all and we're gonna have nothing to show for it. We're gonna be a third world country and all this money, and all these corporations that had built up all these fonds, stolen our money, they're already moving out of the country. Corporations are moving out of the country.

@ 42 min) Monsanto is definitely a Fortune 500 company, and what does that mean?
Well, it means government has collective ownership of that company. When Monsanto makes purchase, like it purchases Blackwater, well, guess who approves that purchase? The stockholders, the board of directors who is basically elected by collective government. (11/16'10 "What is JP Morgan Chase?") [...]

In the State of Delaware 60 percent at least, it's probably up by now, but 60 percent of Fortune 500 company and 50 percent of all corporations in the U.S. are incorporated within the State of Delaware, that small little state. The reason is and the reason why most banks are incorporated there is because they have no or very limited usury laws. In other words, the amount of interest that a bank can charge on a credit card is pretty much off-limited in Delaware, whereas in California or some other states they have what's called usury laws. In other words, you can only charge so much interest before it starts becoming a criminal element. Well, the problem is, any corporation that operates outside of the State of Oregon, in other words, anything that's incorporated in Delaware and is a national bank – so they have Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, all have banks in every state – they're still only subject to the laws of Delaware. That's why, even if your state might have usury laws that say you can only charge 9 percent on the credit card, you get a card and all of the sudden you have a 30 percent interest rate, because their laws are based on Delaware laws. That is the definition of a foreign corporation: any corporation that's incorporated in another state and operating inside of your state.
So "foreign corporation" is kind of a misleading term. The other thing is about Delaware is you don't have to be a citizen of the Unites States, of Delaware and you don't even have to give your name, you can be anonymous and start a corporation in Delaware. That's how loose Delaware is, that's why everybody flocks in there. They also don't have to pay income tax, so none of these corporations that were making all this money out of us are paying any income tax because they're only bound by Delaware law even though they're operating in your state. You start to see, you know, there's all these little things like that, you start to see this – I mean, what else can you call it but a conspiracy, right?

Back to the Blackwater thing: Of course, by government proxy the main sharehoulders voted – in other words, government voted – that Monsanto should aquire Blackwater in the future, probably because they're mercenaries. You know, this farmer is planting seeds that are natural and they also have Monsanto seeds, so we must go in and we must destroy him. Because if word gets out that genetically modified seeds are bad and foods are bad, and this farmer over here is selling natural products – no, we gotta do something about this. Everything boils down to this. Why are things that aren't food being sold as food? Why are humans the only animals stupid enough to eat a McDonald's Hamburger bun because it's not food, it's not qualified as food.
You know, Kentucky Fried Chicken had to stop calling their chicken "chicken" because of the way they process their chickens. They cheer them up with so many drugs that it's no longer considered chicken, 'cause more than fifty percent of it are these hormons and fatty tissues that shouldn't be even there even in the first place.
So all of the sudden "Kentucky Fried Chicken" becomes "KFC". But who is regulating this? The government!
So the conflict of interest factor in this all is so astounding you can't even begin to imagine.

So the regulators of Monsanto are government. And then you have Obama hiring Monsanto's main auditor to the FDA, an then he quits the FDA after, you know, he writes a bill at Monsanto, joins the FDA, passes his own bill, and then gets rehired with a lot more money at Monsanto. Governments are the corporations, corporations are the government – there is no fine line here anymore to speak of, because the regulatory body of the corporations is the same people who own through stock investment the corporations.
So nothing is gonna surprise me anymore. Of course Monsanto is gonna buy a private army: they have to enforce all this crazy stuff. Of course the Supreme Court as a government body, as a private corporate body is going to say that companies like Monsanto can patent life, can patent breast cancer. Monsanto has the patent on breast cancer! No one can do research on breast cancer without Monsanto's permission.
So, 40 percent of the gens in your body are now patented by pharmaceutical companies. OK, that's the corporation that did that because it's beneficial to its corporately held stock, you know. The health care bill is another example. The health care bill, "Obama Care", is going to ensure by law that trillions, and trillions, and trillions of dollars go to pharmaceutical and health care companies. What is that mean? That means that their stock investements are gonna go up, up, up. You start to understand what I'm saying, right?

March 30, 2011

William Schaap

Self-censored in the psychological make-up

07/13'98 William Schaap and Louis Wolff with Harold Channing

@ 36 min – William) The words are astonishing.
The thing is that the government directly and indirectly through the establishment press had been spinning the news for centuries, I suppose. Probably forever. I mean to a certain extent the ancient governments tried to do the same thing. You know, I mean the victors carved the monuments and put their inscriptions on so it would say who was great. But it's become so pervasive now that the media ... an awful lot of it has become self-propelled, and through self-censorship more than anything else. I mean the CIA doesn't need – although they have them all over there – it doesn't need an actual employed case officer or agent inside the newsroom of every major publication around the world. Now I remind you it still has them in a lot of places but it doesn't need it as much now, because if it can manipulate the government thinking and that's relation to the corporate thinking, the publishers of the establishment press are gonna say what they want them to say. Now, they have the fallback, they have now got those computers that will take out the bad words, but they almost don't have to do that very much.

Without stopping to think what it means

The other thing is it shouldn't be that surprising. People in this country will use an expression like "the establishment press" or "the establishment media" without stopping to think what that means.
I mean if they said the Communist Press they know that means the press that takes the view of the Communist Party, if they said the Social-Democratic Press or the Christian Democrat Press and so on, and people in Europe know, because in Europe they're much more honest about it. You go to a news stand that has six papers and everybody knows: that's the Communist paper, that's the Christian Democrat paper, that's the Social Democrat paper, that's the whatever paper – you know that. But in this country you think they're all objective, except for the fact that there's the establishment press, which means there's a paper that represent, and promote, and push, and insist on the view of the establishment.

Harold) Well, I think what they say is the establishment is a very big umbrella, a very big tent, and there is all kinds of thought and belief and so forth that fits under this big umbrella of democracy and so forth and that there's room for all kinds of things.

William) It was the establishment that got rid of Nixon.

Louis) There is an institution right now, run out of the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), it's a sort of a new-fangled version of what Bill is talking about and it's called "World Net", where they have completely, I think, state-managed press conferences – they call it "press conferences" – where Madeleine Albright, for example, and other officials will sit in a studio and she will take questions from journalists in particular countries. And it's real, it's live, it happens live. The problem is that the people who are allowed to ask those questions are hand-picked, and they have to submit questions in writing before they come in to ask them. The whole thing is completely fraudulent. And yet this is part of the whole media manipulation that we conducted. It's only a small part, but it's pretty blatant.

