April 24, 2011

a trivium education meeting spot

Paul Verge

Lisa Arbercheski

You're left unwillingly funding their profits

Richard Grove

synchronicity whisperweb

the trivium on facebook

private messages on facebook

April 11, 2011

My conversation with Max – chapter two

04/09'11 My conversation with Max – chapter one
Clint Richardson

Max) I understand better what you mean, but those I've listed tend to stick with what they can prove and have documentation(s), and I completely agree their choice to stick with what they see as documented facts and analysis. You may disagree but use logic to show why you do so.
When I say I roughly agree, I mean their analysis usually concur to my own research and judgement.
You called them liars: show it to me with links and if possible context. To my knowledge they don't claim to know everything and they encourage to make your own judgement trough research.
As a example, you claim Ray McGovern is a "Jesuit-trained" – how do you know that?
The Wikipedia page doesn't show that.
Personally I can't just do like 9/11 isn't a big deal. It is way beyond what I tolerate.
Before I did my own research on 9/11 (by what I picked in the corporate media) I presumed that the conspiracy therorie(s) was like the analysis of a low resolution/blur strange photo (but some do, like in plane site).
But I was wrong (to think something as big as 9/11 would be cover up in such a massive scale).
The way I was thinking (a least close enough) is well explained in this article: 06/22'10 The News Media at War
I've personally had some training in hydraulics and know how pressure is built in a close system.
So, when Popular Mechanics claim that the squibs (aka puff of dust) are the result of the pressure of the floors collapsing (this is my analysis) I know it's ludicrous. That is lying.
If you show to me their lies I will revise my trust to them, research for myself your claim(s) and if it add up, I'll revise my position. Personally I came to the conclusion that my trust on the corporate media was unfounded, so I completely stopped watching TV (except I download the U.K. program Top Gear ...) and I read my local newspaper just to be aware what others are reading, not as a reliable source of information.

tt) "We have a great desire to introduce excellence and rigor into the classroom and every subject we teach."
Fordham University not at wikipedia – are you sure?

According to the new Provincial for Germany, Denmark and Sweden Stefan Kiechle SJ, the "companions of Jesus" own exactly 231 institutions of higher education today, globally. No other organization has a recruiting structure in place like this that generates scienticians, secret service agents, presidents, generals, actors, journalisticians, politicians, diplomats ... all parts, so to speak, for the "tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military diplomatic intelligence economic scientific and political operations."
And Fordham in New York City, where Ray McGovern got his mind set from, is one of them.

But my point in showing Rich the Jesuit connection in the process of transferring the Prussian education system into the New World by the "founding father" of American public education Horace Man and others actually is that we all are more or less Jesuit-trained, simply because the whole shepherd-sheep college education system is designed from Catholic knights.

"I feel it was sinister because the Prussian model was for the use of the state and the state doesn't respond to market signals. Therefore, it doesn't serve the people it serves itself.
It seeks to have people march lockstep with its diktats. It produces weapons of mass instruction.
Education not molested by the state would have to produce more critical thinkers."

A comment left by Jtfreelander at quantumshift.tv in December 2009.

I mean, think about: If even Richard isn't capable of detecting the ubiquity of Jesuitism in modern Western civilization, doesn't that show how effectively this "9/11 conspiracy church" works?
And it goes even beyond that,
because when I speak of Christology as the most fundamental of all layers of piety I'm actually saying that we all are more or less Catholics with regard to the history of ideas. And to make this a little more clear I would ask Rich and Lisa, what's the big deal with the Alumbrado connection when it comes to Loyola and his idea of "loyalty" as militarily blind obedience? Sure it's true, but what difference does it make whether the newest update of the proven old mind control techniques came from the Vatican Library or from the secret archives of the headquarters of the Alumbrados? Does a difference really exist here at all worth differentiating on is what I'm asking. Or can you identify the spiritual exercices of St Ignatius as Qabalist mysticism while I call them the spiritual essence of Catholicism and both mean basically the same thing, because the secret teachings of all historical brotherhoods and brotherhood-like quasi-military organizations of all ages are just variants about one special set of ideas, which, all things considered, makes the Atlantean temple civilizations to what they are?
This is an example where traditional conspiracy theory creates unnecessary complications that a closer look at the devotional circumstances can quickly and easily resolve.

Do you understand what I'm talking about, Max? Richard's blindspotology where you show me my blindspots and then I'll show you yours and so forth will, with all of its trivium-based rationality, definitely not be able to approach the complexity of these piety sediments, so to speak, in everyone of us appropriately. Be it the shepherds or be it the sheep. Though it's a very good idea to begin with. In other words, I think, the key to understand the "conspiracy" is to understand the mentality of a society, and this mentality is without question controlled through the according to Richard one everlasting war: the war on consciousness. And this is the reason why the Jesuitical Argument can be seen as the opposite of teaching.

The opposite of teaching – think about! Practised by the most highly respected teachers on earth, who have given you your education system in the first place and control through the way your puerile and later juvenile mind becomes embedded into the current spiritual status quo, on which church and state have always worked together hand in hand, the biggest part of your mentality. It's a very intimate story. It's very personal.
And you nailed exactly this most direct connection between every "9/11 pupil" (on the planet), so to speak, and its "9/11 teachers" by emphasizing that you "personally couldn't just do like 9/11 isn't a big deal".
The same with me: Even if this act of inculturation took place thousands of miles away, its quasi-extraterrestrial monstrosity was nothing that I could simply let go or simply accept as the (pedagogical) disciplinary measure that it was. It was meant personally. From the very top of the corporate pyramid of political world power to every single unitiated as well as every single less-initiated loyal member of this Egyptoid priestly military hierarchy.
The reason why I got rid of my teleadvisory set yet in November 2001 and never wanted it back again.

Now you can hopefully understand who I mean when I use the words "top-level ultra liars and absolute sociopaths". Those you have listed as trustworthy presenters of valuable information do not belong in this category. But what piety theory, for instance, should be capable of is – again, in contrast to any conspiracy research – not only to find out who indeed is an agent, a gatekeeper, and a false flag philanthropist, but also to show exactly why. Compare, for instance, your bullhorning T-Rex Jones how he penetrates his conspiracy rhetoric with a far more comprehensive, systematical, meaningful and deeper research approach like Clint Richardson's that gives you clear insights into "the machine" with much room to create practical solutions to fight this spiritual-economic monolithic monster of Corporatist mafia mentality.

The CAFR is literally the audit of the Federal Reserve!

American Feudal Fiefdoms (10/25'10 Clint Richardson with Dale Williams)

@ 11 min – Dave) Here is the thing. Let me repackage it in regular guy speech and you are a very regular guy in your speech, but let me get it even dumber, okay? These layers of government, the City of Sandy, the County of Salt Lake, the State of Utah and the Federal Government – all individual corporations, and what they have formed is a kind of neo-Feudalism. Essentially, we never left the Feudal State except for a little while maybe right before and right after our revolution but the powers came back in and they own everything. The governments owns just about everything in terms of what we think of as commercial property or commercial value in this country. Am I going to crazy here?

Clint) Not in the least. In fact, that's the whole point of this documentary is to document that fact in a way that will blow your mind. Everybody that's listening right now, you just need to clear your mind of all the things that you've ever thought, all of your party affiliations, left, right, up, or down, it does not matter, because this is one group of people, no matter who you elect. I mean let's face it. If you like the president or if you think you like the president, who is the rest of government? Everybody that that president appoints.
Everybody in government is appointed except the president.

@ 16 min – Dave) We have a monumental problem that is adversarial to human dignity, to the ownership of private property, to having some control over your future and some futurity that you can pass on to your grand children and your children. One of the biggest impediments to that is that the governments at all their levels are essentially fiefdoms, they are feudal fiefdoms that own just about everything in terms of so-called private enterprise in this country, everything in the stock market.

