tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64384272916928671402024-02-20T08:37:42.079+01:00looking for the arbitersTosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-8980200403329740752011-05-01T09:30:00.006+02:002011-05-05T20:51:40.658+02:00Comments on Clint's Reality Blog<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/911-and-george-bush-for-dummies">04/11'11</a> tt) Skyscrapers that are suddenly erupting like volcanoes ... <br />
"This is how I feel when I try and wake people up." Yeah, man, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. But in a way you don't know yet. For sure. Because what's the use of all your knowledge if nobody is listening to you. <br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/conspiracy-theory-a-state-of-mind">04/19'11</a> -Clint- to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/ronmamita">Ron Mamita:</a> "Well my friend, I think we are on the same page.<br />
<b>The reason I like the idea of Walter's TRF is that it is based on the foundation of lawful (voted by the people) transparency.</b> So if all the books and paper trails were opened to scrutiny, the trail I'm sure would lead to the folks you refer to here as the elite 'cabal'.<br />
But the point I am making is that unless we get that transparency and change the laws, you and I will never be able to gain access to that trail. So I believe we should all be focusing on attaining that privilege by changing the law accordingly. Otherwise, we are beating a dead horse with 9/11, the Rothschilds, elites, etc. ... <b>for we cannot do anything about it or them while the law is not on our side.</b> <br />
I'll be posting a new website soon that will be aimed at changing all of this ... will be up soon. It just might work: <a href="http://clint4p.com">Clint for President</a> You'll get it when you see it!" <br />
<br />
<a href="http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/conspiracy-theory-a-state-of-mind/#comment-6946">05/01'11</a> tt) I like the article, which means I will use your thoughts in it, but you can't really expect to be taken seriously, Clint, if you, on the one hand, elaborate about conspiracy theory as a state of mind (as an ideology or kind of piety) and then, at the same time, preaching the "Jewish World Conspiracy" under the catch-word "Zionism 101" on the other hand, you see? This simply doesn't work. You can't speak of American Feudal fiefdoms and then pass responsibility for this to one particular group, you know. In your case, the Jews. <br />
<br />
<br />
05/02'11 -Clint-: "Take the time to listen to the three hour recording I made after painstaking research located on this blog (Zionism 101).<br />
If you still feel the same way, even after my avid defense of the real Sephardic 'Jews' who are <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA7PI9QWnqI">against Zionism</a> and even Israel (occupied Palestine) then by all means, dismiss this with the 'race card'. If that's what you're supposed to do. You learn to do this from kindergarten. Ignore the fact that <b>Schindler's wife said Spielberg lied about the whole movie.</b> Forget that <b>Anne Frank's diary is a proven fraud in a court of law and written by a famous playwright.</b> Forget all the admitted lies ... <br />
I refuse to be silent about the truth. Understanding CAFRs and Zionism are paramount to any understanding at all about reality. <blockquote><p>'I am a Zionist. You don't have to be Jewish to be a Zionist.' <br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vDx-5b7T8M">Joe Biden,</a> U.S. Vice-President</p></blockquote>Need I say more, really?" <br />
<br />
<a href="http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/conspiracy-theory-a-state-of-mind/#comment-7040">05/05'11</a> tt) Did I say you should be silent about anything, Clint? <br />
What makes you think that I would dare to demand something like this from you? Hey, it's me, okay? <br />
The issue of my comment, I think, was mainly that you can't argue against believing in a conspiracy at the same time you advocate a conspiracy yourself. That is simply a matter of logic, alright? Nothing else. <br />
In other words, preaching "the truth" will always contradict oneself at some point. <br />
<br />
"Understanding CAFRs and Zionism are paramount to any understanding at all about reality." <br />
I totally agree with that, but there is a lot more that's paramount to this very goal ... <br />
I promise to you that I will take the time to listen to your three hour recording, I take back the "in your case, the Jews" part, and I will comment your painstaking research about the subject. <br />
"Need I say more, really?" Not to me (at this particular point anyway), but there's, of course, a lot more to say about than what you hint at in your reply. And there's really no reason to feel attacked by me, not at all. <br />
Because I'm not in the convincing business, you know: <blockquote><p>"But <b><a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/jarett-sanchez.html">all civility</a> that we know of has a very strong military touch,</b> 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 <b>behind this shimmering veneer of sensationalist conspiracy theory:</b> which is the fact that, despite all this professional theatricality around apparent democratic proceedings, <b>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. <br />
And belligerent persuasion-oriented rhetoric is the way this system operates,</b> okay?"</p></blockquote></span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-42213203245593140052011-05-01T09:11:00.005+02:002011-05-01T09:30:12.648+02:00The Jesuit educational model of Prussia<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://www.quantumshift.tv/v/1198046178">quantumshift.tv</a>) What country does North America's education system come from?</center> <br />
"And now we come to the great man himself, <font color="#cc0000">a man history reports as being instrumental in the creation of America's public education system.</font> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Mann">Horace Man</a> was the American educator who served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, part of the American Congress. <br />
Horace Man was the key reformer of the education system at the time. In 1837, he became the head of the newly created Board of Education in Massachusetts where he began the work that would eventually earn him the title as <b>"The Father of American Public Education".</b> <br />
After reading through the educational models of different countries, Man finally hears about a particularly successful style that had been developed in Prussia, which is now modern-day Germany. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">The Prussian system had shown to be such a successful to government's purposes</font> that, accompanied by few other educators, Horace Man travels to Germany to investigate. <b>Upon their return to the U.S., they lobbied heavily to have the Prussian model adopted.</b> [...] Around this time, the Canadian superintendent of schools, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egerton_Ryerson">Egerton Ryerson,</a> travelled to Prussia in search of a new model of education." <br />
<br />
Now, what do we know about that time, the Prussian King Frederick the Great, and "our holy fathers" of the Jesuit Knight Order? <br />
By the way, "I have never let schooling interfere with my education" is such a typical swaggering Huck Finn type of statement ... "Swaggering yet vulnerable, <a href="http://www.amazon.de/Dont-Know-But-Been-Told/dp/0060955694">like a cross</a> between Huck Finn and Holden Caulfield ..." <br />
<br />
<br />
comments) <br />
<br />
Jtfreelander on 12/04'09: "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, <b>it doesn't serve the people it serves itself. <br />
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."</b> <br />
<br />
Rcallicott on 12/03'09: "The Prussian model of education had some very practical applications and is more centered to creating a literate work force necessary to a market economy. I use the word "literate" loosely, since this model is not known to produce great thinkers in as much as it produces good engineers, accountants and other specialists through the university level. You get the picture. I don't think it was a diabolical conspiracy from the onset, but in the wrong hands (Department of Education) it can be used to propagandize the general population, thus the spike in home schooling as a moral education was just as important. <br />
<b>The Edinburgh model of education on the other hand has produced most of the great thinkers in the western world. If there is any doubt, read Arthur Herman's "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Scots_Invented_the_Modern_World">How the Scots</a> Invented the Modern World".</b> The contributions to western civilization by the Scottish educated under this model are extraordinary. It is a shame that more of our Universities do not replica this exemplary form of education. FYI: The Scottish Kirk first required mass education to ensure its citizenry could read the Holy Bible and as a result Scotland enjoyed the highest literacy rates in Europe in the 1600s. In 1696 the Scottish Parliament passed the "Act for Setting Schools" which solidified the necessity for educating every citizen by providing teachers in every parish. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">While the Prussian model fails to create the critical thinkers necessary to a free society, it can provide a decent level of literacy.</font> The problem I have with public schools is the Department of Education. <br />
In my opinion, that one act by former President Jimmy Carter put too much power in the hands of people we don't know, don't trust and don't vote for. In retrospect, since the department's inception it has ruined the public educational system in America. At least most high school graduates can read and read for themselves if they so wish, just <font color="#cc0000">don't expect critical thinkers from those indoctrinated in public schools."</font> <br />
<br />
Cookie on 07/17'09: "One of the many reasons we homeschool our child. Schools teach children what to think not how to think. <b>Critical thinking is considered blasphemy in brick and mortar schools. Borg mentality, you must assimilate.</b> Way before video on the internet there was a like article written on this very subject. <br />
I found it interesting then and I find it just as interesting now." <br />
<br />
Rakib101 on 04/08'08: "History is good ... nice video!" <br />
Zona on 03/26'08: "History was my worst subject!" <br />
Nadinebrown on 03/24'08: "Good video – a bit controversial, but you're eliciting a reaction which is always good." <br />
<br />
Yessir on 01/13'08: "To be perfectly honest, I really enjoyed this video, but I found the conclusion extremely sudden. You basically just list off factoids, some statistics, and bam, you have a potentially derogatory conclusion that I felt was a little "out of thin air". I felt like the facts were primarily historical and you didn't really link them to any modern facts, nor show the evolution from one to the other – you just kind of put it out there. <br />
I understand that you are leaving the viewer with an open-ended statement to instill thought rather than shove a definitive answer down their throats, and I really respect that. <font color="#cc0000">However, I just get the impression that you had fully decided on your underlying thoughts on the matter before doing the research and thus your quick conclusion might not make as much sense to the learning viewer as the educated film-creator.</font> <br />
<br />