Harold) We want to talk about media analysis and what they say to foreign reporters is something that the thing they're going to filter out are reporters who come in who simply are not informed. They do not understand the nuances of the language, they do not understand the nuances of the policy, they are not well enough informed and likely they just will ask naive questions, they just don't understand the realities. And they want people who really do understand so that they won't lose time with a lot of, you know, the riff-raff asking naive questions from alternative views, rather than it being some sort of a thing that is gonna seriously question the way the system works. They just don't want people who aren't informed. So they want those qualified people to be having internalized and actually learned the realities by the way in which this world works so we would get real news reporting out and not waste their time, you know, with popular ().

It's gnosis what they exclude (the Gnostic Media so to speak)

William) Well, that's what they say. I mean, now that you said it I'll probably take that down and use it next time. But we know perfectly well that what they do is exclude people who are gonna ask questions they don't want to be asked. And that has nothing to do with ... Harold, in fact, most of the people they're excluding are probably considerably more well informed than the people they include, because the people they include have simply be able to write. You don't have that much to know what kind of a question the official would like to get asked, but you do have to know something to know what kind of a question the official would not like to get asked.

Harold) And the people in the media world – and very often, it might be in a certain sense: if you sit down at a dinner – they will have just self-censored in a certain sense or internalized those values in their psychological make-up. They are not doing it perhaps in a way that is nefarious in their own or, you know, some sort of a thing like, they just internalize those values and then they begin to recognize and get rewards etc.

William) Yeah, most of them, most of the major news people are not part of some monstrous overt conspiracy where they sit down and say, well, we're not gonna talk about that strike in that city because this big corporation doesn't really want that to be talked about. They sort of know in general that, you know, it is not the working people of the country that own their corporation, it's their bosses ... I mean sometimes it's more direct.
In this country, and particularly what is happening all around the world, almost all major media organizations are no longer independent companies, they are now small parts of giant conglomerates whose major business is no longer the news. Every major network and most major newspapers are owned by companies whose major industry is not that.
We all know GE [...] the TV station is a small part of it. Even the New York Times Company has more other other businesses than the newspaper. By far! They're one of the biggest paper manufacturing companies in the world and wood pulp and that kind of stuff, The Times itself is a small part of it. Every single major media operation is now being run by people who are business men with stockholders on the bottom line and not a company whose main business is news. So they will end up having people working for them who understand that. They will also have people working for them who realize that you do not bite the hand that feeds you. None of these major corporations ever – unless it happens by accident and then people: where the axe will fall – never runs stories exposing some other branch of that multinational enterprise.

March 18, 2011

Mark Passio



April 9/10th 2011 Free Your Mind Conference in Philadelphia, PA

02/28'11 First interview on Jan Irvin's Gnostic Media podcast

@ 59 min) "All astrotheological religious cults are based on the same basic retellings of these stories.
Now, part of my work is helping people to understand why all these religions were re-scripted to basically being exoteric retelling of these stories. There is, as a matter of fact, a very deep esoteric aspect to astrotheological world view and these religions are perversions of that that come down to us into the modern world. If we'd go back far enough and go back to the original mystery traditions, from which a lot of these teachings are derived, we understand that these things that we are being looked at and revered – I don't even want to use the word worship – were not external things in the sky, they were not the actual lights of the heavens.
These were only symbols that represented aspects of the self.
For example, the moon was a symbol that represented the sacred feminine aspects of creativity, nurturing, true care. Bonding, intuition, the pass of nature of one's self or the pass of sights to the personality.
Restfulness etc., they're all feminine qualities. And they were all internal qualities. And they all have to do with the emotional maturity of the person, the emotional aspects.
And that's what they were revering, not really the moon specifically as an actual object.

Unfortunately, these religions come down to us and are sort of worship of these actual objects.
They are watered-down versions of these original mystery traditions that were ultimately about the self and aspects within the self. And, sadly, they've been watered down, perverted, and sold in an exoteric fashion: something that's reserved for the unwashed masses, given to the unwashed masses, while the deep mystery traditions aspects of it are reserved for an inner core elite, a select or an elect group, as the case may be.
Look at Judaism, these are all the intellectual aspects or the mental qualities, and understanding how to break things down, and to analyze, and to look deeper into things and get to the core of the matter. These are about the quality of our thoughts. That if you really study the deep aspects of the Kabbalistic religion it's about understanding men's relationship to the cosmos and natural law. And it was originally something that was intended to be good.
Now, of course, as we've already talked about, for every positive aspect of the occult there is its mere opposite, there is the dark of cult. And that can be perverted and twisted and used as a weapon for people so inclined to do so and they have done that. So there is dark Kabbalism. There is dark Masonry. There is dark Rosicrucianism. Every positive aspect of the occult can be taken and twisted – its counter-essence can be set up. And indeed it has been, not just can be, that actually has been done. These high-level occultists that understand this knowledge and how it's all related to the inner qualities of the self and the human psyche, they are the ones who have set up these methods of mind control that we have already spoken about.

We look at the Christian religion, it's not about the actual sun or even this figure or personage that is a tribut to being Jesus, whether that's an actual historical person or not. I almost even stay away from that one. I know there is a lot of evidence to the contrary that may not have actually been a historical personage.
I have a difficult time thinking that something that big could have simply been created without some foundational basis for a teacher or a group of teachers. Now, maybe there was a group of Gnostic teachers that started the mystery traditions or were carrying that knowledge. And they turned it Gnosticism or original Gnostic Christianity back then and looked at this as a form of consciousness that was being taught and was being brought to people. And that's another reason Constantin had to shut it down.
If that higher form of consciousness, or 'Christ consciousness', had reached the masses of people there is no way they would have saw through all of the control that was being enacted upon them by the Roman Empire and their political system of basically serfdom. They would have saw through it within an instant, which is what we are trying to effect.
We are trying to raise consciousness to that high cosmic level so that people cut through all the forms of biased mind control and can see the truth for what it is, staring them in the face, telling them 'wake up'.

The original esoteric form of Christianity was about this higher level of consciousness and the symbol of the sun always represented that, represented illumination, and awakening, and awareness, and understanding, and awakening to the nature of one's true self and what reality really was all about. Another reason why they loved to use it as subversive symbolism to get you to buy things or buy into ideas [...] and most people don't have that level of consiousness or enlightment and so they sell them on the symbol as a proxy. And then they associate that symbol with an idea, or a product, or a service and then, lo and behold, people flock to it. Because it's something that's appealing to them, that they understand in wordless archetypal forms, represents an idea that is held in the subconscious mind, whether they are consciously aware of it or not."