@ 25 min – Clint) In other words, a senator or a congressman will start an insurance fund for himself and then actually give himself the dividends and at the end of his tenure at this term in Congress or Senat will take the profit of that fund home with it. Not to mention they had ... It's crazy, these guys have so many ways to hide the money. One of them is to build condos in foreign countries. That's a classic way of doing it. Total personal enrichment. You've got to realize that congressmen and senators, according to which boards and committees that they sit on, each one of them can get from 500.000 to over a million dollars put into their tax-exempt discretionary expense account for every board or committee that they sit on. So some of these guys have multi-, multi-, multi-, multi-million dollars expense accounts, and I include in that equation people like Ron Paul, people who you think are your heros, people who, you know, we portray as the people who are trying to help us. Well, here is Ron Paul saying we need to audit the Fed, but see: Ron Paul knows very well. In fact, he has been asked about it. He said he cannot talk about the Comprehensive Annual Finance Report of the Fed, which I include in my documentary. The CAFR is literally the audit of the Federal Reserve! In it it states, in 2008, the Fed has eleven billion dollars worth of gold certificates, the amount of interest that was paid on Federal Reserve notes was 36 billion dollars, the amount of accessed money the surplus that it had was 2.5 trillion dollars. Trillion – that's enough ... I mean if you took two trillion dollars and you stacked one dollar bills on top of each other it would go to the moon and back. An audit is therefore already done. Ron Paul knows this. He has been asked this by Walther, actually. If you are not familiar with Walter Burien you must know, you must go to cafr1.com, understand what he's trying to do to change this. Talk to the man and really just understand what the heck is going on.

@ 34 min – Dave) You know, guys like me sit down here and say things like 'government is the biggest crime syndicate in the history of man', and I think, a lot of times, Clint, at least in my ... we don't really know what we're saying. This thing is the perfected mafia.

@ 46 min – Clint) What's really gonna bake your noodle is, you know, they don't call police "police" anymore, they are now "law enforcement" and "code enforcement". There has been court cases that say that police have no obligation to protect and serve the people, because they are literally the corporate police. They are there to ensure the continuity of government by collecting fines, fees, make ensure that you're not breaking all these codes and regulations. () Jordan says you cannot put signs in your yard, and I'm like 'uh, wait a minute, whose land is it?' Well, turns out it's their land.

caller) 'My question to you is how in the world can we get away with raising all these taxes when they have all this money?'

Clint) Because all you see is the Taxpayer Budget, which is just a small portion of this report, which is not shown to the people. The only way to possibly do anything about this is to do what I'm doing now.
To tell you the truth, I might be risking my life by coming out in such a big way and telling people this. The first guy that did it – his website was cafrman.com – he is dead now. Walter Burien is the next guy, he learned from cafrman. Walter had his kids kidnapped, his dog shut, he has been in jail, he has people killed next to him, he is constantly in and out of court, and he is broke! [...] It's either this or in just a very short time the government will own literally everything in the world and let alone the country.

tt) Being trained in engineer skills, I guess, I don't have to tell you that we really have to go to the bottom of this stuff or, if you rather want to see it like a computer game, to the absolute top level, because only there this whole labyrinth of conspiracy entertainment (remember Alan Watt: "enter" plus "tain" equals "under the cover") and with that the whole maelstrom of infotainment business, compounded by the corporate and the conspiracy mainstream, will start to become transparent and understandable. Think about, the vast majority of academics is nothing more than modern serfs of this ultra-efficient, neo-Feudalistic, Jesus corruptocracy, about which Jon-Boy won't be tired to say it again and again that we're living in insanity. And why? Because they are too busy to study these informations or they simply believe that the whole material of a conspiracy mongering "truth movement" of "lay people" who declare themselves being incorruptible as "internet detectives" is as crazy as all the controversial stuff like the eternal controversy about UFOs or Icke's shapeshifting cosmic dragons, the controversy about the hollow earth or the moon landing ... what have you.
You see I can't tolerate skyscrapers that are suddenly erupting like volcanoes as much like you, but why do we necessarily have to walk because of that right into their trap of conspiracy ideology? Maybe you haven't noticed it but "9/11 truth" cult figures like Mr. Jones and Mr. Tarpley, who have given millions of truthseekers a new native land for their soul through constantly accentuating this revolutionary infowarrior attitude, are mocking about more consequent and elaborate research projects like anchormen of the corporate mainstream like Claus Kleber or Jean Hannity are mocking about the more radical and expansive investigation concepts of "conspiracy theorists", as they are propagating it from their politically very limited governmental perspective.

Jones and Tarpley talk a lot all day long, frequently interrupted by wild prophecies based on their hardcore Conspiracism, but they never taught you anything useful about the Catholic and Masonic international brotherhoods. They are good in telling you anything else. And they are good in aggregating information away from the Catholic and Masonic Jesus theorists and extremists or simply disintegrating everything into absolutely nothing, which notably makes Jones this mighty black hole for any remains of meaningful knowledge. I mean I've stopped listen to both of them years ago, so I can't give you many detailed examples of their behavior at the moment, but I'm pretty sure, if you had the research capacity of the Daily Show, for instance, it would be a little bit like this: 01/24'11 "The rhetoric is absolutely over the top." (O'Reilly) Stewart: "Wow! Wow! If that guy (Karl Rove) is telling you that you should feel shame, it's like Charlie Sheen showing up at your intervention to tell you to take it down a notch." The I-issue-a-challenge segment after the first three minutes is the interesting part. Sure, you don't need to be a piety researcher to show the spiritual and political boundaries of Murdoch's News Corporation, nonetheless, it pointed out the ubiquity, the scope, and the goal-directedness of hypocrisy and mendacity in the news business and in the public today. And although it's never very helpful to call somebody a liar, or a lying scumbag, or something worse if he or she doesn't share your belief system, your worldview, your philosophy, there is a certain way to recognize who is at the very top of this monolithic structure of intellectual contempt, because they have to push the liar's craft to the absolute extreme.

Here is a link to the prisonplanet podcast where Alex mocks a question from a caller (Walt Williams) on the Maltese Knights to protect and worship Mafiosi Bugliosi ("One of the most successful prosecutors in U.S. history [...] This is the mental illness of the American people. We have a very serious person on the air talking about serious issues, not crack garbage. I'm sorry, Mr. Bugliosi ...") who in fact pretends to know nothing about what Catholic knighthood is good for: "This 'Malta' or whatever you've said, I'm not familiar with that term, Walt ..." Vincent Bugliosi a serious person – think about it! Fascinating.

Ibidem "Orwell's Ghost" Eric from Indiana:

"George Tenet [chief of staff of the double magic transformation of iconic skyscrapers into active artificial city volcanos in 2001] also graduated from the Jesuit Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service. As did Clinton, Gates, Feith, Rice (mentor was Madeline Albright's father, both were professors), Petraeus, Casey, Durbin, Haig, Prince Turki, Prince Felipe, Arroyo, King of Jordan, the list goes on and on. It's all the Holy Roman Empire, everything falls under its umbrella, including the Zionists who got their wealth from Emperor-Elect Prince William in 1806 when the Emperor was forced to abdicate to Napoleon."

You'll find no shred of consistency and clarity if you're gonna take his entire material that he has published during the last several years. This is the reason why I call him a conspiracy mongering instant water heater of false flag online journalism. Alex is using the exact same propaganda techniques for his Truth Church that Papist Murdoch's "Hannities" use for their Republican congregation.
08/17'10 Newsweek ranks the world's best countries – Fox News TV Show Star Sean Hannity:
"America is the single greatest nation that God ever gave man on this earth."
"We say it's the greatest country God gave men ... We live in the single greatest, best country God gave men"
"The single greatest, best, freest country God ever gave men."

My "synchronicity portfolio" or my "navigation rates" in terms of "roughly agreeing" to useful information sources on the (whisper)web would probably read like this today:

Neil Kramer 99 %, Bruce Lipton 99%, Acharya S 99 %,
Terence McKenna/Graham Hancock 88 %,
Clint Richardswood/Walter Burien 88 %,
Jordan Maxwell/Michael Tsarion/Christopher Hitchens 88 %,
Richard Grove/Lisa Arbercheski 88 %,
Jan Irvin/Brett Veinotte/Paul Verge 88 %,
Frank O'Collins/Craig Oxley/Eric Phelps/Troy Space/Greg Szymanski/Thomas Richards/Tom Friess 88 %,
Alex Jones 33 %, David Icke 44 %, Alan Watt 77 %, Webster Tarpley 55 %,
Robert Newman 88 %, Stefan Molyneux 88 %, Mark Buchanan 77 %, Susan Blackmore 77%
Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert 66 %,
ARD/ZDF 33 %, Spiegel Online 33 % ... you know, something like that.