Nazd said on 01/07'08: "Well, <b>it seems like I'm not the only one who reacted with a bit of shock and feeling incredibly disturbed</b> ... I've had the opportunity to share the video with flatmates, and I've noticed similar responses from them as well. Definitely needs to be expanded upon, with greater historical emphasis [...] <b>Lots of people were wondering how the other 'great power' fits into the equation, while this was all happening (UK)."</b> <br />
<br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-61859614534062909142011-05-01T01:15:00.004+02:002011-05-04T09:45:20.260+02:00The difference between pieties and blindspots<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/richard-grove.html">Richard Grove</a> <br />
<br />
03/12'11 tt = Tosco T.) Now take Boorstin's all-deciding realization, "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ZERYyhe4s">the greatest obstacle</a> to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge," and <b>look at it with the eyes of the top culture creators.</b> <br />
I think you will recognize that building castles of piety "in the air" isn't something that the bank's level of consciousness was able to be in control of. <br />
<br />
04/17'11 tt) Hey Rich, my favorite ex-"Wallstreet-rockstar", you may not forget that I'm not in the preacher's, philosopher's, professor's, or politician's business. Propagating is not what "pietologists" do. This would be absurd! <br />
Now, since I will definitely not become part of this vociferous punditry circus with my attitude as a whisperer, the question is, if you will deliver any comments also outside of your T'n'H clubhouse, isn't it? <br />
Because I thought that you were some sort of "synchronicity superstar" in the making, you know. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">I'm simply looking for Jon's arbiters. They don't have to necessarily be real persons, with regard to the potential riskiness of this job – the reason why I only accept avatars as facebook friends from now on.</font> <br />
But it obviously won't work behind closed doors. It won't work within a privatized public, within private circles of enlightened alumni that will always act politically when it comes to the public in its entirety, you see? <br />
<br />
<br />
04/18'11 Hi Tosco, I've been having pc problems all week, so if you've sent any other messages, I haven't seen them, I just got my email to open, saw your note ... and my responses are found below: "<b>RG</b>". <br />
<br />
<br />
04/17'11 tt) Howdy, Rich! <br />
You may have wondered why I put Thomas Richards in <a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_193580940662270&view=permalink&id=209525759067788">the same league</a> of passionate uncoverers and comprehensive lecturers like you and Clint Richardson, whereas it is quite obvious that <font color="#cc0000">you are so much more intellectual, so much more studied and so much more eloquent than him.</font> *) 1 The main reason therefore is probably one of my biggest concerns about your "blindspotology", which appears to me to be simply too rational. *) 2 There is no room or respect for romantic thoughts or let's say for the freedom of thinking romantically, you know. *) 3 Your sense for language seems to me to be too nominal, if you can guess what I am suggesting here. Sort of too "mathematical", too mechanical somehow. *) 4 This adumbrates my notion when I said that "I don't think of 'piety theory' as being the exact same thing as Richard's 'blindspotology'" and it surely will be one of the big central topics between the two approaches. Clint Richardson is another story but also similar in a way. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, I mentioned something like becoming synchronicity experts in consequence of Jon Stewart's call for "an arbiter of what's real and what's not". The thing is that I don't need an answer or a decision from you on this. There is also no time limit involved or any rules of engagement etc., nothing. I think, for instance, at the moment only that it would be certainly interesting to conduct a correspondence with someone of your intellect, who sees him, of all authors, as the real deal, <b>who taught Bill (and Hill) Clinton the Jesuitical Argument.</b> *) 5 "Which people like Quigley did not see fit to share with the public" – is that supposed to mean that you think of him as kind of a deserter from the Catholic corporate system? *) 6 <br />
If we really want to outgrow this military monolith of concentrated intelligence, to which Quigley was committed all his life, <font color="#cc0000">there is no other way than to do it methodically: to simply challenge their parasite model of the mob, the corporation.</font> <b>To fight the ruthless and contemptuous business model of the priests of the Leviathan of church and state is, in my opinion, to be meant as a healing process from their deepest and strongest piety-scientific tricks and methods.</b> *) 7 I'll be available for contact not before next weekend. <br />
<br />
PS: "Literacy is a form of slavery, until critical thinking is exercised by the reader." <br />
Says the man who believes the books were already written that could make you really understand what's going on and what it is ... *) 8 For example, to "occult information" or, more precisely, all efforts being made to shape reality in the eye of the beholder in certain ways are the <a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_107319542671143&view=permalink&id=140357536034010">basis for business</a> on all levels of spiritual and economic power and are undertaken by everyone, right up to the business of love (either in its religious dimension or in its most intimate familial form). *) 9 <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/375428/february-24-2011/corporate-hacker-tries-to-take-down-wikileaks">02/24'11</a> "Anonymous attacks whoever attacks Wikileaks. [...] They ruined both his lives." <a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/375429/february-24-2011/corporate-hacker-tries-to-take-down-wikileaks---glenn-greenwald">Glenn Greenwald</a> <br />
<a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/375742/february-28-2011/michael-scheuer">02/28'11</a> <font color="#cc0000">Jesuit-trained CIA top agent and CBS media officer Michael Scheuer</font> <br />
<br />
<br />
RG = Richard Grove) <br />
*) 1 RG: It's no wonder, <font color="#cc0000">I've been acquainted with Thomas Richards and his work for many years, as I used to follow Phelps' work with great attention.</font> <br />
*) 2 RG: I don't have a "blindspotology", only the observation that all individuals have blind spots, and those who do not examine theirs by identifying the contradictions to identify the knowledge, seem to arrive at knowledge without a method. That's great for some people, but I possess no psychic powers, so I need logic to validate the contents of my mind. <b>If it appears "too rational", I would ask: do you have any proof of this, or is it a subjective observation which has yet to be validated?</b> <br />
*) 3 RG: There is plenty of room and respect for the freedom of thinking, in fact, I know it encourages thinking by requiring questions to be asked, and valid answers to be found, this is through the process of thinking, which is the process of asking the (5 W's + How?) to ascertain identity without contradiction. <br />
*) 4 RG: I'm a work in progress, a student of life, not a final product, so I hope that I become less "mathematical" b/c I hate math :) <br />
<br />
*) 5 RG: <b>I don't think Quigley is any more the "real deal" than his student Clinton,</b> rather, I think that by demonstrating that a) people like Quigley train Clinton, and that people don't see Clinton as "good", communicates as: Clinton's a manipulator (one of many) and he's trained by people like Quigley, and to know the enemy, you must gain knowledge of what info/intel the enemy is using ... thus, get to know Quigley and the whole mess through his books, then learn about the blind spots of Quigley (the history of the Jesuits, Christianity, "government" which is mind control, in general ...) <br />
*) 6 RG: No, it means that <font color="#cc0000">Quigley is part of the NWO, and if you think he's telling you everything, that's not accurate. He only un-occults what is convenient to him,</font> thus the need for studying Antony Sutton, Eustace Mullins, Nesta Webster, Ida Tarbull, as well as the source materials which Phelps uses, etc. <br />
<br />
*) 7 RG: Again, you're disagreement is unfounded, as we both understand this. <br />
You seem to have been misinterpreting my art, or not using the art to formulate your perspectives of my position. I hope that this email has made it more clear that we are not in opposition on these topics. <br />
*) 8 RG: Again, you are quoting me, and then erecting a straw man, which is an error in formulating your conclusion/judgement of my actions. <b>Please re-consider observing the art and media I've created, and work from what's there.</b> The process of understanding is achieved by observing, and answering the 5 W's + How, as peace revolution 023 exhibits for your participation. <br />
<br />
*) 9 RG: There are two reasons to occult information, to gain power, or to protect yourself from predators who occult info to prey on you.<br />
Example of the former: The Roman Empire, example of the latter: The Essenes, Dead Sea Scrolls. <br />
<br />
<br />
tt) Of course you haven't, Rich, I made it up. Blindspotology is just a way to label the course that you're following with headlines like "What you've been missing" or such statements that books were filling or replacing blindspots, purposely created by traditional state education in the first place, and so forth. <br />
I made this word up not to offend you but to demarcate the idea of a piety-theoretical research approach from your very conspiracy-theoretical general understanding. <br />
The main reason why I think it's necessary has to be seen in <b>that major magic ideological trick to overemphasize the military aspect of secrecy in favor of hiding the far more important military aspect of blind belief from coming to public attention,</b> because, contrary to you, I believe that "occulting the truth" isn't the main source of political power. <font color="#cc0000">The main source of political power consists of the ability to rule the biggest desires, wishes and hopes of people, which makes the profession of the priest to the most politically influential of all, in my opinion, and the entire history of human civilization shows that this is exactly the case.</font> <br />
<br />
I totally share your "observation that all individuals are having blind spots" and also almost everything that you say about that very natural human condition, but do you also think about the individual need for having these blindspots to one's own taste, for instance? "There is no room for romantic thoughts" etc. was a weak expression for saying that analyzing the irrationality of human thoughts and decisions has to play an equal role like dedicating attention to the needs of the human soul for consistent, clear, and comprehensive evaluations. <br />
<b>Romantic thoughts deserve the same respect as rational thoughts</b> is what I was actually trying to say, because I don't think you can expect from others to think critically and logically in front of the mystery of life, and I think we both agree to the fact that nobody can really force others into doing so. Meaning you're left with hope alone that they would, and hope is nothing I want to base research projects on. <br />
<br />