03/10'11 Second appearance on Gnostic Media

March 10, 2011

Splinters of piety

By saying you are blinking with your second eye I realized I am only blinking with it also.

litha) This all sounded so paranoid and far fetched until Wikileaks exposed some what is happening, then I stopped in my tracks and realized OMG ... these corporations and governments are nuts.
In Japan their was a resolution passed by a UN committee not use geo-engineering, i.e. chemtrails ...

"The world is a dangerous place to live. Not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." Albert Einstein

March 6, 2011

The Central Comment Agency on Facebook

You build castles in the air

"Hochschulen und Universitäten betreibt der Orden weltweit 231."
"Today, the Company of Jesus owns exactly 231 institutions of higher education globally."
Recently specified by the new elected Provincial for Germany, Denmark and Sweden, Stefan Kiechle SJ, himself.

But it's not only about the sheer amount of their cadre training units and that no other organization generates a slightly comparable constant stream of international managerial staff for all social sectors and the main bureaucratic institutions of our culture, our whole beloved shepherd-sheep college education system is a Jesuit design. They invented it, they are ruling it.
Like Ken Robinson in his famous "TED Talk" "Do schools kill creativity?" pointed out:

"If you were to visit education, as an alien, and say 'What's it for, public education?' I think you'd have to conclude – if you look at the output, who really succeeds by this, who does everything that they should, who gets all the brownie points, who are the winners – I think you'd have to conclude the whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors. Isn't it? They're the people who come out the top."

Weishaupt and Quigley were among those top scholars for the entire system of public knowledge.
Maybe we should ask one of the highest initiated "fatherly" "Professe" (fully professed Jesuits) of our stateless Knights of Jesus for what J.T. Gatto precisely means with "The Psychopathology of Schooling" ...

His lecture begins with:

"One of the really useful pieces of research that I've been engaged in for the past eleven or twelve years is studying the eighteen or twenty elite private boarding schools that set the tone for approximately three hundred such schools and produce a substantial junk of our national leadership. I don't think there are many people aware of the fact that four of the six finalists for the presidency in the 2000 presidential election went to one or another of these schools. George Bush went to Andover, John McCain went to Episcopal High, Steve Forbes went to Brook, and Al Gore went to Saint Albans.
These schools only graduate about a thousand kids a year.
This is a nation of three hundred million and yet four of the six finalists for the presidency attended schools that only graduate a thousand a year.
So I thought there might be some () in finding out what these schools teach as opposed to what public schools teach. And that job proved to be much easier than I thought. So I'd like to share with you the fourteen principles that I discovered that are universal among these schools. Even though each is quite a different animal than the next, they all concentrate on these fourteen themes.
The first of these themes is that no kid should graduate without a theory of human nature."

Furthermore one could ask our leading culture creators in which way John Trudell's statement, that from a priestly perspective all sorts of arranged hot and cold wars were first and foremost about the possession of souls, corresponds with Gatto's shocking diagnose.

"In fact, your colonization has by now been consolidated to such an extent that [...] you no longer even see yourselves as having been colonized. The result is that you've become self-colonizing, conditioned to be so self-identified with your own oppression. That you've lost your ability to see it for what it is, much less to resist it in any coherent way. [...] See how you got civilized because terrible things happened. [...] because they created irrationalization [...]
And at some point the descendants of the tribes of Europe no longer knew what it meant to be a human being. They just didn't know and they didn't want to know.
In the end, they had to love what they feared, which was there to possess them."

The noble lie is whatever mechanism is able to keep people in mental prisons

With the aid of the following excellent piece of a conspiratorially interpreted psychopathically-driven elitist system of a social order I finally want to try to show at which point a so-called piety theory categorically begins to stand out from the conspiracy mainstream. A crucial step that has to be done because the highest goal of the whole "9/11" terror propaganda is, in my opinion, to dominate all conspiracy talk that's going on in cyberspace.
Sucessfully executed down to the present day.

Paul Verge on Truth Be Told Radio with Bob Tuskin @ 18 min – This is something

Bob) Wow, that's a lot to put on our shoulders – man, Jesus! Can we do it?
Let's take a deep breath after all that. Alright folks, if you're listening take a deep breath with us and then we're gonna get deep here. So, stand by: one, two, three, deep breath, and ... here we go. Paul, where do we start?

Paul) Well, if people want to know, you know, what's really going on they should check out "What you've been missing – The Noble Lie." The noble lie is this ideal that represents the N.W.O. which is essentially the few controlling the many through mental relevant difficult means and perpetuating this idea that the noble lie is whatever mechanism is able to keep people in mental prisons.
And you'll find that [...] socialism perpetuate this noble lie through both religion and the political system and those ideals combined, formerly, what people would refer to as the N.W.O.
So people going around blaming the Masons, the Jesuits, the Zionists, the Catholics ... they don't realize that it's the idea of itself that () the N.W.O. And it's made up of many many pieces just like [...] they're all suspects. And guess what? They're all guilty. They all did it. [...] by recognizing that it's a mentality, it's called psychopathy. And psychopathy, whether it's () mind control or somebody is natural born somehow as a psychopath, they will be attracted to certain position that allow them power and control, and other psychopaths will recognize these people and are trying to bring them up through maybe secret societies or think tanks, or political structures, but the end result is the same.

Bob) It's an in-place system that's been there for thousands of years, folks. This is something ...
We have to realize the Henry Paulsons, the Rothschilds, whoever – these guys die. They live their lives and they die. And what continues are the slavery based, debt based ideals – this system that we currently live in and that we're trying to break free from. And that's why I consider myself to be an activist before talk radio host. You know, I don't do the show because I want to, quite frankly, I do the show because I have to.
Because there is a need to get this information out.

This mentality with its ideals, its history and its daily appearance, its different characteristics and everything else belonging to it is exactly the field of research for a piety scientist.
Or let's better call it a piety investigator, because the business of scientists (technicians) is along the lines of the business of priests (politicians) with their theoretical dogmas regimented by positivist paradigms which I am not.
To put this new non-conspiratorial perspective into one little sentence at the beginning I want to make it clear that for me the ("9/11") mafia mentality doesn't restrict itself to the occult circles and open companies of the initiates. Initiates like "the Henry Paulsons, the Rothschilds" and their brothers amd sisters in mind.
They are just the source from which every citizen is drinking ...
When I was wondering several days ago about how far the common mafia mentality or servile spirit would be spread without Roman Christianism I was also referring to the notion that intelligence and sensibility, respectively the lack of it in form of willful ignorance and joyful stupidity are what matters not necessarily secrecy.
Secrecy is important too, of course, but its role is overrated on purpose.