As you see, Alex Jones scores about the same percentage as the big German broadcasting corporations and the sensationalist press. But I had to work on it, it's my very first map on the matter.

You're really missing logic in my thoughts? Well, then how about a little exercise in logical thinking, okay?
On the same day Richard writes in a breath, so to speak, on the one hand that kind of a "ruling class" basically needs two things to maintain their power over a supposedly "non-ruling class": a) hiding some crucial knowledge (about the most important things in life) and b) providing a superior education to their members in general. On the other hand, when asked about the role of Professor Quigley in this game, he stated that his book Tragedy and Hope illustrates how the success of this higher education would even allow the rulers to "write about it ... and the Establishment hasn't yet felt a ripple of consequence." Now, write about what? About point a) and b) or only about point b)? Because if you don't have to stick to a) any longer, the aspect of secrecy losts its importance immediately, alright? And in addition to that would it quickly become clear that this partly "suspension of the conspiracy" couldn't work at all without the existence of pieties on different sides. Pieties that by the way can be almost as iron as blood oaths or other existential commitments. The question here seems to be whether Richard thinks Quigley tells hims truths of any sort or just truths about the main differences within the education system and why they are so efficient. In either case and whatever way you want to go with this, I think it will show, as a matter of principle, that all elaborations about the extent to which concealed connections could possibly be disclosed would have more to do with piety-theoretical estimations than with secrecy-related decisions.

Corporations that are playing government with the people

Walter and Clint from the CAFR faculty argue that we should better focus on the evidence of crime right in front of our eyes and that we should try to take back the money from the corporations that are playing government with the people, instead of, you know, fighting each other over differences in interpretations about who is pulling whose strings and so forth. And although I'm not entirely satisfied with this strategy I massively support it, because the huge amount of shadows within this mad, stigmatized, and hopelessly controversial labyrinth of any imaginable conspiracy stuff doesn't let a vast majority of interested parties see the obvious. For example, many believe till this day that Hoover actually had meant what he said about the monstrous nature of "the conspiracy". Nothing could be farther from the truth, because the individual is handicapped to understand the thoroughly corrupt and perverse nature of this neo-Feudalist corporatocracy as result of Rome's continuing Counter-Reformation mostly for one simple reason: because everybody believes either it is a conspiracy or it is not. Period. End of story. This is the biggest success of "9/11": this unending and for the most part practically meaningless confrontation.

"What we're talking about here is not a bunch of rich fat cats, we're talking about a whole group of people who see opportunity. Because it's easy money." "There's no such thing of ethics anymore in business." "People don't even think about the jobs they are doing anymore, they just do it. They don't think 'oh, this is really corrupt, I shouldn't be doing this.'" "No one has the crisis of conscience." "Usury is just natural to people." These statements from Clint are in my opinion much more powerful, basically, than any revelations about who is pulling the strings in the quasi-military corporate hierarchy. Because what happens with this transferral of the general focus from believing or not-believing in an alleged conspiracy towards a critical investigation into the mentality within the mafia machinery of Roman loyalty, the whole search for what's real will more or less automatically become more and more non-confrontational, non-violent, and integrative.

"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." Richardson again. What Clint wants us to understand, I think, is that the issue of his documentary The Corporation Nation is – in comparison with any other subject of investigation, where conspiracy theory tries to uncover the deeds of darkness of a shadowy elitist "ruling-class" – not a controversy. What he presents is nothing but clear evidence. And in my understanding the whole topic of how corporations play government with the people (or how they even can play this game with a deeply televisionized, mentally and bodily completely incorporated human stock) boils down to just one simple question: Do you want your individual and your social life to be ruled by the personality of The Corporation or do you not? And the fact that's important to bear in mind at this point is that there can't be in any way democratic relations in society as long as the corporate model of Roman loyalty basically flushes the most mafia-minded characters to the top of its Kafkaesque bureaucracies. And the greatest despisers of man at all are the same who have perfected the liar's craft, and their only goal in life is to rule. No sex, no family, nothing else. In the words of Casey Beaumier SJ:

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

Where Walter Burien meets Jon Stewart

Clint Richardson

12/02'10 Clint Richardswood with Angela on My Private Radio

@ 7 min) For years now, when you hear that we owe China money – that's not the case.
I mean, basically, this country is so wealthy beyond measure that you can't even comprehend it.
Just in pension funds alone across this country you have 26 trillion dollars. Just in pension funds, okay?

@ 29 min) There's no such thing of ethics anymore in business. Ethics has been completely wasted. It's just gone. It's shrivelled up and dried away in big business. I mean, what we're talking about here, really, the problem is and why all of this is happening is because – this is so important to understand and I hope I can explain it well – corporations are the ones that are doing all of this horrible stuff. They are the ones doing the abortions. They are the ones doing ... you know, Monsanto is government-owned, okay? The reason that pharmaceuticals are able to get away with what they give: is government-owned, okay? Why are medical companies, why is insurance so ridiculous? Well, it's government-owned, okay? Why are banks getting away with ***? They are government-owned, okay? You get the picture. Everything, every industry out there government has controlling interest in. [...]
Government, you know, they're not dumb.
Anybody who thinks George Bush is dumb, I've got a blog entry called George Bush For Dummies, *) and if you watch it you'll see the four years before he got elected as president. He was one of the best orators you'll ever seen. He was running for the Governor of Texas and he was one of the best speakers I've ever heard. And then all of the sudden: 'duh' ... No, he's not stupid, we are stupid for thinking he's stupid because, you know, it's like deniability: 'ah, well, we can't blame him, he's just some poor shmock who got put in there because of his daddy ...' That is so not true. These guys are brilliant. They're fooling us all.

*) "For while an intelligent man can convincingly act like an idiot, an idiot will never pass as an intelligent man. Thus, an academy award should be handed to George Bush Jr. for his wonderful eight year performance as the bumbling fool of politics. And, if you don't understand why the room full of media members are laughing at this horrific and callous display by Mr. Bush, it's because they are in on the joke!
They are laughing at you!
They fooled you once ... shame on you. And they fooled you twice, so ... you won't get fooled again (at least I hope not after reading this)."

@ 36 min) The major problem is transparency.

@ 40 min) This is something that I have not been able to really comprehend. I've asked Walter about this, and it's one of the things that I intend to do in the second part to The Corporation Nation, where I'll take all these questions that people ask me and I can't answer. Walter, when I ask him, he gets angry, because that's usually the question people ask where he doesn't have an answer. You know, like he said, 'people think of this shadowy elite that are pulling all the strings', and that very well may be. But essentially, what he'll tell you that it doesn't matter. That you've got the evidence of crime right in front on your face, you know where the money is because of the CAFR. Let's not focus on who is pulling the strings, let's focus on taking it back.
Angela) OK, but we need to hold them accountable.
Clint) Oh sure. But how you gonna do that right now? You can't do that.
But: If you would had implement his system, what would happen is all of those books, all those money trails, all of that information would suddenly be completely open. Transparent. You would see what was happening. But [...] I can () here and say that the Zionists are responsible, I can () here and say that the Vatican is responsible. I can tell you ... I have an article here that shows that the Queen through parlament changed our social security system, alright? I mean I can tell you all kinds of things like that, but can I do anything about it? And so the best answer I have to that question, because I don't have the answer, is, let's not focus on that because we can't do anything about it. What we have here is evidence. We have evidence of massive cover-up and crime by these corporations that are acting in government, and we need to stop it and we need to take it back.