You'll find in Carlos Castaneda's "A Separate Reality" an interesting passage in chapter ten, where he wrote about death as the "central force in every bit of knowledge that becomes power": <blockquote><p>"My benefactor said that <font color="#cc0000">when a man embarks on the paths of sorcery he becomes aware, in a gradual manner, that ordinary life has been forever left behind. That knowledge is indeed a frightening affair. That the means of the ordinary world are no longer a buffer for him. And that he must adopt a new way of life if he is going to survive.</font> The first thing he ought to do, at that point, is to want to become a warrior, a very important step and decision. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">The frightening nature of knowledge leaves one no alternative but to become a warrior.</font> <br />
<br />
By the time knowledge becomes a frightening affair the man also realizes that death is the irreplaceable partner that sits next to him on the mat. <b>Every bit of knowledge that becomes power has death as its central force. Death lends the ultimate touch, and whatever is touched by death indeed becomes power. A man who follows the paths of sorcery is confronted with imminent annihilation every turn of the way, and unavoidably he becomes keenly aware of his death. Without the awareness of death he would be only an ordinary man involved in ordinary acts. He would lack the necessary potency, the necessary concentration that transforms one's ordinary time on earth into magical power. Thus to be a warrior a man has to be, first of all, and rightfully so, keenly aware of his own death.</b> But to be concerned with death would force any one of us to focus on the self and that would be debilitating. So the next thing one needs to be a warrior is detachment. <br />
The idea of imminent death, instead of becoming an obsession, becomes an indifference."</p></blockquote>Do you now understand a little bit better what the "piety theorist" is missing in the world of the "blindspotologist"? <br />
If not, that's not a problem at all, because I'm pretty sure that I can deliver you the proof of my impression that your focus of interest would be "too rational" and "your sense for language too nominal" that you ask me for, although I'm not directly prepared for it yet. Let's drop the not so appropriate notion of "too mathematical" or "too mechanical", okay? But the "too nominal" part has to be kept for the time being. <br />
<br />
A month ago, in a reply to Lisa, I announced a topic that I want to discuss with you by saying <font color="#cc0000">"[it's] the underlying tacit realm of deliberately poorly unarticulated public opinion, where I see a parallel to the usage of the phrase 'you know' in everybody's speech habits,"</font> which is of great importance especially on a day like today (when Nobel Peace Prize winner Barry "Obama" Soetoro caught, killed and buried Osama) and which perfectly fits in this conversation at this very point. <br />
Like I said: "it surely will be one of the big central topics between the two approaches." <br />
If there is a between ... <br />
<br />
See, I don't believe, for instance, that the secret and bloody history of the Jesuit Order or the massive centralization through Rome's Christianization of Europe are kind of blindspots for Quigley. For him as a full-blood Papist, they are rather spots to make others blind for. <font color="#cc0000">Anti-psychedelic book religions live, in my opinion, for the predominant part of their momentousness from the language's potential to cast a spell over the less educated and more superficially thinking: Religion in its historical and current monotheistic form is pure devotional science. In the same way, the modern belief of the citizen in "his" state or "his" republic has also unmissable religious features,</font> don't you think so too? <b>According to Jon-Boy Stewart, "we're living in insanity", and I think we have to kind of respect this for the purpose of understanding it all in all,</b> not only to accurse it, you know. <br />
<br />
Your mail was indeed a great help in making it more clear to me where we're not in opposition, especially with regard to Professor Quigley ("'government' which is mind control, in general"), and I definitely didn't want to construe any artificial disagreements between both of us by insisting on <b>the right method that had the power to compete with the allmighty straw man, which is the corporation, which is essentially the Company of Jesus as the ultimate form of a global corporation for equal-minded collectivists.</b> <br />
Now, let's focus on this for a while to make it hopefully more clear to you that those two sentences "If we really want to outgrow this" etc. weren't meant to be a critique of you as the "work in progress" that you are :) <br />
When I speak of outgrowing the militance of the Roman corporate system in the way of <b>an healing process from spiritually strong, psychologically deep, and politically supreme piety-strategic tricks</b> on the individual as well as the social level, it is first and foremost meant as an attempt to find the right words for a methodical decision of direction. You know, <font color="#cc0000">you're now marching under the banner of the trivium for that matter, which is excellent in my eyes, but I'm afraid it will be insufficient as long as we can't handle these profound religious (philosophy with God) and secular (philosophy without God) layers of piety that obviously determine our all too civilized, "overcivilized", denaturized life.</font> <br />
<br />
"You seem to have been misinterpreting my art, or not using the art to formulate your perspectives of my position." <br />
Well, unlike you, I don't see you or myself as an artist, misinterpretations are of course always possible, and I believe what I'm doing is to formulate my perspective <i>on</i> your position, not <i>of</i> your position, isn't it? <br />
And I think it's important not to confuse the search for exactitude with the <a href="http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2008/01/transparency-as-spirituality-for-good.html">search for conflict.</a> <br />
<br />
"Again, you are quoting me, and then erecting a straw man, which is an error in formulating your conclusion/judgement of my actions." Yes, it looks like I did, I completely understand this reaction. <br />
But let's keep that in mind and let's see how this subject unfolds through the next weeks and months and if it's actually just a straw man or something more real, alright? <br />
How much you've invested in the "peace revolution" podcast no. 23 hasn't escape my notice, although I haven't listened to it yet except for the first ten minutes or so, and I downloaded the transcript. <br />
<br />
To RG #09: There are many reasons to occult information or to play resp. to make policy with information, not just those two, and <b>I simply felt it would be important to refer to the extraordinarily high level of mutual thievishness throughout all domains of our corporate culture with the intention to develop a little bit of understanding why such mega lies like the incineration of entire cities, the public executions of top politicians (presidents), the pulverization of office towers, or "a burial at sea of Osama through Obama" remain undisturbed by any considerable resistance "from below",</b> meaning this theater will continue to happen. <br />
You now don't compare the underground nature of your privatized Tragedy and Hope network with the situation of those Jewish monks in the monastery of Qumran, do you? Because if you do so, I wasn't that much off the mark with my "Tragedyandhopianism", was I? <br />
<br />
<br />
<center> From a conversation on the T'n'H website ... <br />
02/27'11 tt) "The Jesuits are indeed a remarkable educational order."</center> <br />
You should know, Rich, that I have complete understanding for your situation, in which it seems almost impossible to go to the very bottom of all the Tragedy and Hope stuff, but if you don't want to call our common friend a henchman of the Knights of Jesus, then I will. <br />
You know, there are greater inspirations out there in cyberspace, nevertheless <font color="#cc0000">you have maintained your role as a shining beacon of indefatigable search for what's really going on. Your way to position yourself as a true corner stone of open-minded willingness to negotiate is uncompromised.</font> And so by weaving all major threads together, synchronistically and synergistically, your and your friend's ambitious media network has been remained <b>my most central source of wisdom in the English-speaking world.</b> <br />
Especially the focus on the trivium method elevates the project from any other conspiratorial terminology using website or community. I'm here to support and promote this promising accomplishment and also, of course, to take advantage of it: "<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/03/trivium-as-critical-thinking-meme_01.html">The little bell</a> and the big swoosh" <br />
<br />
02/28'11 Lisa: "Hi Tosco :) When you refer to "our common friend" above, do you mean Carroll Quigley? <br />
Indeed, Georgetown is a Jesuit university ... and <b>Rhodes based his secret society on the Jesuits ... and the State of Israel is modeled on Cecil Rhodes's secret society which means likewise that the Zionists were using Jesuit strategies</b> ... and going even a step further, Ignatius Loyola grew up in Spain surrounded by quabalistic/occult/mystery school teachings, his being born into the time when both the Sephardim and the Moors had been expelled ... going back further, you will note that the institutionalized plans for destruction come from a time which pre-dates the Levitical Priesthood who worshipped Moloch and atone for their destruction through the sacrifice of others ... <font color="#cc0000">and that repeating pattern of history illustrates a scarlet thread of destruction out of which Western civilization has been woven</font> ...<br />
But ... that being read ... I don't know everything, and I may learn something today which totally evolves and elevates my current understanding :)" <br />
<br />
02/28'11 tt) Hi Lisa :) Nice to meet you here in one of the front rooms of your virtual T'n'H headquarters and thanks for taking notice that promptly. <font color="#cc0000">Could I ever get a better answer than this one from you? I think not.</font> <br />
It seems to me as if you've already perfected your warm up or introduction routine for a new discussion. <br />
Or who else do you know who comes up with "I may learn something today which totally evolves and elevates my current understanding" among the first lines? <br />
<b>Carroll Quigley was a Jesuit professor like Adam Weishaupt,</b> was he not? <br />
So maybe we shouldn't judge the Illuminist movement that hard ... I mean, as Tragedyandhopians :) <br />
Joking aside, it's true: I'm here to present a pivotal paradigm shift. I'm here to introduce you and Richard and the "9/11" Synchronicity community to a more complex and more precise theoretical approach. <br />
Well, I'm here to show Richard his big blindspot, allright? <br />
You both are enlightened, that's for sure, but from my point of view only on one eye, so to speak. And it's always better to use the other too, makes a lot clearer and easier to understand. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">Are you, for example, aware of <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/03/you-build-castles-in-air.html">how many</a> Jesuit top universities exist everywhere in the world today?</font> <br />
<br />
03/01'11 tt) You know, you sometimes blink with the second eye but somehow you can't open it up :) <br />
"Peace revolution" podcast no. 15 "Compassionate communication – <a href="http://peacerevolution.podomatic.com/entry/2010-12-04T15_00_41-08_00">How to mitigate conflict</a> in our thoughts" <br />