Now, Paul seems to believe that psychopathology would be the explanation for all the major shenanigans and discrepancies in the history of western culture as well as in our daily life and that the essence of this type of society, this way of living together contains a considerable strategic amount of mental illness and distress which is consciously being kept high. High enough. And if we take Mr. Gatto's analysis seriously, the consequence would be that through the Jesuit type of public education almost everybody is infected with what in its purest form, in the sense of its name giver, is called loyalty. Blind obedience.
So we are all more or less psychopaths and therefore, psychopathic behaviour is the order of the day.
Alright, let's assume they both are right and "9/11" or the "Holocaust" would then be some kind of thermometer or barometer for the current level of psychopathology in society. What would that mean?
And how could that help to find a solution for – in the words of Bob – breaking free from this system? I think, it is not that difficult as it may seem. I mean breaking this system of mutual contempt remains a horribly complicated project but as impossible as it may appear at this point of time, just under ten years of the main attack on the part of the Kafkaesque bureaucracy, is it probably not. And the reason for this lies in the nature of what's called piety or in few simple words, how cults become cultures.

Contrary to Paul's point of view, I believe that the mentality that he speaks of has a greater complexity than simply describing it as psychopathic. I would even say it is terra incognita in its most parts. And the biggest trick that's been applied by the piety players for centuries and millennia is that they are able to let the villains of the deepest dye look like kind of mankind's biggest benefactors. Or would you call these gentlemen here psychopaths?

"I think people need Jesuits.
I think that people hunger for the Society of Jesus to be of some good in their lifes."

To be of some good in their lifes – what does that say about the theory of human nature that they graduated with?
Richard's "there will always be blindspots" in other words means that believing is one of the most human things: Nobody can know everything, so everybody has to navigate and to decide what's real and what's not.
This central circumstance of life makes pieties as practical results of certain belief systems to a major major subject.

Now, the research paradigm of the conspiracy rhetoric let lots of questions unanswered. Mainly because of their strict focus on the primarily "evil elites".
In principle, Richard and friends behave like anybody else who thinks in conspiratorial terms, with the big difference of consequently using the classic method of the trivium to move forward in comparison to plain conjurors of "the conspiracy" like Webster Tarpley or Alex Jones, including all their apologists on the national level in Europe and anywhere else, or unfortunately also Eric Jon Phelps and many others.
"What's important is having a process to deal with all of this, because it gives you serenity of mind" is Richard's beautiful way to mark and define his basic frontline. Another important ingredient for the success of this process comes from Mr. Vatican Assassins: "We are friends, we all sharpen us by correcting us ..." Because when it comes to gaming what matters most is being able to compete on a higher level. And this is valid for the culture creators' side as well as for "piety theorists". That is why the ordinary Jesuit military monk goes through fifteen years of basic training before he's allowed to join the company.
So it's all about sharpening one's own understanding in a serene but also passionate manner to raise intellectual awareness against the cultural mega frauds and their everyday ramifications.

What questions should conspiracy researchers be unable to investigate and to clarify?
Well, let's take the elephant in the room first, alright?
Why is it that the herd loves the herdsman via his "fastest nimble sheep"?
Or do you want to call it a conspiracy, for instance, when a General Superior of a corporation ("Chief Executive Officer") doesn't discuss every little aspect of the corporation's politics with its lowest employees?
To say it loud and clear: There are tons of books written about an alleged all-embracing (this is what "catholic" means) conspiracy on the cultural level, but every single one of them is based on a certain belief. Not one book that I know of could be seen as a piety-overarching example. Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine" and Mark Buchanans "The Social Atom" are first and very useful steps to a more general and culturally relevant theoretical approach which then would also include things like Jan's comment on the common habitude that expresses itself by declaring "you don't talk about religion or politics" or Solomons Asch's conformity experiments, for example.

One very interesting piety theoretical posing of a question looks like the following: If you, for whatever reasons, do not think as big as our "9/11" strategists do, I mean in the same order of magnitude, the same categories and complexities, you are trapped in a similar conundrum – no, not conundrum, better: a blind alley – you will stay trapped in this shimmering labyrinth of conspiracy talk like they do who cannot bring the required minimum of sensibility and intuition to the table, so to speak, in the first place. They who aren't able to at least rudimentarily think beyond any superficial emergences. In other words: Almost everyone is claiming "the truth" (in German "Wahrheit"), only the more insightful minds concentrate on cognitive abilities in general (in German "Wahrnehmung"). Role models like Mr. "9/11" Synchronicity, Richard Andrew Grove, who once said:
"There is no freedom without cognitive liberty."

And my bone of contention with his Tragedy and Hope project isn't for the main part that it was perfectly jesuitized by Georgetown boy Carroll Quigley but that he is absolutely meticulous in his research regarding the higher ranks of the "monolithic and ruthless" pyramid of power, the old "Shepherd's Fold" as the eternal constant of spiritual political power throughout history of human civilization, which is, of course, totally fantastic, whilst on the other hand all members of the virtual round table for the "Peace Revolution" podcast are extremely vague and nearly unconscious in their statements about the lower non-initiated and non-interested parties.
How will you expect to provide complete explanations by only studying the elites and their wheelings and dealings without exploring at the same time and to the same degree why the citizenry in its entirety (more or less) wants to be like them or to be like the people in television and so forth, you see?

Every reason for the popularity of the columbian corporatocracy has to be uncovered too, because modern central-bank-based solidarism, openly made by Heinrich Pesch SJ, is an offer that is very welcomed by the vast majority of registered voters and consumers. However, the one and only reason for the non-existence of any sort of comprehensive piety theoretical work that I can imagine at his moment is that those specific core aspects, together with all attached implications and directions for further investigations, would take off the system's hinges, would unhinge the whole structure or the whole mixture of belief systems. Because real piety-theoretical research could expose any artificial dialectical dissent and thereby show step by step how they are all one and the same with varied characteristics. Like capitalism and communism are basically identical: both ideologies are actually ideological threads of a more comprehensive ideology, a greater "Big Idea". ("You build castles in the air.")

Two examples for the "blinking of the second eye":

Richard in the cognitive liberty round-table discussion, PR podcast no. 10:

"If everyone was given full disclosure, nobody would be supporting these people.
And it's only because of this subversion of our education system which is a conditioning system, a confirmative system, and the failure of the media, and the failure for everyone who is consuming this media to think critically. Otherwise they couldn't have control over us. At all."