@ 44 min) The best way I can relay what Walter says is, it's really not about that. I don't know if there is necessarily a set of people who are holding the shares. What it really is, and this is so important to understand, is what's become of our society and what's become of our work force and our sense of integrity. And work ethic has been replaced by greed, corruption, usury. [...] The problem is not that we () some group of people doing this. The problem is that if you get involved in a corporation, you get involved in a job, you will get farther, you will get ahead only if you lie, cheat and steal. So what we're talking about here is not a bunch of rich fat cats, we're talking about a whole group of people who see opportunity. Because it's easy money.

@ 58 min) Well, that's kind of what I was referring to is like people don't even think about the jobs they are doing anymore, they just do it. They don't think 'oh, this is really corrupt, I shouldn't be doing this.'
No one has the crisis of conscience that I was referring to
Usury is just natural to people and that's what needs to stop.
This will really gonna bake your noodle, actually – and again, some of you might know this, but – one thing we can't do, unfortunately, is fight this in any type of ordinary way, because here is one of the worst things that I found out, and that was just recently ...

@ 62 min) My worst fear is probably not that they're gonna kill me but that they're gonna put me in some kind of institution, where they let me rot. You know, I'm one of these rare people that ... at this point, I have no fear. I've got no children, I've got no family, essentially. I decided that I have to do this and I'm gonna keep doing this until a bullit goes in my head, essentially. And it's gonna get worse, because the things I'm about to uncover here they're gonna blow your mind. I mean, if you think the CAFR thing is big wait till you see some of the next stuff. [...]
It's gonna be an interesting ride, so wish me luck.

@ 84 min) Transparency is the absolute solution.

@ 87 min) Think of it this way: You've heard the phrase 'all the world's a stage', right? Well, think of government as a very very well-orchestrated entertaining play, where we sit in front of our TVs and we watch these guys battle it out. We think that the Democrats hate the Republicans, we think the Republicans hate the Democrats, but really they go to dinner at night and talk about their families. They are best friends because they are in on the whole thing. There is no opposite side. There is no one party fighting against the other. It's all a charade.
So, if you think of this whole thing as nothing but a big play where we're watching these people, you know, try to fight for our rights and try to fight for everything that's good, and keep America strong, and all these little terms that they throw at us – it's all fake, okay? The reality of the situation – believe your eyes, believe what is written in their own reports. These reports say it all. And once you learn to start reading them and you go through enough of them you find out that every darn government out there owns more money, has more money hidden in funds that you can possibly imagine. [...] Just remember, it's not about the money as much as it is about ownership, okay? Ownership is the key.

cca) That was one of the deepest and completest radio interviews I've ever heard, Clint, at all.
Thanks, man, for this tremendous inspiration! Also an impressive validation of some of my own key considerations from another research background.
The personality of the corporation corrupts everybody's personality, but that's exactly what the corporation was designed for. Based on which model? The brotherhood, of course, a mafia company of absolute loyal spiritual soldiers – loyalty in the sense of its founder Saint Ignatius of Loyola as military allegiance meaning blind obedience. In my opinion, the corporation is the magic wood ("Magic Ones were always made out of the wood of a holy tree, was made out of holy wood, and we're still seeing the magic of the wood of the holy tree: Hollywood, motion pictures, television." Jordan Maxwell) that made the whole society of Western civilization (and finally the entire world) a Society of Jesus.

My proposal of what could be done about the situation "right now" would be to combine Walter Burien's idea of a transparency bank as the core element and foundation of a new kind of democratic synchronicity network of real mediators instead of opinion-makers, as it has been initiated by Jon Stewart over six years ago ("You could create a paradigm of a media organization that is geared towards 'No Bullshit'. And do it actively. And stop pretending that we don't know what's going on. And stop pretending that it's a right-left question. I don't buy that the world is divided into bi-chromatic thought like that.") and already put in place in its original form since, I believe, four years through "Mr. 9/11 Synchronicity" Richard 'There Is No Freedom Without Cognitive Liberty' Grove. And those arbiters have to deserve their role in a cooperative as well as competitive way, which probably will become one of the most dangerous job advertisements at all, because by doing so they probably would develop their new profession towards being the most direct counterpart some day of those Roman knights at the very top whose piety politics got us into this trouble and rule all Corporatist hierarchies from there, but maybe only in the beginning – who knows.

April 9, 2011

My conversation with Max

04/11'11 My conversation with Max – chapter two

David Icke on 08/26'07:

"Alex Jones, Alan Watt, Greg Szymanski and others, including the Unhived Mind website (most users ever online was 131 on March 11, 2011), communicate some extremely valuable information, especially Alex and his team with their high profile in the US, and I wish them all well in their work. I just ask them to consider the fact that they, like all of us, do not know everything there is to know – nothing like. [...] So let's just chill out and allow each other to follow the path we choose to take and unite behind what we agree on instead of being divided by what we don't.

[Another irony is that Alan Watt agrees with Alex Jones about the Reptilian connection, but seems to resent what he calls the 'superstars' of conspiracy research, apparently Alex and myself, because they commit the cardinal sin of being well known and therefore able to communicate to a large potential audience. Watt, by keeping a much lower profile, is more credible, see, because 'they' wouldn't let the 'superstars' get to so many people unless we were in their pay, his whirring psyche concludes.
It gets even more complicated when you see Alex Jones named as an 'agent of Rome' on the Unhived Mind website, partly on the grounds that he allegedly won't allow the Roman Church connection to be discussed on his show. But the same people dub me an agent of Rome when I have been talking and writing about that connection for years. Go figure.]

I have met as many closed minds in the 'conspiracy research community' as I have in the general population. They are just closed to different things, that's all.
Of course, people should question everything and everyone, including me, but that is no use at all to establishing the truth unless that questioning is done with an open mind.
If it is done from the perspective of a person's prevailing belief system all that happens is that those who don't fit the belief system in what they do and say are immediately dismissed or condemned.
That is not questioning, it is being a slave to preconceived belief.

I saw a wonderful example of this in an article in the London Daily Mail by a Melanie Phillips in support of Judeo-Christianity and attacking Professor Richard Dawkins, a 'rational scientist' who has been bashing religion for years along with any suggestion of life after death.
He has now made two television programmes bashing alternative healing methods, psychics etc., and this was the peg for the Phillips article.
Dawkins is actually a professional basher addicted to rubbishing other peoples' lifestyles and ideas.
I have debated with him at the Oxford Union at Oxford University and it is like being addressed by a wall. Nor, on that occasion at least, have I often witnessed such a poor presenter of his case or a more arrogant piece of work. I found him a very strange man indeed."

Modern militarized Corporate Feudalism

Now, you can take David's philosophy (or maybe piety – we will see) or take any other more or less popular "conspiracy theorist" alive or dead like the mentioned ones plus JFK, Jordan Maxwell, Frank O'Collins, Henry Makow, Terry Melanson, Tupper Saussy, Carroll Quigley, Jim Billington, C.T. Wilcox, The Informer, Craig Oxley, Samuel Morse, "The Talented Mr. Tarpley", Gerhard Wisnewski, Paul von Hoensbroech, simply anyone you know of, including Richard and his Peace Revolution partners, and how they stream their opinions, for some reason every single conspiracy researcher is solely focussed on the alleged conspiracy of elitist circles of the chosen and initiated without even pondering for a second why these supposedly oh so evil rulers have such an overwhelming fan following. All private pc web investigators who are thinking in conspiratorial termes seem to be exclusively interested in those who actually do rule, who do occupy the highest ranks in the offices (room for officers) of the hierarchy of modern militarized Corporate Feudalism, and totally ignorant about those who a) want to rule too, who want to be part of this modernized and globalized Egyptoid system of church and state and b) those who simply want to be ruled, you know.
And although no conspiracy believer shows the slightest interest in the mentality of those who want to be ruled, almost everyone of them surmises to have present himself as their spokesperson, right? So if that's not extremely onesided, illusory, nonscientific and romantic I don't know.