Richard @ 40 min: <blockquote><p>"<b>Both religion and politics, the church and the state are one and the same creation</b> in the past. They split and gave us the illusion that we have freedom from church and state. But church and state, when you look at the history and who is in control now, have never been separated, because <font color="#cc0000">to believe in the separation of church and state is to believe in the illusion of government and religion in the first place,</font> because you don't understand the piece of grammar which is the additional knowledge base of the noble lie. Once you understand that there is that thing called the noble lie that has been used for thousand of years successfully by <i>all</i> these rulers [...] <br />
<br />
<font color="#cc0000">Of course he is the first to discover those things: <i>they just made those points up.</i></font> <br />
It is in history of the republic this idea that is set forward, so <b>it is that one</b> lie, the idea, and then it's the use of that <b>idea to create the status quo for the past several thousand years.</b> So when you're looking at chemtrails, well, that's part of the noble lie. The noble lie is like this veil behind which everything that is going on in reality is known, but it's not being shown to the audience. <br />
And so we are all trying to lift this veil and that's what apocalypse is. Is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse">lifting of a veil</a> so you can see what's really going on. And <font color="#cc0000">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,</font> their control over people will cease to be in control. <br />
And if people use the Bible as an inspirational spiritual book – great. But <b>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</b> there, that purposely put people into conflict and give a very small percentage, one percentage of people on this planet, all the power while the 99 percent of the people sit here and some of them are under the belief that they are in power and free and what not, but when you look at the history it has not happened yet. But it can happen if we learn from our history."</p></blockquote><br />
tt) Well, it took me by surprise recently when Lisa initiated me into the private concept of the T'n'H community, because I had no idea that I could be seen as kind of an identity leak with my behavior as a person who runs a cojo (short for comment journal). Now, after she explained me your "8th Estate Media & Research" strategy in detail again, I guess I have to outline my own methodical considerations behind things like cojos, comment agencies, or a central "Stewart-Burien Comment Exchange" (working title) as <b>a new international non-corporate business and banking platform.</b> <blockquote><p>"By transcribing the private discussions that take place within the T&H community and posting these private discussions on your public website, you are making them 'google-searchable' – and thereby making opportunities for predators – those who would seek to silence such discussions and communities – now and in the future (as that is the nature of google)."</p></blockquote>One of the key sentences in Lisa's request to stop my "leaking" (of course, she never used that word as the lady she is) of – let's say – identifiable lines of thought from the private public among the T'n'H club membership. <br />
The problem is that since November 2007 I'm heavily into making everything that's interesting to me gooooogle-searchable. <b>The main reason, for example, why the first cojo came into existence at all was my desire to bypass any traditional opinion-maker (bloggers, journalists) who still believes in censoring</b> critical reflections of others. So, here comes why I need every important bit of information searchable on the web, and this is actually quite easy to understand, I think: <br />
<br />
<font color="#cc0000">First, I have to find single thoughts or trains of thoughts again as quickly as possible.</font> Which means that all those accentuations in bold and red letters aren't primarily meant to help other readers, technically, they're there as sort of orientation guides for me alone to let me be more efficient in recognizing archived texts. That does regard the thoughts of others as well as of mine, because <font color="#cc0000">second, I find it absolutely necessary to have a chronological protocol – as rough as it may be – of my very own way of thinking. And I need it completely transparent out there in full daylight, so to speak, because third, I don't want to repeat myself over and over again.</font> <br />
Altogether this entirely web-searchable body of knowledge gives me the opportunity to communicate without greater loss in terms of waste of time, you know, and, <b>in so doing, every new comment can become the next step or the next passage on this journey of discovery,</b> this adventure trip through cyber"space – the final frontier" :) <b>And every new comment should be an advancement of what was before!</b> <br />
<br />
As to the thing with the identity, I don't really see any necessity for myself to do this kind of mining work or foundational research under my real name like you and your friends, pretty much all authors of conspiracy-theoretical books and reading matter, or book authors in general. I'm neither in the position to come forward as a whistleblower of any sort, nor I really do have a party to join, you know, as long as I believe that our culture or civilization is no more a conspiracy than a corporation is a conspiracy, or, to put it plain and simple, that piety matters over conspiracy. So <font color="#cc0000">I'm standing alone with my focus on the interaction of all the different belief and value systems and how they are being managed based of a combination of spiritual and financial needs,</font> and to create some space of sanity within this post-"9/11" mess of two opposing main opinion streams that are escalating each other's impact into an all-swallowing maelstrom of non-understandable information overload isn't something for me that has to be connected with becoming famous or having followers or so. <br />
Meanwhile, I'd mostly prefer unknown commentators to publicly correspond with and <b>I wished every real face on facebook had an anonymized separate avatar for exactly this highly political as well as a highly intimate area of much-needed non-corporate and non-conspiratorial social communication,</b> especially with regard to that ubiquity of conscious and unconscious mutual thievishness that comes automatically with the ubiquity of modern Jesuitism in successfully and thoroughly infiltrated societies. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">All I'm really fighting for is to contribute to develop a new and comprehensive understanding of what's really going on, which I look at as one of the probably most dangerous things you can do in a world where the supposedly biggest benefactors are in fact the worst criminals.</font> Because if I don't there will be no choice other than being chased through the streets of my town by the next man-made <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvG_N7eqMWk">pyroclastic clouds,</a> metaphorically speaking. <br />
<br />
I'm feeling truly honored, Richard, to be endowed with such a detailed answer from you – I really mean it. Thanks a lot for your time and your attention. You know that I am a great admirer of you as a personality and of your media work as "Mr. 9/11 Synchronicity". <br />
Unfortunately, I don't have much time in these days, but I thought it would be the right thing to do to first offer you an open discussion about this idea of "a new kind of money and media machine" à la Walter Burien, Jon Stewart, your "9/11 Synchronicity" approach, and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE1DuBesGYM">the concept</a> that <a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/373360/february-03-2011/jane-mcgonigal">Jane McGonigal</a> is pushing in form of a comment exchange or a piety or attention bourse, however you want to look at it. <br />
<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/05/fabius-maximus-and-cecil-rhodes-legacy.html">You said:</a> <blockquote><p>"Transmute your research into a step-by-step presentation which allows those who are not as aware of such events as you to start their journey towards understanding that which you're attempting to articulate. That way, those pieces will act as components, and as you compose each blog, the audience will likewise be able to be empowered by your perspective."</p></blockquote>On which I said that I don't like to blog or lecture, although I really appreciate your advice and will definitely keep it in mind. <br />
The thing here is, writing without a counterpart is a very lonely work in my eyes that doesn't pique me at all. <br />
I thought about writing two or three books so far but my own "<a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_107319542671143&view=permalink&id=138874629515634">pulsating ellipse</a> of cohesive understanding" seems to be too much in the move yet to be able to aggregate some secured and solid systematic stuff already. So if you want to have me systematically you have to watch out for summaries, or maybe I just need the right questions, critiques or annotations, because I like to correspond. Take my comments as those components and compose them according to your "pulsating ellipse" and then confront me with every unanswered or uncleared aspect and I'm pretty sure we will have a fascinating conversation and a lot of fun too. And in case you're not that interested to enter into an open correspondence with such an impersonal and invisible foreign Tosco character I'll make the same offer to a commentator from the Gnostic Media website who writes under the pseudonym Gene Matto. <br />
<br />
The big question, I think, is if we can do business together in a less conspiratorial, deceitful and despicable manner at all, and the open discussion I'm offering you and Gene and anybody else with a similar desire for honesty out of transparency and clarity out of synchronicity instead of over-centralized Kafkaesque power out of piety should particularly turn on real possibilities for that. And to get a first glimpse of what I bear in mind with such a finance exchange about comments, to do charts, debates, round tables and all other sorts of online involvements, I imagine it's like a counterdraft to twitter and facebook in terms of in-depth communication. <br />
On March 3rd I've asked you how do you feel about <a href="http://a-conspiracy-so-monstrous.blogspot.com/2009/11/vatican-assassins-commentaries-1.html">this comment</a> <b>(11/11'09)</b> 16 months later? <br />
Now I ask you if you want to discuss and develop the basis for business of "<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/40141311#40141311">Jon's arbiters</a>" with me, which will be a more competitive game compared to what you or Jan Irvin are practicing at the moment, but it theoretically will show everybody where she or he stands with her or his understanding and opinions and how corrupt professional propagandists actually are. By the way, what's with Stewart's "I thought both men took rhetoric to another level. Too see the use of litotes, puns, syllogisms ... I was truly blown away. Cicero himself <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/05/fabius-maximus-and-cecil-rhodes-legacy.html">would have ...</a>" – no help with that or can't you understand the word neither? <br />
<br />
Thanks for the Unhived Mind link: <blockquote><p>"The most powerful man right now in the conspiracy over this world is a Roman by the name of Pepe Orsini of the powerful Roman Papal Bloodline the Orsini also known as Orso and the ancient Maximus family. <br />