Podcast no. 15:

"We are all trying to lift this veil and that's what apocalypse is. Is the lifting of a veil so you can see what's really going on. And once people see what's really going on for the first time in human history, it's no wonder that the Bible is scared of this apocalypse because their corporation is over. [...] it's no longer gonna be used as a control system in the future once people understand the nature of why words were structured that way, to have people judging each other and have all these crazy words put up there, that purposely put people into conflict and give a very small percentage, one percentage of people on this planet, all the power ..."

"If everyone was given full disclosure, nobody would be supporting these people."
I'm not that sure about this conclusion but I know for certain that a debate on this issue would be first and foremost a piety-theoretical thing and not so much a conspiracy-based controversy.
With "once people see what's really going on for the first time in human history [...] once people understand the nature of why words were structured that way ..." he outlines some specifics of the big "otherwise" in "otherwise they couldn't have control over us". This otherwise is new and uncharted territory ("for the first time in human history") and I think we have to explore it with the same energy that we use to make the hidden or esoteric as well as the exoteric propaganda networks of the ruling secret and half-secret societies transparent.
Because "transparency shows democracy that it is none" (political satire on national prime time television, the allmighty media-industrial complex, the citizen's modern church pulpit).

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." Oh sure, but "a conspiracy so monstrous" isn't one anymore.
A conspiracy so monstrous that everyone is in it makes the term "conspiracy" absolutely obsolete, Mr. Hoover.
That is what Mr. Grove means by saying "once people understand why words are structured that way" ...
Because "the conspiracy" is actually us:
conspiring against one another on the basis of one's own favorite little castle of piety.

"Slaves can only be slaves by lack of ability to be able to think.
That's why creating a critical thinking meme, a trivium meme is so important." (Jan Irvin PR # 12 @ 77 min)

March 1, 2011

They have twisted the words trivium and trivia

Peace Revolution Podcast lopo

Peace Revolution Podcast # ten – Cognitive Liberty

A Virtual Round-Table Discussion by Brett Veinotte, Jan Irvin, Paul Verge, and Richard Grove

@ 14 min – Brett Veinotte) We talk a lot about language and the power and the weapon that language is and has been, as we looked at its usage in the media, and in the schools, with politicians, and of course even in marketing, in advertising, which people frequently overlook.
But language is a very very powerful weapon in its ability to control how people think.
The word education itself ... Everybody who has been born any time during the late 19th or during the 20th century at all has come to understand that education is a bunch of people who get shut into a building and really not taught, or shoved, or guided through the process of learning how to think. But being very much directed through the process of being told what to think. That's pretty much it.

@ 18 min – Richard Grove) There was an artist in the early 21st century named Mark Lombardi *) and he drew these giant myriads that connected politicians, bankers, people who have these nefarious connections.
He modelled the Vatican Banking Scandal, these sort of things. And through his art you can see the corruption, you can see the connections of the corruption. Unfortunately he died in a very suspicious way on March 22, 2000, shortly before his art was to be displayed at the Whitney Museum, but when you get a hold of his book which has the art in it, produced by Judith Rothschild Foundation, you can see the connections between BCCI and Iran-Contra, and the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, and see all these people have been doing business.
And what I realized in a very harsh way on "9/11" was that my public education, that I have been gone through for approximately 15.000 hours, was not nearly adequate to cover the reality in which I was trying to survive. It was at that point when I decided to, you know, get out of the hamster wheel, stop using my energy to make other people millions and millions of dollars, and to start educating myself, because the money was worthless on "9/11". Didn't matter how much money I then had, I had no clue what's going on. And if I hadn't panicked in getting myself out of that situation, I probably would have died that day.

*) "Dass der Mann kein Verschwörungstheoretiker war, sondern im Gegenteil detektivisch genau recherchierte, beweist die Wirkung seiner Bilder. Ein Journalist des Wall Street Journal, der über die Bush-bin-Laden-Connection recherchierte, soll geschlagene vierzig Minuten vor einer Grafik Lombardis verbracht haben und immer wieder 'Oh, mein Gott' gemurmelt haben." (01/16'04 Süddeutsche Zeitung)

What's really missing from the picture

Brett) I think, a lot of people overlooked the fact, again, through their programming that comes from language, using words like "we" and "us" and "are" to talk about the people who exercise all of this power over their lifes.
What is really missing from the picture when we try to look at the power structures, that for so long people have lived under, we don't really get into the psychology of power. We don't realize or maybe people don't even want to acknowledge that these types of people are fundamentally different from what we call ordinary folks. [...]
The people who supported George Bush don't realize that he has so much more in common with [...] you know, name the world's most tyrants and dictators, that he actually has with the people who are kind of following him along and cheering for him. And the same could be true for Obama or anybody else.
They don't understand that that is a different psychology. Because they have kind of through this collectivism and nationalism just invented connections with these kinds of people.

Bring on the learning revolution

Richard) That's the PR [propaganda] in the education. When you look at a movie like "Jesus Camp" and you see a bunch of people being programmed through religion and then programmed sub religion to support a particular political party, that's the trap we all fall for. And the reason we all created "What you've been missing" is to show that we recognized our own incompetence and we're trying to learn our way past that.
So it's all about everyone is participating, yourself included, we all recognize the inadequacy and the incompetence that we were bringing forward as a function of this public education system.
And when you bring in who supports these parties, if everyone was given full disclosure, nobody would be supporting these people. It's only because of this subversion of our education system, which is a conditioning system, a confirmative system, and the failure of the media, and the failure for everyone who is consuming this media to think critically. Otherwise they couldn't have control over us. At all.

Brett) I think that part of the control through the education system comes down to ...
we talk about the psychology of power, but it's also what's imposed on us through these twelve years, and for many of us it certainly continues into a higher education and then into adulthood through the media for the rest of most people's life. There is a phrase that's used in "What you've been missing" that I really liked and wrote down: "provisional self-esteem". It's because I think that's a powerful and important idea when it comes to education. The foul, the facsimile education.

Paul) Well, provisional self-esteem can also be interpreted as conditional self-esteem. It's essentially giving the power and the dynamic of your self-esteem away to some external source, and only through that external source's adulation or appreciation do you feel good about yourself. So instead of feeling good about yourself because of your own actions and your own achievements you have to give the teacher () or the authority has to prove. And basically what it does, it put you in a submissive position to obey whoever is out there claiming to be an authority. It's a mind set essentially.