While you may think it would help to demonize the chief professional traumatisicians, like Eric Phelps and most of his followers do with the Jesuit, the Maltese, and other Catholic Knights, or like your instant water heater Alex Jones, who should be crowned as world champion in disintegration of information, uses his conspiracy business with a widely faceless global elite for, I'll show you that's not the case. On the contrary, it's probably the most contra-productive move ever a conspiracy teacher or preacher can do. It surely does not help at all because those top-level ultra liars and absolute sociopaths are only your second problem, your first problem is your neighborhood who had been fallen for them, now being in thrall to them, and you will make your neighbors even more furious by demonizing their fathlerly idols and favorites from all cultural spheres (authors, singers, scientists, actors, journalists, politicians etc. – all the "fastest nimble sheeps"), you see?
So it's a matter of principle where you can choose whatever you want as an example, alright?

"He exposes a fake political paradigm" – that's true – by replacing it with another paradigm which is as much as a fake, and as the result of the whole "9/11" terror and "truth" campaign we have now two big opinion parties who are fighting each other their preprogrammed battle of conspiracy theory to all eternity like the political parties do their little dialectical dance theatre every day. If the T-Rex Alex was on target in his investigation about the "extraterrestrial" metamorphosis from skyscrapers into city volcanos within seconds you weren't left with much unanswered questions, I guess. Now, do you know who planned and did it and why it was absolutely necessary after the rising of the cyberspace made the entire confrontation between the two military blocs of the East and the West "suddenly" obsolete? Okay then, tell me.

Max) The way I see Alex Jones is a bit like a business model, he obliviously made some deals with some precious metals dealers and probably have some kind of a arrangement with Ron Paul. The owner of the station sell coins. I'm aware of that, but I guess he have made some deals and he is comfortable with that.
As a information source I value him a top quality (miles better than corporate media). I wonder what fake paradigm Alex Jones is pushing.

I roughly agree with the following people:
David Icke: 89%
Allan Watt: 93%
Alex Jones: 93%
Sovereign Independent: 93%
Webster Tarpley: 93%
Vigilant Citizen: 90%
Peter Joseph and the Venus thing: 33%
James Corbett: 97%
On 9/11 Jim Hoffman: 97%

I don't see him as a prophet, but a valuable source of information, with his quality vastly offset his less good stuff.

Liz) I agree with your observations Max ... Years ago when Rich first started listening to Alex Jones we learned a lot from his radio show and his films, but I personally felt his presentation of the information was full of fear (and I felt stress and anxiety when I listened to his rants) ... and one of the reasons that Rich started creating his own podcasts was to present the information in a fear-free environment and to present the solutions which empower people (i.e. to learn our way out of our problems with cooperative learning, critical thinking and creative problem solving) ...
Alex does his best and if we see a place where he can improve, then it's up to us to create something which reflects that improvement (or, be the change we wish to see reflected in the world) ...
I personally feel appreciative that Alex does his show and creates his films, because his work (especially the short-comings) in part, led us down the path which inspired the creation of T&H :)

tt) Hey, nice answer, Max, great!
Was it your own idea or have you read my conversation with Tom before?
Because that's exactly what I was referring to with the greater idea behind Jon Stewart's recommendation for a media revolution (or at least for a new kind of media company) at a morning pint in New York City in autumn 2004.

The engine unit of the election process for the top journalists on the web

Your numbers of how much you take the interpretations and conclusions, the opinions and standpoints, and finally the worldviews and philosophies – theology: philosophies of God as Soul of a society, as kind of the social spirit of a certain type of civilization – of your, I guess, chief sources of information for real could be the rough sketch for future election polls. Not the ones for administrative representatives, the party politicians, but the far more important ones for media analysis representatives, the media politicians. And this is not abstract thinking, this happens already on a massive scale.
And the engine unit of this process can be described with Ted Wodoslawsky's accurate realization:

"When someone's world view is mirrored back to them, they don't see it as a biased opinion."

Which would explain the high approval ratings from you and why you can see the fake paradigm of the Corporate media landscape, but not the paradigm of a conspiracy believer.

You know what, let's take "fake" aside and replace it with "political", alright? Just to make it a little bit easier for me to do "my job as piety profiler" ... What if I would say that Alex Jones as the probably most popular conspiracy monger in America (and in the world, through "9/11") does basically the same what the big media corporations are doing day by day – totally unbelievable? But he actually does, in my opinion.
You know, I agree that he has a lot of top quality informations and your statement "I don't see him as a prophet, but a valuable source of information, with his quality vastly offset his less good stuff" is also fine with me.

Now, Richard said in August 2010

"Propaganda is everywhere. Every documentary, every film you've ever seen is a piece of propaganda, technically, because it's trying to propagate a view, it's trying to propagate certain pieces of information. It may claim to be objective, It may actually be near that goal, but at the end of the day, every single piece of media is a piece of propaganda. The only question is, is it helping you to expand your consciousness or is it working to suppress your consciousness?
Is it helping you to express who you are or is it working to suppress and tell you who you are?"

and I assume you think that T-Rex Alex is, in any case, one of them who do help to expand your perceptiveness and awareness. But is this really the case?

Fact of the matter is, he exclusively provides informations that fit in his believe system.
And I know enough examples where he has denied serious critiques from different directions, most often accompanied by personal attacks that were fiercely driven, you know, like inquisitors would react on objections.
In other words, he basically ignores the pool of information that the Corporate media are basing their convictions on (and vice versa), and he also vehemently throws out everything that lies behind his horizon of perception.
Meaning a) he only helps your consciousness to expand into the grid square of his beliefs and b) he is, instead of being a true mediator, as a self-declared "infowarrior" just another media politician and as such the perfect formidable opponent for the Corporate media officers to put in scene an endless play about what's real and what not.

Corporatism as life-style and ideology

Look, we have the Corporate "9/11 Terror" paradigm where "Everything is OK" ('but we have to erect a gapless surveillance system against terrorism from the inside' etc.) and we have the "9/11 Truth" conspiracy paradigm where more or less nothing is okay anymore. And by filtering out informations antagonistically, those two mainstreams generate this tremendous post-"9/11" dialectical maelstrom where everybody inevitably gets lost in the end. In my eyes, it's the same piety-strategical game as letting the political Left fighting the Right, you know, with the necessary amount of theatricality, of course, by the means of media politics now. Accomplished by the success of "9/11" and now controlled through the main protagonists of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Both sides integrate and desintegrate informations like they want to instead of synchronistically comprehend the undiminished, uncensored data volume.
So I think the business model of Mr. Jones is basically to embody the role of "the Rush Limbaugh of the conspiracy party", and his anticipated limbaughisms ought to be the reason why Liz and many others see him as a fearmongering propagandist. Although I'm not convinced that Alex is doing his best in enlightening the public, I can find it understandable when the Counter-Reformation feels like a conspiracy.
Here is why I believe it is not.

Take, for instance, Ray McGovern, a Jesuit-trained CIA top agent, who was presenting the morning intelligence briefings at the White House for more than ten years ("from the JFK administration to that of G.H.W. Bush"), now a widely accepted leading figure in the truth movement. He was a poor kid from the Bronx. Now, do you think the whole mafia system of Corporate Capitalism looks to him like a conspiracy? Probably not, right?
Because the corporatocracy is only seen as a conspiracy by those who haven't internalized the spirit of Corporatism during their upcoming. For everyone else it's just simply a business model, which means a model to live after. Look at holy Hollywood: mafia movies are among the most beloved ones.
While Richard's research is focussed on the ubiquity of commerce, for me as a "piety theorist" the ubiquity of the mafia mentality is a little bit more important, even though you can't really separate the two.

And I tell you on this occasion why I have to stay anonymous with thoughts like this for the moment:
The high priests of this Corporatist system, the highest initiated into the "conspiracy", if you will, can handle any kind of conspiracy philosophy, conspiracy psychology, or conspiracy sociology and so forth – that's their innermost playground, so to speak – but I don't see any chance so far how they could possibly be able to stop you from clearing out the most sacred treasure chamber of these managers of pieties, which is, of course, their portfolio, so to speak, of "castles of piety".

Therefore my percentage of approval rate for researchers like Icke, Watt, Tarpley and any other conspiracy preacher lies by about "39, 43, and 43%" ... you get my drift?
Your idea to list the topics one covers is also pretty useful.
And you doesn't meant "obliviously", but obviously, right? Thanks for your inspiration, I totally appreciate this.