There is no one more powerful than this figure who is really the Grey Pope.<br />
The <font color="#cc0000">Papal Bloodlines are the secret shadow hierachy of the Jesuit Order even behind the Black Pope</font> touted at the no. 1. [...] <b>Both this Black Pope and the White Pope aren't of Papal Bloodline, they are both commoners.</b> I've named the most powerful families on the planet. <br />
I've named the Grey Pope the one inbetween the white and black but unseen."</p></blockquote>I've never heard someone calling these bloodline parties Zoroastrian ("The Real 13 Zoroastrian Bloodlines"). <br />
"9/11": <a href="http://wikicompany.org/wiki/911:Black_nobility">Black Nobility</a> <br />
<br />
And have you seen this yet? <br />
Dimitri Khalezov – WTC Nuclear Demolition <a href="http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/44972/Dimitri_Khalezov___WTC_Nuclear_Demolition_1_26">pt 1 of 26</a> on disclose.tv – playlist <a href="http://www.disclose.tv/action/videolist/uservideolist/?start=432&user_id=14600">pt 1</a> & <a href="http://www.disclose.tv/action/videolist/uservideolist/?user_id=7128">pt 2</a> <br />
<br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-31860141977273281572011-05-01T01:00:00.004+02:002011-05-01T01:42:12.852+02:00The opposite of teaching<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
<br />
<center>Conspiracy Conference 2010, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdmpO3DFoaU">panel pt 4</a></center> <br />
<font color="#cc0000">Dough Millar and Mike Tsarion confront Papal Knight Horowitz from the "black" (invisible) Party of the Papists</font> <blockquote><p><b>"To me that disingenuous ploy of pretending that he did not know what the phrase referred to – 'jesuitical argument' – is his biggest faux pas.</b> A man of his knowledge would certainly know what it referred to. If he was trained by Jesuits then he would specialize in that kind of sophistry. That is why I wanted to directly bring that up to him, to see his response. <br />
Of course, he responded jesuitically – that is, by simply stating that the term meant nothing to him. Brilliant."</p></blockquote><br />
<center>The Trivium vs the Jesuitical Argument</center> <br />
Is the "Jesuitical Argument" <a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=68560328831">actually a fallacy</a> of its own or a compilation of several deceptive maneuvers? <br />
What exactly is a "<a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2675848">Jesuitical Argument</a>"? <br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/richard-grove.html">Richard Grove</a>) Excellent observation, Tosco! <br />
Now you're getting to the point of why we're teaching intellectual self-defense :) <br />
<br />
The "Jesuitical Argument" is a) a fallacy, as it tries to deceive, and b) a compilation of several layers of deception. <b>The point is ... "Jesuitical Argument" is the opposite of teaching, it's the use of words to obscure the truth ... or, to <i>occult</i> the truth (as "occult" comes from Latin, meaning to obscure from view, occultare, which is a verb).</b> <br />
<br />
The ruling class hides all of its sources of power, these secrets are hidden in an area where things which have been occulted reside. <font color="#cc0000">This creates a gap in situational awareness, wherein the group which occults has access to all the info, and the general public only has access to part of the information.</font> <br />
See: National Security, and the fact that <b>one-third of American History has been occulted</b> ... for what purpose? To empower those who occult things.<br />
The aristocrat class has (for thousands of years) used words to control people, as it's more efficient than having to prod them all with spears, etc. ... That takes a lot more money to keep people against their will ... <br />
<font color="#cc0000">The solution (in their eyes): to get people to willingly consent to their slavery. They did this by creating a gap in knowledge/power/liberty/wealth (all the same thing) in the form of providing their class of elites with an education which supercedes that of the population ... this is how they maintain power.</font> <br />
Their use of intellectual tools and teachings (<b>the seven liberal arts for example, according to the 1610 Wood Manuscript, are the ancient foundations of "masonry" ... which is using words and word magic to build the world in their image</b>) create a gap, which is thereby used as a sword (or weapon) against those who are un-armed (with the ability to learn for themselves).<br />
<br />
The reason most people don't recognize the "Jesuitical Argument" is that they a) lack any form of critical thinking skills, which b) <b>blinds them from the rhetoric,</b> and thus c) <b>puts them under the "spell" of an "authority figure",</b> which is all created as a function of the ignorance or nescience of the audience.<br />
However, <font color="#cc0000">by educating the audience to a) be aware of logical fallacies, b) practice a systematic form of bull-shit detection and c) a methodology of how to learn anything for yourself, the audience becomes resistant/immune to d) "Jesuitical Argumentation" and other forms of persuasive rhetoric, which aim to control them.</font> <br />
Intellectual-Self Defense: Because most of the ties which bond us are not physical! <br />
<br />
<br />
tt) Self-defense, defense, always defending ... <b>I want to attack, man!</b> <br />
No false flag peace with the "piety profiler" ... :) <br />
per mail) Just "the opposite of teaching" you say, and that from the teachers of all nations? Fascinating. <br />
Thank you very much, Richard, for your first-class reply. <br />
A more detailed comment follows presently after I will have finished my thoughts on Lisa's "<a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_107319542671143&view=permalink&id=110235959046168">the media we publish</a>" ... I'm slow, you know. <br />
<br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-30514824887008479962011-05-01T00:55:00.005+02:002011-05-02T16:33:06.784+02:00Fabius Maximus and the Cecil Rhodes legacy<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
<br />
tt) Do you know any criticism of "forward thinker" <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/03/you-build-castles-in-air.html">Professor</a> Quigley regarding the public education system? <br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/richard-grove.html">Richard Grove</a>) <br />
When I first read T&H, I searched the index for all the hallmark words of the world revolution movement, including Jesuits ... to my recollection, <font color="#cc0000">Quigley only mentions Jesuits once in the 1300 pages, near the end, in the context of education.</font> Being that a) the Jesuits were here in America (British East India Company), b) the BEIC flag adopted and amended to be the "American Flag", c) John Carroll, Daniel Carroll, Fr. Neil (Georgetown University founders), d) the naming of Georgetown after G. Washington, etc. etc. etc. that <b>Quigley is speaking representing the ruling educational establishment.</b> <br />
That being read, the Jesuits start with <b>Loyola, whose "spiritual exercises" learned in Qabalist Spain etc. are based on the Alumbrados, whose practices and traditions of controlling the masses through mis-education and word magic are ancient</b> ... so while I think all who have done their homework can agree that the Jesuits play a role as a military order and controller of education (providing it to their "forces", denying it to "infidels"), etc. is not indicative of their control in totality ... <font color="#cc0000">there are many groups, all specialized, working in concert, under a common ideology (self-worship above god, ego worship, selfishness fulfilled through the destruction and undermining of others).</font> <br />
<br />
None of us to my knowledge consider Quigley to be someone other than a) a cog in the Establishment, whose b) artifacts of research illustrate some, but not all, of the shadows. His focus was not on (why we weren't being taught the actual history of the world in our time) but rather, to illustrate that <b>some people were being educated to rule over the rest of us, and doing such so successfully that they can write about it ... and the Establishment hasn't yet felt a ripple of consequence.</b> <br />
<font color="#cc0000">Reading these artifacts, left by people within the Establishment are our best source of intelligence into the mindset, modus opporendi, etc. of those who seek to suppress consciousness ... as that is the single thread of warfare and secrecy that has woven the fabric of human history.</font> <br />
For more on the answer to your question above, try F. Tupper Saussy's "Rulers of Evil". <br />
<br />
<br />
tt) <blockquote><p><b>"A leader, like a shepherd, he sends his fastest nimble sheep out front and the others will follow while the shepherd, he walks quietly behind it. <br />
Now, he's got the stick and the cane, he will use it if he has to. <br />
But most times he doesn't have to, he moves the whole herd quietly."</b> *) 1</p></blockquote>"Not indicative of their control in totality" says the one of all who have done their homework, who named his entire publish and research campaign after a bible-esque book of a quasi-Jesuit? "The most tremendously powerful and paradigm changing body of facts [...] you could read it and read it and read it over and over and over again." *) 2 <br />
Hey, let's call it what it is, okay? A Jesuit paradigm. And that has something of a totality in itself, even though you consider your idol now as "a cog in the Establishment" (the British, I guess) and as "someone whose artifacts of research illustrate some, but not all, of the shadows." In August last year, you seemed to still think of him as an author who would "fill in <i>all</i> the blindspots that's provided through our traditional education." <br />
<br />
<font color="#cc0000">The history that he lays out might not be taught in school, it nevertheless is just another Jesuit version to keep your attention off the one organization that thrones above all others. <br />
I mean, do you think those highest sophisticated plumbers of piety would non-Papists let indoctrinate their "fastest nimble sheeps" like Clinton and Petraeus, or Ray McGovern and Michael Scheuer?</font> <br />
No offense, chief navigator, but the homework that I did led me to another conclusion, and I'm afraid that as long as you are under the spell of Mr. Quigley, you probably won't be able to see the monolithic nature of the actual global Sherpherd's Fold, which, in my opinion, is in fact "a tightly knit and highly efficient machine" in the shape of a pyramid of military or militarized (quasi-military) command structure, effectively in charge at least since World War II and Nagasaki. Meaning a world order, world governance, already exists from my point of view. <br />
But maybe I'm wrong. How about we look together for some indicators for this venturous thesis and let's see where it will lead us, alright? <br />
<br />
Let's start with subjects you are familiar with. <br />