You do not talk about

@ 33 min – Brett) I've always said that if you want to prevent somebody from thinking about something critically, if you want to prevent somebody from thinking about something in a logical way, you get them to think about it emotionally. It's a trick that's worked beautifully when it comes to discussion about religion or politics.
People have emotional investments. *)

Jan) Let me jump right in there.
In fact, I remember when I was a kid and a teenager growing up, whenever the subject of politics or religion came up my dad would always say right of the bat: 'Oh, you never talk about religion or politics. Those are two subjects you never talk about it.' And when I look back at that, you know, I always thought that was rather odd.
And looking back, it's because if you talk about it you might just figure out what was going on.

*) Dana calling in on a radio talk show) I'm mad on that guy: Who the hell does he think he is?
You don't talk about religion or politics. I think he's Catholic – what are we gonna to do?
Praying into heaven? I'm very offended. Tell him that he is wrong, wrong, wrong!
You have to go to purgatory and we have to pray you into heaven? Ist that it?
Jim Gaffigan) Lady, look, the applications for the Third Reich are over, alright?!
Dana) You know what? We have freedom of speech but didn't your mum and dad teach you, there's two things you don't talk about? And that's religion and politics?
And you're on the radio for bump, for god's sake! I'm very offended.
Jim) You are offended? You should watch this movie called "Inherit the Wind", alright?!
Dana) You should watch "Armageddon", okay?!
Jim) Alright. You mean with Bruce Willis?

The third option to fight or flight

37 min – Brett) It's frustrating to watch people who are ... you know, they have this innate brilliance, this genious, they are in so many respects in their own lifes so smart and talented, but when these conversations happen we see this fight-or-flight response, where they either steer around, whatever the issue of discussion is, to attack you on a personal level or they literally sometimes run away, or walk away, or they will try to retreat into this safety zone of 'well, everyone is entire to their opinion, let's change the subject' kind of a thing.
So, that fight-or-flight response is really indicative of an absence of an ability to think logically or critically about whatever the topic is.

Paul Verge) And they are not seeing the third option, they're looking at you as a threat and having that response.
But the third option is a form of non-violent communication, where you're not communicating to them in a sermon or confrontational mode, where you're talking down to them or telling them what to think.
Instead you offer your assessment of the situation and you get them to try to agree with you, which puts them back into a positive wavelength.
It's so much about the trivium in terms of grammar, logic and rhetoric, is not just taking in and understanding information and giving it back out, it is the actual understanding. Understanding tonality, understanding how your language ... the order of the words, the tone of the words, even the subject matter the way you approach somebody completely effects how someone is gonna respond to you. And we are not conscious enough of that because we hear sound bites on TV and we emulate what we watch. [...] that's becoming the new norm for kids as like a new societal slang, but it's a degeneration of language, right?

@ 39 min – Brett) I think that in the past we've done a lot of moralizing. I know I have anyway. When we've talked about things like the principle of non-aggression and using words like "immoral", and boy, that is loaded up for a lot of people emotionally to be told that something that they are supporting is immoral. And I think one of the reasons why that approach has developed – the argument from morality as Stefan Molyneux called it years ago – it's because that's always worked throughout history, right? Like good is the engine, good is the shover, good is the gasoline that takes evil where it needs to go. So, you make these presentations to people – now, at school it's nationalism and patriotism and everybody put their shoulders to the wheel and we're a community, not ever paying any attention to what they're serving or what the goals are down the road or who's making those goals. And of course, it worked beautifully in religion for thousands of years these moral arguments. So I think that historically there is a value to it, being just empirically speaking.
It has worked for thousands of years for the worst kinds of people with the most dangerous ideas. Maybe it would work for some nice folks like us who have, I think, some pretty decent ideas.

They have to suppress the word liberal

@ 63 min – Jan)
It's like the very words "liberal" and "trivium" themselves, because if you look up in any good dictionary the word liberal actually means "of or befitting the free" and it comes from the word "liber", which is also Latin for "book" and where we get words like library and liberty and any liber* word basically. But we're not told by the corporate media, who is seeking to subvert our freedom, that liberals is the antithesis of what they are calling it. And, in fact, antonyms for liberal, which is kind of a funny when we get into these, but antonyms are uneducated, unintellectual, closed off hearts, selfish, narrowed, contracted, mean, small, fascist, rascist, bigoted, homophobic, stingy, close-minded, supportive of monarchies and slavery, against freedom of religious expression and speech, and low in birth and mind, and of course in a free country, it's anti-American.
And the reason why they have done this to the word liberal is because the word liberal is directly related to the seven liberal arts. The seven liberal arts are composed of the trivium and the quadrivium.
The trivium is grammar, logic, and rhetoric in that order, the quadrivium is math, geometry, music and astronomy in that order. And when you have all seven of those that is the liberal or the classical education.
So, they've twisted the words so people don't realize that the word liberal itself is the key to personal and individual freedom. They have to suppress the word liberal to keep people from making that connection. And then the other word is the word trivium.
They trivialized the word trivium and they've made it trivia so that people whenever they hear the word trivium they go: 'Haha that's trivial, that's trivia, I don't need to learn that. That's been debunked, it's 2000 years old, what can I possibly have to benefit by looking at that?!' And these are tactics that they have intentionally put into place to keep people from realizing that freedom is found in the books.

The trivium as the critical thinking meme

Peace Revolution Podcast lopo

Peace Revolution Podcast # twelve – Origins of Money

A Virtual Round-Table Discussion by Brett Veinotte, Jan Irvin, Paul Verge, and Richard Grove

GM # 41 Stephen Zarlenga pt 1) Money's Dirty Little Secret
GM # 57 Stephen Zarlenga pt 2) Why Gold and Silver are not the Answer
GM # 67 Stephen Zarlenga pt 3) A Response to the Austrian School
GM # 88 Stephen Zarlenga pt 4) Silver and Gold

@ 9 min – Jan) He is one of the world's only economic historians: Whereas most economics is based on theory rather than looking also at the history and seeing how these things have played out historically when the evidence is looked at, he is one of the only economists ever actually who do that.
And so what he does is he looks up the material of guys like Adam Smith and many from the Austrian school and other schools of economis and shows not only where their theories originated from but the history behind them and if there is any solid foundation to support those theories. Like let's say Adam Smith's invisible hand that they rely on to control the economy. It basically is magic, it's wishful thinking and nothing more.
They don't know how it works.
So what they do is, when they no longer have an explanation and their philosophy fails, they throw things out like the "invisible hand", it's there to guide the free market economy in the sort of a magical sense, but as has been shown it just simply doesn't work that way.