Max) As for the people who want to be ruled, I think a significant number of them are the result of a multi-generational indoctrination via the school system and the mind control/propaganda/culture. I can't imagine that they really want to be slaves (at least a large portion of them), also I agree to some extent to the farm analogy.

tt) True, Max. This corresponds almost completely with the opening of WYBM

"For thousands of years, the few have used knowledge as power to control the many and profit from their ignorance. Over hundreds of generations, the masses have outsourced their thinking and unquestioningly consumed products of deception. Today, as a result, the non-elected rulers continue to persuade us to adopt their limited perspectives. This series resurrects your ... and so on.

and I would subscribe to that without hesitating. But what the conspiracy theory has been missing at this juncture is to dig a little deeper, to say it politely.
You supposedly feel it yourself how vaguely you can make a point about the – let's say – psychology of the herd.
Conspiracy theory appears to me not to be that much interested in the whole picture, rather mostly in everything that proves its thesis of the existence of a conspiracy of cultural proportions. Conspiratologists pay nearly all their attention to the hierarchies of power, forgetting thereby that it is as much as important, if not even more, to understand the foundation of such hierarchies, which are the people who carry and feed them.
So end of story here, right? But at this point the piety theorist get just started ...

April 4, 2011

Jarett Sanchez

Learning the Trivium


A decent talk by Mortimer Adler at the National Press Club on the Great Books of the Western World

The Underground Grammarian Richard Mitchell
"Everyone here should become familiar with Mitchell's work. He's a top notch thinker which makes following his arguments fruitful, and he is actually funny as hell!"

C-Realm Podcast # 245 "Here's a juicy refutation (of sorts) of Zeitgeist – Moving Forward.
I think all Zeitgeist fans should consider the value of these arguments against Joseph and Fresco's TechnoUtopia."

Understanding Misunderstandings: How to do a rhetorical analysis by Trish Roberts-Miller

Rhetoric 101: A Primer for Rhetoric Students

tt = Tosco T.) "Discern persuasive elements in communication between parties" ...
Aren't we a little bit further than that yet, Jarett?

"To put it positively, ego-istic unfoldment and alter-istic development are expressible in an 'argument'-form, drawing on many points as many premises to clinch and close off with a single conclusion. In contrast, mutual thinking together does not argue but play with arguments, back and forth, brainstorming together, reciprocally provoking new ideas and standpoints, and having fun doing so. It is this process of playing with arguments, among others, that typifies thinking together. Such togetherness-thinking is a sort of music-making. Music is created by three parties, the composer, the performer(s), and the audience, mutually dependent. Composer, performer(s), and audience always act and behave in terms of the music and for nothing else. Lacking in either one, there would be no music."
Kuang-Ming Wu 1998: On the "Logic" of Togetherness – A Cultural Hermeneutic (p. 133)

Jarett) I'm not sure what you mean, Tosco.
tt) You'll find out, Jarett, no problem, because I think we will keep in touch with each other ...
It's harder to explain than to practice, you know, so I take a pass on this definition, alright? For now, at least.
Or let's say not before we are in agreement about that other definition :)

Jarett) This is what I was referring to:

"Discern persuasive elements in communication between parties" ...
Aren't we a little bit further than that yet, Jarett?

Perhaps you misunderstood the reason I posted that link. It's because many people are attracted to this critical thinking meme but aren't sure what to do about it.
Rhetoric puts you in direct contact with critical thinking skills.
I understand, I think, your intentions in posting the quote, let me rephrase. We're not seeking merely to find out if someone is persuading us, but rather to combine our arguments together to form a greater, cohesive understanding. That is something I completely am for, as evidenced by my podcast, The Next Step (world cafe, wisdom councils, etc). It just doesn't have anything to do with beginning to learn rhetoric.
Aristotle said rhetoric was the ability to detect persuasion in speech acts and for the most part, I agree.
Aristotelian rhetoric is where most people begin their learning of rhetoric, as it's a solid foundation, and then they learn about the many other schools of rhetorical thought and technique. Essentially, though, rhetoric boils down to analysis of a presentation as well as able composition of a presentation – usually for the ends of persuasion to lesser and greater degrees. Even right now as we chat back and forth on here, we are subtly attempting to persuade each other of the truth of our own ideas. Think about it if it's not immediately apparent to you.
Rhetoric is used almost every time a human being consciously speaks.
Even something like running late at the office and you have to catch an elevator whose doors are closing. If you merely mumble sarcastically to hold the door open, the people inside the elevator might not either hear you or even take you seriously. But if you exclaim that you need that door open and have the look of urgency on your face, they will react quickly. This is an example of the rhetorical canon of delivery.

tt) Perhaps I did, but I don't think so. And I'm glad you bring this up because it seems to be another great starting point for an online correspondence between us in which I would be very interested.
At this moment, I don't know anything about your podcast series or your writings, I'm just going with my intuition here. That alone let me rain on your parade a little bit, because I have this distinct feeling that the old-school thinking alone, you know the Aristotelian way of knowledge processing and knowledge transfer, couldn't be the ultimate key to the 9/11 Synchronicity treasure room, if you can guess what I'm up to with that.
I mean it helped a lot in times of the Renaissance and it also helps a lot today, with the new electronic communication environment nevertheless, it's no longer on the height of the time, in my opinion. And here is why.
"Discern the persuasive elements in communication between two parties" was taken from the Rhetoric 101 website, and to quote someone with "in contrast, mutual thinking together does not argue but play with arguments" as an answer to the notion that "rhetoric was the ability to detect persuasion in speech acts" doesn't match the topic of focus, I think. But it really is this "usually for the ends of persuasion to lesser or greater degrees" bit that could become our bone of contention, since it is one of the most fundamental questions that we need clarity about.

"Even right now as we chat back and forth on here, we are subtly attempting to persuade each other of the truth of our own ideas. Think about it if it's not immediately apparent to you."

True. I absolutely admit it. But you know what's also true?

The more I get used to what the job of a piety profiler possibly could be, the more I'm kind of losing that urge to convince others to share my feelings, my thoughts, my beliefs, and so on. Really. I really don't need it anymore, and I really don't want it anymore too. Because if you are going to develope a sense for your counterpart's entirety of processed knowledge, you know – you can also say: his horizon of perception (if there is one) – single arguments start to lose their weight, start to lose their importance for you. And finally I think you will come to a point where it sounds like a very good idea to keep every attempt (as well as every temptation) to persuade each other as subtle as possible, to literally put it into the background, to make it not apparent deliberately. You then focus more on an exchange of personality than that you know better and so forth. You try to develop understanding together with somebody instead against someone's particular world view or momentary mood or both.
There is, of course, a lot more to say about it, the bottom line though is to gain a better perspective, a higher perspective in the sense Richard Grove had stated that "the only war that has ever existed is the war on consciousness." And not only for you, but for you and your interlocutor – even it's a Jesuit :)

For example, I mainly comment on passages of text or excerpts of audio recording and video footage that give me occasion to explore some of the half-baked thoughts that I'm already carrying with me for a while. So I use these little correspondences and my comment journal not so much for arguing but rather to integrate information and to nail let's say parts of my unconscious down into conscious speech. In general, I think the cyberspace has at the individual as well as the community level a considerable if not big amount of psychedelic characteristics that could soften this frontier between the big unconscious and our little instruments of logical analysis and grasp to a yet unknown degree. The search for accuracy itself can be an enormous help in collecting one truth at a time (the more complex, the better, the more clear, the better), and why not trying to combine the philosophical with the psychedelic side of life ... Do you think I digress? Fact is, a career Jesuit studies philosophy first, theology second. *) And all theology in my eyes is basically the conquest of the supremacy of interpretation over the dreamworld and the romantic nature of the human soul with means of linguistics.