Two weeks ago, you recommended <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/05/jesuit-educational-model-of-prussia.html">a video</a> on the Prussian origins of the North American education system and I have asked you what we'd know about the time when Horace Man and other designees from the New World discovered the advantages of a specific German teaching model in connection with the fatherly knights of the Jesuit Order. Well, <font color="#cc0000">the Prussian Frederick II and the Russian Catherine II were the two main monarchies in Europe that have been giving shelter to the outlaws of the 1773 terminated Company of Jesus, and you ought to find this information even in some regular textbooks that Frederick wanted the Roman priest professors to become the teaching force in his kingdom.</font> Now, count two and two together and we will end up with the observation that "The Father of American Public Education" was as much as a fan of the Men in Black as Carroll was and probably the vast majority of all Christians are today. <a href="http://www.vaticanassassins.org">Eric Phelps</a> writes in his magnum opus in chapter 13: <blockquote><p><font color="#cc0000">"Later in 1754, the Jesuits created Scottish Rite Freemasonry and in 1786 with their protector, Frederick the Great, centralized all Masonic power with the creation of Shriner Freemasonry."</font></p></blockquote>Just as an aside. Because <b>I believe, to be in control of education means a lot more than just providing knowledge selectively: for me, it means to be in control of knowledge on all levels of the pyramid of power</b> as mentioned above. <br />
<br />
I also know from episode six (@ 69 min) that you are familiar with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabius_Maximus#Fabian_strategy">Fabian Strategy</a> and who Fabius Maximus was and how you take the Cecil Rhodes legacy and British Fabianism for the original source of the global Socialist takeover, but <font color="#cc0000">have you never heard of highly educated Christian extremists who literally went into the wilderness of the rainforest in South America to build up a Jesus society with native inhabitants from the scratch? They didn't only theorize about Communism they actually did it, experimentally,</font> and Friedrich Nietzsche knew it, like Fyodor <a href="http://my-cojo.blogspot.com/2011/03/through-its-secular-disguise-socialism.html">Dostoyevsky</a> knew it, that <b>Socialism in all its disguises is a Jesuit invention, nothing else:</b> <blockquote><p>"Der moderne Sozialismus will die weltliche Nebenform des Jesuitismus schaffen." *) 3<br />
(Modern Socialism will pull off the secular variant of Jesuitism.)</p></blockquote>But maybe he was already too badly mentally deranged in the 90s to recognize Socialism as a British interpretation of a Roman emperor, instead of a Roman, you know – okay, this was almost pure polemic now. <br />
Socialism, Communism, <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_von_Nell-Breuning">Solidarism</a> and any other considerable modification of so-called Distributism have in my opinion one and the same central <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_social_teaching">intellectual source</a> and are being executed by the Roman Catholic Empire (Vatican City), which the British Empire (City of London) with the United States of America (Washington, D.C.) is part of. I mean, <b>have you ever thought about why the clergy held their Vatican II council directly after it was clear through the erection of the Berlin Wall that the Communist experiment has failed?</b> <br />
I think they did it because they needed a quasi-Protestant mask for their brotherhood then after the collapse of the second most important mainstay (in the course) of the Counter-Reformation. And it works till this day. <br />
Or are you, for instance, aware of what the Jesuits did first with their papal approbation? <font color="#cc0000">They reformed the entire church, and that alone through their teachings</font> – I find this remarkable. <br />
That must have been the reason why the Venetian nobility saw themselves forced to found the newest military order for their universal church according to the conspiracy mastermind Mr. Tarpley, right? <br />
<br />
<b>We live in a world today that is totally and thoroughly incorporated, with a general superior, an executive officer or secretary general, on top of every single corporation – you don't necessarily need official Communism for that, obviously – including the government, including practically everything, and you really think the overall power structure is not like a corporation?</b> <br />
You really think this completely militarized system that literally looks at us speaking together, existing as corporate beings, corporate entities, doesn't have one global leader at the very top? <br />
Will be interesting to see why you think so: "working in concert, under a common ideology" together, but not in form of a corporation. <font color="#cc0000">Along the lines of if you show me my blindspots, I'll show you yours, because that's what the whole piety profiling business is basically about: how to deal with all the blindspots, and a little bit more.</font> <br />
And I think to remember to have promised it to you to at least examine the one big elephant in the room that you don't care about. But only if you want to address this issue with me since I do not lecture, I only correspond. <br />
<br />
My personal feeling is that most people actually want to believe what most people (already) do believe. <br />
And <b>piety as a common value is without a doubt underpinning the state more than any other phenomenon, in the same way nobody wants to talk or even think about.</b> <br />
Everybody is sucked into this controlled controversy whether it's a conspiracy or not, as if there was no room beyond that pretty useless, very distracting and all too usual debate. <font color="#cc0000">Sure, there are obviously all sorts of conspiratorial elements but do they really make the entirety of societal characteristics, structures, perspectives, tendencies, the whole constitution of civilization or creation of culture, a conspiracy? Or maybe are there certain aspects that could be more important, more influential, more power-breaking than sheer military secrecy?</font> <br />
<br />
<b>Of course, Quigley would have criticized the Jesuit college education system if anything only for controversial purposes, not for a better understanding.</b> Think about what <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/trivium-vs-jesuitical-argument.html">you have said</a> yourself: <blockquote><p>"The Jesuitical Argument is a) a fallacy, as it tries to deceive, and b) a compilation of several layers of deception. The point is ... Jesuitical Argument is the opposite of teaching, it's the use of words to obscure the truth ... or, to occult the truth."</p></blockquote><font color="#cc0000">The "opposite of teaching" practiced from the teachers of all nations – well, if that's not another totality, I don't know.</font> I ask you, <b>who do you think has supposedly the greatest expertise to incorporate, to bureaucratize, to takeover whole continents with brotherhood-like societal structures where the incorporated individual believes that that's exactly what's needed to be free and happy,</b> you know? <br />
<br />
One of my slogans is: the conspiracy is us. You can say the same thing about the corporation: it's us! The so-called conspiracy as well as the corporation is how we are, every individual personality as well as certain companionships. I want to start a solution-oriented <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/jarett-sanchez.html">togetherness-thinking</a> with <a href="http://www.facebook.com/paulverge/posts/215855068428254">this kind of idea.</a> And I think we should continue to list such indicators to have another map that could help to gain a better overview on the overall status. <br />
The basic outcome from my online studies of the past seven years condensed is however that <b>Christianity and Freemasonry belong together like Democrats and Republicans, and the so-called Society of Jesus as the one and only true successor of the Knights Templar embodies the bridge between both mystery schools, both business infrastructures.</b> <br />
<br />
It looks as it could be that I'd like to address the more complicated questions and deliberations to you directly, boss. Which doesn't mean that I expect you to feel obliged about that. Definitely not. <br />
I simply put it on your desk, that's all. What else? <br />
This for instance: Where do you think the British monarchy would be today without a) a christianized people and b) the occult Masonic apparatus of power? You know, <font color="#cc0000">I look at this whole culture cabal how it actually occurs and enfolds in time against the backdrop of the two biggest civilizing shifts of tectonic plates in modern history, which I think are obviously the Christianization 1500-1000 years ago and the Protestant Reformation.</font> <br />
Now, who do you know who elaborates the Christianization? Does it not matter? We are talking here about nothing less than <b>the most fundamental layer of all layers of piety in our culture: Christianization means the ruthless implementation of monolithic collectivism in Europa in the first place, and this basic layer is still ruled by those who had accomplished it then, the Roman priesthood. <br />
And everything, everything goes from there. And it's easy to understand. Nonetheless it remains widely untouched by any social commentator.</b> Fascinating! <br />
<br />
To be continued ... <br />
<br />
Could you help me with one word, Rich, that Jon Stewart had used at two minutes and fifty seconds into his "we're <a href="http://corporatemainstream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-does-this-not-drive-you-insane.html">living in insanity</a>" interview on C-SPAN in October 2004 where he said: <br />
"I thought both men took rhetoric to another level. Too see the use of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes">litotes,</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun">puns,</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism">syllogisms</a> ... I was truly blown away. Cicero himself would have ..." <br />
I just can't "crack the code". <br />
<br />
* 1) Hollywood Programming 2007: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gangster_(film)">American Gangster</a> @ 19 min <br />
* 2) <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/02/peace-revolution-podcast.html">Peace Revolution</a> podcast episode six @ 51 min <br />
* 3) Erkme Joseph: "Nietzsche im Zauberberg" (1996) <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=UTPi6fejmcYC&pg=PA175#">pp. 175 ff.</a> <br />
<br />
<br />
Richard) Hey Tosco, you seem to have a lot of knowledge to share on the topic of Jesuit influence on education and history overall, so <b>I would like to encourage you to focus your comprehensive knowledge into a series of blogs aimed at transmuting your research into a step-by-step presentation</b> which allows those in the community who are not as aware of such events as you, to start their journey towards understanding that which you're attempting to articulate. <font color="#cc0000">That way, those pieces will act as components, and as you compose each blog, the audience will likewise be able to be empowered by your perspective.</font> <br />
As it stands now, you seem to do a lot of observation, thought, and sharing of what you've learned. But <b>it is not easy for those who are not as familiar to follow your stream of consciousness. <br />
I just thought that it's the next step for you, to begin to focus on explaining it in a way that becomes valuable to more people and more effectively communicates that which you wish to share.</b> <br />
I don't think any of us disagree with you regarding your observations of the Jesuits, and T&H (the book by Quigley) is just a stepping stone for the public to get a grip that a) there's more going on than the general public is aware, b) that there's more to be learned, and c) there's a process for learning it ... which people like Quigley did not see fit to share with the public ... so we're all on the same page, and from this common ground we can make progress toward further understanding how the Jesuits' influence has shaped the world. <br />