@ 12 min – Brett) Economics is, in my opinion, not a science of money but it's a science of human action.
And von Mises's theories were backed up by an entire scientific field of study called Praxeology which looked at human action. And there are a few problems with this, because most of what he was requiring for his theories to be valid was logical thought.
So before we actually jumped into this, I said that the free market is something that emerges out of an enlightened society, which is why at this point is purely theoretical. Von Mises's ideas are based on individuals acting in their own rational self-interest towards some kind of logical end.
Obviously, if we look at the massive success of religion and, you know, government propaganda and state education throughout history, it's safe to say that reason and rational self-interest are not the motivators for most people's actions today. So there is science behind the Austrian school for sure.

@ 26 min – Richard) None of us think that the free market exists right now, none of us were that naive, which is why we're all coming together trying to understand what is money, what is the history of money and how it does effect the current situation, so we can see through the myriad of different pieces of propaganda that were put there to take advantage of our ignorance.

The definition of money

@ 26 min – Jan) What he's presenting has admittedly never been tried before, but what he can show is a review of history detailed with historical facts. He can show how all of the other methods that have been tried, where they completely fail, and then using those as a map. What he's doing is he's presenting the American Monetary Act as a guide to try something for and by the people themselves that hasn't been snug into power by a bunch of greedy bastards at Jekyll Island. Woodrow Wilson being bought out to sign the Federal Reserve Act into place so that they could use the Federal Reserve system to suck money out of the U.S. so that England could launch its war on Germany. That's the real history as Eustace Mullins has pointed out in his work. A monetary system that's actually for and by the people, regulated by the people with no usery attached to it, that literally is completely freed up.
If there is no usery attached to the money, if you're not having to pay a tax for the use of your own money, then the entire way, the entire landscape, the entire definition of money completely changes and suddenly works to serve our freedom instead of as a tool to suppress us by a bunch of greedy people that are working behind the curtains. And [...] there is no doubt that the bankers and others that are in power today would do everything possible to keep something like that from going into power, because it would create a totally open system that everyone could see exactly how it works.

"Eustace Mullins was the first author who has exposed the true nature of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. He is also the last living protegee of Ezra Pound and was a good friend of the great author Anthony Sutton.
Even thought he would have deserved a nobel prize in literature for his writings, he is unfortunately mostly unknown to the public, because his books concern the hottest topics you can write about."

A jesuitized historical outlook

@ 31 min – Paul) Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University SJ wrote a book called "The Evolution of Civilizations" and what it really does is takes a look at the history of these different civilizations and how they functioned. With special focus to their economic systems because a lot of the success and () of societies really hinges on that. [...]
Money basically was meant as a convenience, but just like everything that's presented to us as a convenience it's a double-edged sword. [...] just like the government is supposed to be our servant and it's become our master because it's become so conveniently.

@ 42 min – Brett) The history of money has to parallel the history of states: Governments do not exist for the welfare, or the well-being, or the protection of people.
Jan) And this is what we're talking about though!
As Zarlenga shows in his book, it's never been tried the other way where the money has been put into full control of the people. It's always been the elitists using the government as a force to protect their money, and their systems of controlling the society. So this, in effect, would flip it in its antithesis which has never been done before. And he is showing via history why all of these other things have already been done, here's basically what's left that hasn't been done, and here are the exact steps on how it should be done.

@ 47 min – Richard) I'm not here to defend Zarlenga's work in any way, shape or form, I'm just saying that he is the only person I've ever found in a book to give you 23 case studies of what money has done and what is has been to different civilizations and how those civilizations came to fall. Because it all had to do with money, as you will follow the pattern through it, it repeats.
History repeats until we think for ourselves and start to learn from it. That's the essence of what I like to represent from reading this book, because I found it useful.
You know, it is an expansive book and it is a tough read but it's intrinsically interesting, because he's going to () and bringing together all these different historians who before ... like if you an economist you do not get this education, and then you have to ask yourself, no wonder the rule is so easy to perpetrate in our financial markets, because even the people on TV reading the teleprompters have no idea what they're talking about.
And that's the brilliance of how they keep it secret.

The black gloved fist

@ 52 min – Brett) I mean, this is the end-product, this is what he's presenting to other people.
I believe that he should be able to deliver responses to important and valid counter-arguments in a way that is not dismissive.
And just an example what I'm talking about is Adam Smith's freeze 'invisible hand' comes up. He says, this is something that they can't explain, there is no good reason, and then he ad-hominems it by calling it a cop-out. Now, we can all see the hand in today's economy: It's a black gloved fist that reaches into the pockets of taxpayers, and takes out 700 billion dollars, and gives it to Goldman Sachs and AIG.
We know what the hand looks like, right? We can see the hand, right?
When we are talking about an invisible hand we're talking about what I would call as either market signals or a feedback loop. Now, this is something that's very very easy to define and there's been definitions available and explanations of the freeze invisible hand for over a hundred years. What we are talking about is when I say people can vote, people can participate in desicion making with their feed and their wealth – that's the signals.
Like the government has no market signals because they take money by force. In a truly/thoroughly voluntarily free market system people have a hundred percent choice about where they go and how they spend. That's a continuous feedback loop that is essentially the invisible hand of the free market, theoretically.

They love the Fed

@ 56 min – Brett) The Fed can be nationalized ... As long as the US government exists, the US Federal Reserve System will be there, because all those people who are decision makers in the government benefit from the existence of the Fed. When the Fed prints money, it goes to the lobbying interest, it goes to the military-industrial complex, it buys them votes, it gets them re-elected: They love the Fed, right?

12/24'10 A "motivated youth":

"Yawn ... bunch of nonsense. Until all citizenry can justly participate in an economy, there will be educated (elite) snakes and rats robbing and cheating.
Simplify it, downsize it, recognize it. I don't recognize the 'economy' because there are inventions like derivative trading markets, credit, and digidigits (zeros on a screen) ...
I don't blame the snakes and rats from exploiting the economachine (mechanics of the economy).
It's a tool, they manipulate it to serve them, that's simple.

But, simply put, they (snakes and rats) don't see those they ruin. The economunnity (people subjected to the economachine) is too large and too obscured for their to be justice.
How can I give a shit about someone I've never met? Should there be PSAs on TV with Sarah McLachlan singing about the poor disenfranchised resources (humans) in Vietnam, and Senegal, and Mauritania, and Mexico, and Jamaica, and Bangladesh, and Camden, NY, and Indonesia, and Haiti? I doubt it would matter.
If everything is out on the table, so to speak, and everyone (except the retarded) plays an integral role in the health and well-being of a community, than no one will 'lose'.
Simplify it, downsize it, recognize it."

cca) Most excellent comment, "motivated youth"! Very refreshing.
Way too fatalistic for my liking, to be sure, but right on target, in my opinion. Bull's eye! You know, during this supremely enjoyable two-hour talk, the most fascinating thing for me to watch was how all four of our gladiators in the monetary arena repeatedly touched the battlefield, which I prefer to classify as the "piety theoretical" field of study, without really stepping into it, despite a considerable number of first-class statements.
Then you came along and simply did it, finally, in your juvenile cockiness ... :)
You waged the crucial step seemingly effortless – congrats!
You're saying "simplify it, downsize it, recognize it."
Are you aware of how complicated it is to fulfill your demand in the right way, so that you can get an easily understandable picture in which extremely complex phenomena are coherently contained?
It's very complicated, but not impossible, I hope. Any further ideas of you would be very welcome ...