So although I appreciate your statement as being excellent, I mean it's colorful, it's clear (clear like the Crystal Lake?), but not sufficient, I'm afraid. Something seemed fishy and it does it now too. Maybe a little too much old-school, or not too old enough school, I don't know. However, as one of the biggest 9/11 Synchronicity questions, we have to consider why trivium-trained Rhodes Scholars and other Ivy League academics do form such a monolithic and ruthless body of corrupted and controlled intellectuality, so that we uninitiated, who were excluded from this elite education, are now left fighting their ethics and loyalties, right?

*) 03/07'11 An Unholy Alliance: "Be that as it may, the Libyan dictator donated to Farrakhan's Nation of Islam in 1984 a $5 million interest-free loan which was secured with the assistance of Wright, Obama's preacher at the time. The purpose was apparently to help create civil unrest, which Gadhafi knows (better than many Americans) is fomented by 'preachers' who pipe the dangerous Marxist message of 'Black Liberation Theology'. It is Marxism first, 'theology' second with this crowd."

The German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk wrote in one of his widely ridiculous books ("Zorn und Zeit"): "Rhetorik – als Kunstlehre der Affektlenkung in politischen Ensembles – ist angewandte Thymotik." (Rhetoric – as aesthetics of steering affects in political ensembles – is applied thymotics.) See also: "The Blogora"

Jarett) Well the thing is that learning rhetoric puts you into contact directly with the old understandings of what rhetoric is. And no matter what, we're almost always trying to persuade in conversation. That does not mean we think we're better ... but rather that we're trying to attain understanding by presenting what we're already understanding. A truly educated person would then realize they could be quite wrong and so listens to what the other person has to say intently and openly. Aristotelian rhetoric is the most popular because Aristotle was a genius, but it doesn't mean he knew everything, either.
I'm into permaculture and all that, so I don't think every time you talk to someone you're directly trying to manipulate them into your belief system, that you should be just open to them and not looking for persuasion in their speech. But again, when applying rhetorical skills, identification of persuasion is a huge part of the game, although not the only. I personally think Aristotle's definition, as per those websites listed above, is incomplete or inadequate to explain all the varied ways in which rhetoric is used.
Isocrates is another great rhetorical teacher to look into.

tt) "The old understandings" – exactly!
Or let's say the traditional way of generating civility.
But all civility that we know of has a very strong military touch, and the reason why "war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means" can, in my opinion, be found behind this shimmering veneer of sensationalist conspiracy theory: which is the fact that, despite all this professional theatricality around apparent democratic proceedings, there is a pretty monolithic, very bureaucratic, quasi-monarchic structure in power inside this culture that makes politics a military instrument in the first place.
And belligerent persuasion-oriented rhetoric is the way this system operates,

Maybe we're already about to discuss a new definition of rhetoric here that takes this completely new cybertronic communication environment into consideration. You said combining arguments had nothing to do with learning rhetoric. Why actually? Because we have to start with Aristotle and his preacher teacher collegues?
Are you, for instance, aware of the similarities in the habits of ancient Greek philosophers, Roman senators and Catholic cardinals? And not only with regard to boy's love ... Their educational principles are still the foundation of our modern "republican" "9/11" corporation civilization, and I'm simply thinking, in a political landscape, dialectically fragmented on purpose, and a public, managed by controlled controversies, it wouldn't be the most clever course of action to focus on the old-school approach of rhetoric, you know.

My imagination of "a truly educated person" is of course somebody who stands above all offers at the piety market and doesn't find it necessary to argue about certain single statements anymore, but rather with the whole spectrum of what gives a personality its identity by acknowledging that particular opinions are just expressions and part of it, you see?

A good exercise for getting a new sense for rhetoric under cyberspace conditions could possibly be to ask yourself on which occasions you feel pressured most into commenting someone else's comment(s) on the web. In my case, it's totally obvious that inspiration is the big prime mover of this reformation wave that's coming out of the computer networks, mutual inspiration at best.
So, in my eyes, if "essentially, though, rhetoric boils down to analysis of a presentation as well as able composition of a presentation – usually for the ends of persuasion to lesser and greater degrees," such kind of definition loses its attractiveness, to say the least, since persuasion is out-competed by inspiration.
In other words, I'm no longer interested in what you are convinced of, but what food for thought you can give me on the basis of "your pulsating ellipse of cohesive understanding" ... :)

Jarett) You're continuing your use of the Fallacy of Composition when you say: "this culture that makes politics a military instrument in the first place. And belligerent persuasion-oriented rhetoric is the way this system operates, okay?" Rhetoric is just as available to the middle class as it is the upper, although we have to work harder for it.
You choose to focus on the misuse of rhetoric, especially by invoking the use of war by states, and then label all rhetorics as evil. This is purely faulty logic in your argument, and in a place where openly questioning the logic of an argument is fair game!

"The old understandings" – exactly! Are you aware of what the old understandings of rhetoric are?
Here's a synopsis of some of the major threads, which is to say, not all schools of rhetoric were identical.
So right away you can understand persuasion in a perhaps more fuller context.
You're just talking about rhetoric like you know what it is in full. I do not have such knowledge, so I point to how rhetoric arose, was developed and was understood in the past, as well as in modern times where rhetoric is not solely focused upon influencing the public conversation.

"persuasion is out-competed by inspiration" I think your definition of persuasion is perhaps limited and can be expanded by actually studying rhetoric, as opposed to inviting me to look at your entire personality and to not bother thinking about your opinions.
It seems you become uncomfortable when your opinions are questioned.
I think that the most available means we have for evolving our relationships, both personal and public, is through conversation, questioning, listening, and being open to new understandings that can arise. Persuasion in this context is not about you being right, but about you being able to communicate whatever ideas it is you have in the best manner possible given your innate talents and time spent in practice of a method. Like the words rhetoric and propaganda, persuasion has many shades of meaning with the negative connotations being the most commonly used.

I also disagree with your definition of a "truly educated person" although I do not offer any complete definition myself. I think it's very silly for those of us so uneducated as we are to begin forming very strong opinions on that matter. In modern times we do not have many strong public examples, although Mortimer Adler certainly seems the most prominent in the field.
And also, what is the definition of "educated" in this conversation? That's a crucial term.

"and doesn't find it necessary to argue about certain single statements anymore, but rather with the whole spectrum of what gives a personality its identity by acknowledging that particular opinions are just expressions and part of it" So, if you have a neighbor whom is a really nice guy all around, but yet whom makes comments occasionally that Mexicans are a race of idiots, do you still hold to your practice of just looking at the whole of a person and resist all attempts to question certain single statements?
How do you judge which statements to question, then, if certain statements are off limits?

Essentially, it seems you are looking at, or rather, intuiting, some greater uses for rhetoric, but I think you're making the error of "throwing the baby out with the bath water."

April 1, 2011

My conversation with Tom

Synchronicity Whisperweb

My conversation with Tom
Why corporate journalism is goverment journalism resp.
why Mike and Matt Taibbi, for instance, work for the state corporation as its agents

Wikipedia on Indonesia:
"The government takes control of the state corporation under one single ministry, the Ministry of State Enterprises act like the CEO of a holding company. Some of the government-owned corporations are ..."

And apropos Indonesia (@ 21 min):

William) Toy is a bad word because, as I said, they killed million and millions of people.

Harold) Millions?

William) Oh sure. In the revolution in Indonesia, where the CIA played a major role in fomenting, millions of people were killed. So millions is not an overstate, there is no question about that.
But it's more than just the casualties in the overt wars: Generally, because the mission is to support the American commercial apparatus and the multinational corporations and so on, you will end up having the CIA as an instrument keeping oligopolies in power in almost every country where they operate. And what that will generally mean is that the majority of the people, sometimes the vast majority of the people in those countries live in misery so that the companies and organizations that support the government that we keep in power can do well.
So while the CIA's mission in that country might not be make the lifes of 90 percent of the people miserable, what they do will have the effect of making the lifes of 90 percent of the people miserable.

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?

Hey Tommy, do you remember our little chat some days ago?