Thanks for all of your hard work! <br />
<br />
<br />
tt) Since I don't like to lecture, to blog or to even behave in any kind of traditional pc-web-less way, <font color="#cc0000">I have to find other methods to develop my own understanding together with others.</font> And I think I'm about to uncover some new possibilities for this right now ... Thanks for your experienced advice though. I think, for instance, we are already "on the same page", even if we are not entirely conscious about it. The new theoretical approach that I'm working on should make that clear more quickly and more thoroughly than specifically and solely focussing on the Jesuit Knights Templar. Because it is not a conspiracy on the whole. <br />
<br />
<br />
(Rich: <font color="#cc0000">"I thought it might help you to use <a href="http://www.thebrain.com">the Brain,</a> to coordinate your research and organize it so as you can lead others through your brain model.</font> <br />
It's free for all the features you need and we'll be starting a brain modeling group and therein we can start to learn more from each other as we improve our individual skills of organization and presentation.") <br />
<br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-14112883861026462602011-05-01T00:44:00.004+02:002011-05-01T01:33:34.258+02:00They regulate how people police themselves<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/richard-grove.html">Richard Grove</a> <br />
<br />
<center><font face="High Tower Text" size="4"><a href="http://peacerevolution.podomatic.com/entry/2010-08-13T19_26_01-07_00">08/13'10</a> PR podcast episode six) The intellectual elite vs. you</font></center> <br />
<h3 style="font-family:Lucida Fax; font-size:88%"; align="center">Where the <a href="http://bigbanginbethlehem.blogspot.com/2011/04/america-doesnt-have-president.html">British monarchy</a> claims to ...</h3><br />
@ 41 min – Rich) Who was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes">Cecil John Rhodes?</a> <br />
Once upon a time there was this gentleman named <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_T._Stead">William T. Stead</a> who later dies on the Titanic. And <b>William T. Stead invented something called the interview where one person asks another person questions.</b> [...] William T. Stead happened to publish several books as part of his role as a journalist bringing information to people, and one of the books he published was called "The last will and testament of Cecil John Rhodes. With <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/lastwilltestamen00rhodiala">elucidatory notes</a> to which are added some chapters describing the political and religious ideas of the testator" edited by William T. Stead. Very fancy title. And I heard about this book like it was some kind of myth. And I went out and sought the book [...] <font color="#cc0000">I wanted to obtain a copy for myself, so I looked for this book for several years.</font> <br />
I happened to come across a copy that I bought through this book exchange that happens to be <b>the actual copy owned by William T. Stead, sold to me by the guy who bought William T. Stead's entire archive</b> as Stead was the editor of a thing called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Review_of_Reviews">Review of Reviews</a> this magazine of the elite. <br />
So the gentleman I purchased this book from owned the entire archives, all the library of the Review of Reviews, and he said, this is William T. Stead's actual copy of the book. I was very excited when I got this in the mail. <br />
So, take it out, we'll be careful. It's printed in 1902 [...] <br />
This a book that we are about to re-publish and re-release to the public because <font color="#cc0000">I think it contains some of the most important words in the free world.</font> [...] That's the first edition. And, as you can see, several pages are in Cecil Rhodes' own handwriting. This is Cecil John Rhodes in his own words, he says: <blockquote><p>"Please remember <font color="#cc0000">the key of my idea discussed with you is a Society, copied from the Jesuits as to organisation,</font> the practical solution a differential rate and a copy of the U.S. Constitution."</p></blockquote>According to Rhodes' last will and testament, the mandate is to set forth a secret society to be funded by his wealth as the De Beers diamond magnate and creator of Rhodesia to create <b>a secret society based on the tenets, and the structure, and the organizational know-how of the Jesuits, but instead of being for Catholic aims it's for the expansion and world domination of the British Empire under the idea of something called British Israelism,</b> where the British monarchy claims to be related to characters from the early Bible. <br />
Rhodes says on page 73: <blockquote><p>"What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons, <font color="#cc0000">the peace of the world is secured for all eternity!</font> We could hold your federal parliament five years at Washington and five at London. <b>The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is a secret one (a society) gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object."</b></p></blockquote>Which is world domination or a new world order. <br />
And for anyone who doubts how the N.W.O. or this idea of a one <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government">world government</a> that's not elected, an elite ruling class, taking care of all the business of the world and just basically giving you a feeder that let you think that it is over your own choosing, when really it's through mechanism of propaganda and continuous bombardment with these ideas telling you what to think instead of teaching you how to think. <br />
If anyone has any of those doubts you can look into a teacher from Georgetown University named Carroll Quigley who is the mentor of Rhodes scholar William Jefferson Clinton who was also happened to be President of the United States. Now, Quigley was a teacher in [<a href="http://greg-szymanski.blogspot.com/2011/03/ed-walsh-sj-in-alliance-unbroken-to.html">Edmund A. Walsh</a>] Georgetown <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgetown_School_of_Foreign_Service">School of Foreign Service,</a> and in <a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/36527706/Quigley---The-Evolution-of-Civilizations---An-Introduction-to-Historical-Analysis-_1979">his last lecture</a> a couple of weeks before he died he had this to say: <blockquote><p>"Another thing which may serve to point out the instability of the power system of the state: <br />
<b>The individual cannot be made the basic unit of society,</b> as we have tried to do, or of the state, since the internalization of controls must be the preponderant influence in any stable society."</p></blockquote>He goes on to say talking about this internalization of controls that basically they can't control all the people on the planet through shock weapons and through physical man-to-man combat, so what they have to do is effectively use propaganda and the media to kind of control people's ideas: when <b>they control basically how people police themselves.</b> <br />
<br />
And he describes in his last lecture that the military-industrial complex and the media-industrial complex have combined forces, because they realized that neither one could control the population by itself. <br />
So they kind of merged and conglomerated their forces so that they have <font color="#cc0000">a strategic and comprehensive system of control, which effects you in a variety of ways throughout each and every day of your lifes.</font> <br />
Because <b>they're privatizing water,</b> there's <b>companies like Monsanto that's poisoning your food</b> by these groups, <b>prohibiting green solutions that had been used for thousands of years like hemp,</b> and <b>standardizing us on a poisonous petrochemical carbon-emitting system.</b> <br />
<font color="#cc0000">The corporations that are running the 500 largest moving vehicles on this planet to transport things back and forth emit more carbon than <i>all cars</i> on the earth.</font> So when you're talking about things like Global Warming, whether or not that exists, the point will be that even if Global Warming is grounded in suspicion as to whether or not it's real, the reality is: the creation of an artificially obsolescent culture where we're producing more and more garbage, more and more pollution, these things do build up, that is a problem, but it's not being done by the individuals and it's not something that's happened by accident. This is been in their plans since 1967 in the first documents that I've seen, that successfully predict that we can cause a global warming stir. We can get people who get concerned about their environment, but <font color="#cc0000">in 1917 they were predicting that they would need to do like a generation to a generation and a half of heavy heavy pollution before we would even become reliable that people could <i>believe</i> that.</font> <br />
<br />
So what you have here in Quigley's body of work is "The Evolution of Civilizations" ("This is <a href="http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4129400/Carroll_Quigley_-_The_Evolution_of_Civilizations">the bible</a> of historical analysis.") which gives you the history of Maritime Admiralty Law, the use of commerce as a control mechanism to subvert populations without ... <br />
The old way of war, the old form of war was to go and actually conquer your enemy and they knew you conquer them. The new form of war started 6000 years ago was to subvert your enemy through controlling their commerce. And once you control commercial activity you can leave the puppet government in place. <br />
So when the Carthaginians took over Rome, for instance, you don't see evidence of the Carthaginians in their actually managing Rome. <b>The people who controlled the economy</b> that took over the Carthaginians and <b>then went and conquered other countries veil themselves through the ubiquity of commerce.</b> <br />
Because you are born into the status quo, and money is always been here, and the people around you usually don't define it for you, and unless you go and look for yourself and define it than <b>it's just this thing like, you know, fish can't notice the water because it was always surrounded by the water.</b> But every now and then you see a fish that goes and jumps out of the water: 'Hey what was that? I went out of this and came back into it, so there is something else there.' <font color="#cc0000">We must be surrounded by this thing all the time.</font> <br />
<br />
And so in Quigley's The <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/431914/Carroll-Quigley-The-Anglo-American-Establishment">Anglo-American Establishment</a> we have him explaining on top of the evolution of civilization: here is the modernized form, here is what's going on. Here is the people that are running the world. Here is how they promised Palastine to three different groups of people at the same time. Here is why they gave it to a certain group of people and here is [...] and now when understanding World War One and WW II you're prepared for Quigley's masterpiece, his magnum opus "Tragedy and Hope – A History of the World in Our Time". <br />
<br />
<br />
<h3 style="font-family:Lucida Fax; font-size:88%"; align="center">The Tragedy and Hope "Bible", <br />
the most tremendously powerful and paradigm changing body of facts – <br />
<br />
a heavy book, 1300 pages: <br />
you could read it and read it and read it over and over and over again</h3><br />