The little bell and the big swoosh

@ 59 min – Paul) What's funny is that we are basically talking about theoretical things, neither which can really put into place unless we have a responsible citizenry that can actually hold the government accountable.

Richard) Or could receive the ideas to be able to hold the government accountable.
From my perspective, I have been trying to communicate certain truths to the public, and what I discovered was that even when I got my words right, they can't hear my words – it's noise to them. So I have to give them a translator so they can turn the signal that I'm sending into a signal that they are actually receiving.
They don't have the codec to systemize critical thinking so that they can actually discern fact from fiction. And without that they left not knowing what they believe, right?
But if they can use this system to identify: Hey, what I have here is definitely fiction, so let me go find some fact. And then you have this little bell that goes off – it's like this is identified as fact, here it is: no contradictions, all the grammar, logic, and rhetoric is not bending anything out of place, there is no fallacies being used to try to deceive you. It's just straight forward, here it is: facts that are verifiable connected and presented in a verifiable way and an honest manner. [...] If I can you adore and I said, I'd like you to outsource your decision making to this group of people or the corporation – which is psychopathic 'cause that's how those things work – like we would never do that, but that's what we've all ended up being conditioned to do since we were kids was outsource our critical thinking to the "experts", the people who hold corporate jobs and are paid to lie to us.

One of the most successful embodiments

Brett Veinotte) One of the things that seems to be absent from a lot of these conclusions is what I would describe as the psychology of power. (62 min)
Remember, my big concern is power in the existence of this legitimacy around, you know, government which is essentially the socially acceptable use of force. (64 min)
One of the things that I'm trying to put forward here is that the current Federal Reserve System is one of the most successful embodiments of what government is supposed to do. That's what it's for. You know, the state was set up to concentrate resources into the hands of very few people by taking them from a large group of people.
I mean, go back a thousand years, two thousand years, three thousand years, that's what governments do.
He mentioned the constitution, the fact that a bunch of slave owners and aristocrats wrote, you know, stuff down on four sheets of paper 230 years ago did not change the course of history, and that's not be being cynical, that's empirical. (69 min)

@ 70 min – Richard) Let's keep in mind that the Greeks also owned slaves. So all these people, who created the laws, and the rhetoric, and all the things that are used to formulate this control today, come from historical slave owners and the minds of those people. So what we were realizing for the first time is that we weren't free as Americans, we've never been free in the history of mankind from this money system as long as history goes back in time. That's what we have learned.

There will always be blindspots

@ 77 min – Jan) Slaves can only be slaves by lack of ability to be able to think. That's why creating a critical thinking meme, a trivium meme is so important.

Richard) Because we all practice cityisms all day – things that we parrot, that we've been conditioned to know but never really thought about – and critical thinking the systematic form forces you to question things. [...]
Like in single life, you go out, and you try to meet new people, and you try to talk about interesting things – and I bet 99 percent of the people listening were just like the rest of us – and we would parrot things that we heard from other experts, or people on TV, or the "Wall Street Journal", or whatever, never thinking about those things ourselves. [...] Finally you get the point that wow, I'm incompetent. [...]
And then you spend another six years trying to get over your incompetence. You figure out ah, I am consistently incompetent and all I can ever do is kind of willow that down and filling these blindspots. Because there will always be blindspots but what's important is having a process to deal with all of this, because it gives you serenity of mind. And it means you can take all that stuff off your plate because now, you just have an intake process, where you can validate these things and you're not gonna be plagued by all these illusions of history that we've been programmed with, which is how the status quo remains. It keeps us broken to this process of ignorance and pseudo-knowledge. And once we can recognize that, we take all the power away from the people who are really behind everything we've been trying to describe through this whole discussion. [...] They get us to volunteer for our slavery and to love our servitude, and once you can question it you won't love it so much.

cca) Did conspiracy theorist Quigley actually mention the Jesuit Order even once in his books?
Or the Maltese and other Roman knightly brotherhoods?
By the way, piety theory, you could say, is about the distribution of these blindspots throughout what conspiratorial terminology refers to as "the masses" ...

A corporation is essentially an invitation to behave like a state

@ 83 min – Richard) And once they got themselves in bed and created their own intelligence agency, called the CIA, all these other things start to come into focus: The Ford Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, Rockefeller Foundation – all these CIA funding groups. Conspired literally through the congressional report proven by Carroll Reece and Norman Dodd's testimony, showing that these people had a goal to subvert our education system and to blend our way of living with the Soviet style of living which these people also control.
They also control the Bolshevik revolution and communism as we've been taught it.

@ 99 min – Richard) If you take away the corporate psychopathic power you're left with dealing with them and they don't want to deal with this face to face, which is why they create proxies.

Brett) So I mean, a corporation is essentially an invitation to behave like a state: to shield actual individual actors, which incidentally is the only thing in the world that actually exists. Like societies are conceptual, states are conceptual, corporations are conceptual, they are just these aggregations that the inividual, the decision maker, the person who is actually responsible for their actions become shielded from responsibility, or accountability, or () in whatever they do, following the exact same model of the modern state.

@ 108 min – Richard) Hegel didn't discover ... like he didn't create anything new, he described a repeating pattern that has gone through history, he gave it a name, that's all.
He looked at what had been going on: 'Oh, I should name this thing that they keep doing to us.'
They create all this action and drama before an event, they carry out an event, then erase whatever led up to that event so you can never see what leads up to the triggering point, because they give us this pseudo-history.
Sure he's a participant. If you read that stuff, he is a twisted character, right? But what I'm saying is that like he is not original in his thinking, he just gave a name to a process that the ilk of which he wanted to be a part used. You know, his "Phenomenology of History" ...
Here is the key: Being able to study all these different characters and to keep myself separate. Because I don't have to believe in any of them to understand their perspectives, to understand and emphasize what they were trying to do. But unfortunately for them, I have access to a more comprehensive set of information.
So I don't have to buy in to their shortcuts of thinking.