You know, I asked you how much you actually were decentralized to possibly get an entrance to your webspace from you and then we spoke about half an hour with each other about several things. I mean, I don't recall everything that came to our minds that day but what's important for me was that short exchange of ideas on what could be done in this situation today, what could be a real exit or a good starting point for a solution here and now. You suggested the nationalization of the central banks (and something else which has escaped my mind unfortunately), while I said something like what we need above all is a media revolution, right? Those were, in my understanding, our best shots, so to speak, right? The basic outcome one could say of your research over the last years and mine. But there is a little more to it from my side that I'd like to share with you and the "synchronicity whisperweb" members with the intent to hear your and everyone else's thoughts on this, what probably could be seen as kind of a middle way or trade-off between our differing positions. Okay, here it comes.

From my piety-oriented point of view, Richard's project of intellectually outgrowing the cabal of the top culture creators, his aim of jointly unmasking the strategy of the top social engineers is only realistic through a fundamental media revolution: a fundamental shift from the current purposefully controversial, confusion-instigating, dialectically fragmented chaos-causing nature of corporate and conspiracy media towards a strictly intercepting, clearly and consequently mediating, consciously unspectacular general focus that is first and foremost or better solely dedicated to produce basic understanding, well-grounded understanding, which means it should be replicable from all sorts of perspectives and standpoints as well as applicable by everybody, in principle.
Just to be absolutely clear, nothing is realistic without de-corporatized, de-bureaucratized, de-militarized media.
And I think we have to find out yet what exactly belongs to such a concept of generating mutual thinking together.

"To put it positively, ego-istic unfoldment and alter-istic development are expressible in an 'argument'-form, drawing on many points as many premises to clinch and close off with a single conclusion. In contrast, mutual thinking together does not argue but play with arguments, back and forth, brainstorming together, reciprocally provoking new ideas and standpoints, and having fun doing so. It is this process of playing with arguments, among others, that typifies thinking together.
Such togetherness-thinking is a sort of music-making.

Music is created by three parties, the composer, the performer(s), and the audience, mutually dependent. Composer, performer(s), and audience always act and behave in terms of the music and for nothing else. Lacking in either one, there would be no music."
Kuang-Ming Wu 1998: On the "Logic" of Togetherness – A Cultural Hermeneutic

Now, in 2009, I had this inspiration that maybe the biggest revolutionary shift in human history that could happen in 2012 was when the first Freeman on the Land would open his own bank, you know, and I left that notion as a commentary on The Investigative Journal, where Greg Szymanski, who by the way had interviewed Walter Burien yet eight years ago or so, was promoting John Harris by republishing his It's An Illusion lecture.
Then, some day in 2010, it hit me: What would if you had a bank which is completely transparent? And I mean not only transparent to its customers but transparent to all sides, transparent to anybody. Because, you know, to the rulers that be, the untouchable top managers of the main streams of public opinion (being thereby the rulers of the minds – something like the Exerzitienmeister (spiritual director) or superior auditor of the spirit or the soul of a certain society, who as well as, of course, rule over the bodies, constituting the economic dimension of life), all bank accounts of every registered, state-owned citizen are already transparent for years, if not centuries, and that globally. So why not making financial assets in the same way public on the web like we do it already with our convictions or learning processes via online diaries, community forums and all kinds of virtual playgrounds.
A lot of ideas are whirling around in cyberspace right now, Servan Keondjian's is just one of them.
And last weekend then I discovered the in my eyes "absolutely fabulous" Clint Richardson with his excellent Corporation Nation interviews, where among a lot of other things the following was to be found.

From the same broadcast as above @ 2 min – Richardson on the question "What can you do to take action?")

My first instinct is to refer people to Walter Burien. Now, if you go to CAFR1.com, Walter puts his phone number on the website and he feeds calls from anybody who wants to call him because he's looking for someone who will start what he calls a "Tax Retirement Fund", which is basically modelled after the pension fund idea but with total transparency and laws that say [...] the idea behind would be to lessen the amount of government employees and basically to reward government employees [...] for saving money and for downsizing government as much as possible and investing all this money into the economy, and the local economy specifically.
And there will be laws because people would vote on this so it would become law. And then the law would state that a certain percentage has to go to local companies, local economy, whatever they take. And what we are talking about here is laws that make everything completely transparent. So if someone does something even remotely sneaky or transfers funds without accounting for it, they're out like that. Not only are they out, they're in federal prison for extortion and theft. I mean, that's how serious this guy is. Walter was a commodity trading advisor, one of the top traders in Wallstreet, so he knows the market like the back of his hand. I highly, highly recommend anybody who has questions to call him and really just dig into it.
If you are not familiar with some of the trading terms, you're gonna have to ask a lot of questions, but this guy is the preeminent expert in Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and it's where I learned the basics. Now, in order to get the actual real concept how much money we are talking which is at least 100, if not 200, 300 trillion dollars in investments across the country. I mean that's more money than anybody can possibly imagine really.

Suddenly it turnes out that the leading (illuminative) expert on the exact mode of operation of the Corporation Nation works on the same idea ... Bingo! But where he thinks about a suitable design for direct economic intervention I am more interested in a movement-oriented application, you know. Not necessarily in a strict political "truth movement", but rather in a general media movement or better media integration movement with the main political implication of de-corporatizing the memestreams of public opinion. In fact, I believe, if we don't find a way to stop this post-"9/11" maelstrom of two antagonistically spinning main opinion streams, we will never have a chance to prevent the world-wide implementation of satellite-aided microchip implants, as their ultimate goal, according to Aaron Russo, with a Jesuit "Litvinenko option" for unlimited and eternal God-like control.

What I'm doing therefore is trying to imagine a transparency bank as the core or the foundation of sort of an accumulative movement of independent, decentralized media entrepreneurs like our "four knights" on Richard's Peace Revolution round table, and wouldn't Richard be the perfect candidate with his professional background in financial and software business to take the lead of such kind of bank-based media aggregation project?

This is where Jon Stewart's recommendation from October 2004 of finding an arbiter (11/11'09) comes in:

"Why can't you hire people that care about the truth? You know them, I know them, they're good. You got people on blogs that are fact-checking as things happen.
Now, some of those people are conspiracy theorists, some of them are really smart. Have somebody at the center of it who can be an arbiter of what's real and what's not. And make that network reactive to the devastating game of strategy that's being played in Washington.
I think it would make a shit-load of money, and not only that, you'd be able to sleep at night."

The greater idea behind this notion of choosing arbiters or mediators in my understanding is the major shift from electing one's favorite administrative representatives (politicians) to elect the top journalists. As I said to Jakob Steen Madsen recently: "Imagine our national top television journalists when we could vote them out of office ..." You know, something along these lines, Tom. See it rather as a first chord in an attempt of music-making in the sense of K.-M. Wu's Logic of Togetherness than an argument of philosophical proportions.

As regards Kenneth's posting on the latest street activism of Charlie Veitch, the first thing I would demonstrate for would be an open debate or let's say serene public talks between guys like Richard Grove, Clint Richardson, Mark Passio, Jan Irvin, Paul Verge, or Brett Veinotte, which I would "put on the chessboard" for a good gambit, so to speak, with "journalisticians", "politicians", "scienticians", or any other kind of "experticians" like Brian Williams, Bill Clinton, Noam Chomsky, for instance, or Van Romero and Philip Zelikow etc., even with Jon Stewart and other corporate comics.
In other words, all self-declared "info warriors" like Alex Jones and his offsprings or blindfolded preachers like Eric Phelps and his followers are nothing more than the flipside or what Stephen Colbert, the "proud tool of Viacom", marked as the "formidable opponent" of the as "*icians" tagged, unmasked opinion makers/propaganda soldiers and therefore almost completely useless, because they mostly have contra-productive effects.

There's much more to say about, but I hope I got my idea across so far, more or less appropriately.

"The United States has changed from a constitutional republic to a corruptocracy.
A corruptocracy is a word that I 'coined' to describe our country. A corruptocracy is any government that was founded on democratic ideals and has a founding document like the U.S. Constitution, but has become corrupt in almost every aspect. The key to understanding a corruptocracy is that the corrupted government continues to pretend that it is a government for all the People."
R. Van Conoley: "400 Americans have the same wealth as 155 million Americans."