Now had they just taught this one simple book to me in college I could have saved thousands and thousands of hours of reading. But the fact is that this book for years was not available to the general public, that <font color="#cc0000">the plates were destroyed. They tried to suppress it every which way</font> and still, 40 years later, it stands as <font color="#cc0000">the premier work of American history and the history of the Western world.</font> Because what's in this book comes from Carroll <b>Quigley, the Georgetown professor,</b> spending 20 years in compiling this history, and <b>two years among the CFR's private archives,</b> which tells you the story of the 20th century. <br />
And so having been so close to these groups and being able to put this body of work together and to lay out the history that's not taught to us at our schools, I thought it was the most tremendously powerful and paradigm changing body of facts, all put together in context such that you can understand. <br />
And it's a heavy book, 1300 pages: you could read it and read it and read it over and over and over again until you see how these things blend together and <font color="#cc0000">it makes a lot of sense, because it's filling in all the blindspots that's provided through our traditional education.</font> <br />
<br />
<br />
<h3 style="font-family:Lucida Fax; font-size:88%"; align="center">Liberal education disappeared 150 years ago</h3><br />
@ 60 min – Rich) "<a href="http://www.thegreatideas.org/libeducation.html">The Great Conversation</a>" is the first book in a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_World">54-volume series</a> printed in 1953, and the key author that put that altogether is a gentleman named <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hutchins">Robert Hutchins.</a> <blockquote><p>"This private library edition of great books of the Western world was originally made possible 1952 by the generous support of the subscribers to the founder's edition."</p></blockquote>Now, I was interested through the founder's edition who were these 500 bright-minded people, and you got people like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ben-Gurion">David Ben-Gurion,</a> you got <a href="http://www.google.de/images?q=%22the+Rockefellers%22#">the Rockefellers,</a> you got <a href="http://www.google.de/images?q=%22the+Vanderbilts%22#">the Vanderbilts,</a> you got Edward Bernays [...] <br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Who#Notable_examples">Who's Who</a> – these books were made for the elite to teach themselves, to teach their children the things that they won't even put out in a public university. And <b>unless you go to certain Prep schools, or certain Ivy League schools, or join certain mystery schools like the Freemasons, or the Rosecrucians, or any number of ancient mystery schools that are out there, the only way to get this education is to a) know about it and b) go/set about reading "The Great Conversation", because what we have is something called "The <a href="http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/hutchins-robert_tradition-of-the-west.html">Tradition of the West</a>".</b> And everything we see around us comes from some place. Even the pillars on buildings, those come from thousands of years of architectural tradition. <br />
So our words, and our ideas, and our ways of persuasive speech are much the same way. <br />
<br />
In <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/greatconversatio030336mbp">Chapter IV</a> rather Hutchins goes into "The Disappearance of Liberal Education" – I'm not trying to read that, but it's interesting. What I want to get into is Chapter X, "A Letter to the Reader". There he says: <blockquote><p>"We say that these books contain a liberal education and that everyone ought to try to get one. <br />
You say that either you have had one, or that you are not bright enough to get one, or that you do not need one."</p></blockquote>And <b>this is where Hutchins had me</b> when he says: <blockquote><p>"You <i>cannot</i> have had one. <br />
<b>If you're an American under the age of ninety, you can have acquired in the educational system only the faintest glimmerings of the beginnings of a liberal education."</b></p></blockquote>So in 1952, Robert Hutchins, who had been on the cover of Time Magazines like three times in his life time, he's saying that the liberal education has been taken out of our education system for ninety years. <br />
He's telling you in 1952 that for ninety years the liberal education has been denied to everybody in America. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">What we look like if you took away the ability to think critically from the American population for ninety years before 1952</font> and then just picture what happened <i>since</i> 1952 ... Because until recently I haven't heard too much talk about the liberal education or what it even means to be able to understand the words of Homer, and Aristotle, and Plato, all the way up through <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus">Thomas Malthus</a> and all these ... This is the N.W.O.'s education, this is were they get their ideas, they're not getting them from the public school system. <b>So unless we go and learn and read the books that they read and understand where they're trying to take everything, we can continue to guess everyday as the newspapers tell us one thing on this page and another thing on this page just to confuse us.</b> They're looking for a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum">zero-sum game.</a> It's like you're confused, that's all they want. <br />
They're not looking to purvey information or share knowledge through that system. <br />
<br />
<b>Liberal education what it is, it's all the works of Western culture's literature in chronological order,</b> because as writers progressed ... let's say you have Aristotle and he has read the work of Plato and Socrates and Homer. And by the time you get to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante">Dante</a> he has read every one before him. <br />
So, you know, it's <font color="#cc0000">the continued chiming in of intellect throughout history:</font> all talking about the same things. Because look, Plato was talking about the republic 2500 years ago is exactly what's going on today. <br />
<br />
<br />
<h3 style="font-family:Lucida Fax; font-size:88%"; align="center">The Fabian Strategy</h3><br />
@ 68 min – Rich) However, at this point in the early 20th century, you got people participating in the consequences of Cecil Rhodes's Last Will and Testament, that being the round table work groups, which were then spun up into the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the CFR, which is the North American extension of Cecil Rhodes's legacy. At the same time they created groups like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tavistock_Institute">Tavistock</a> in order to control people's public opinion about the upcoming war with Germany, and after the war managing what people were to think of the situation created by the Versailles Treaty. The interesting thing about these <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society">Fabian Socialists,</a> and this is easy enough to gooooogle, the Fabian Socialists' emblem – their avatar, if you will – was <a href="http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=%22lupus+pastor%22#">a wolf in sheep's clothing.</a> And there's actually pictures of stained-glass windows where the Fabian Socialists were standing on either side and they're <a href="http://bit.ly/94WbgX">pounding the world</a> with these big hammers. And they are talking about shaping it into the image that they're picturing for the world. And when you have an emblem that is a wolf in sheep's clothing that's very telling, but if you do another gooooogle search and search out who is Fabius, where does <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabius_Maximus#Fabian_strategy">Fabian Socialism</a> come from, you will learn that Fabius became a Roman dictator, because Hannibal was threatening Rome, and the Roman people panicked, and he said I can stop Hannibal, and he did. He did this through <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attrition_warfare">a war of attrition,</a> which was a long, prolonged, drawn-out war where you're denying the other side of the resources and needs to exist. This then became the philosophy of the Fabian Socialists who then domineered the 20th century in their image. <br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-50072068975546004272011-04-24T08:33:00.002+02:002011-04-24T08:33:27.257+02:00a trivium education meeting spotTosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-84275488571869552702011-04-24T08:11:00.002+02:002011-04-24T08:11:25.834+02:00Paul VergeTosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-17474195344839193572011-04-24T08:08:00.002+02:002011-04-24T08:08:08.063+02:00Lisa ArbercheskiTosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-51469144215765306752011-04-24T07:22:00.002+02:002011-04-24T07:22:50.875+02:00You're left unwillingly funding their profitsTosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-85345069749443205342011-04-24T07:17:00.002+02:002011-04-24T07:17:25.978+02:00Richard GroveTosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-17061049088759039502011-04-24T07:11:00.002+02:002011-04-24T07:11:31.290+02:00synchronicity whisperwebTosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-80751745171051233522011-04-24T07:07:00.002+02:002011-04-24T07:07:06.376+02:00the trivium on facebookTosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-91583996907985338122011-04-24T07:00:00.001+02:002011-04-24T07:00:36.342+02:00private messages on facebookTosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-65087217500034368992011-04-11T23:11:00.009+02:002011-04-24T09:24:03.932+02:00My conversation with Max – chapter two<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
lopo) <br />
<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/my-conversation-with-martin.html">04/09'11</a> My conversation with Max – chapter one <br />
<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/03/clint-richardson.html">Clint Richardson</a> <br />
<br />
<br />
Max) I understand better what you mean, but <b>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.</b> You may disagree but use logic to show why you do so. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">When I say I roughly agree, I mean their analysis usually concur to my own research and judgement.</font> <br />
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. <br />
As a example, you claim Ray McGovern is a "Jesuit-trained" – how do you know that? <br />
The Wikipedia page doesn't show that. <br />
<b>Personally I can't just do like 9/11 isn't a big deal. It is way beyond what I tolerate.</b> <br />
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). <br />
But I was wrong (to think something as big as 9/11 would be cover up in such a massive scale). <br />
The way I was thinking (a least close enough) is well explained in this article: <a href="http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/313-the-news-media-at-war.html">06/22'10</a> The News Media at War <br />
I've personally had some training in hydraulics and know how pressure is built in a close system. <br />
So, when <a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center">Popular Mechanics</a> 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. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">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.</font> 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
tt) "We have a great desire to introduce <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw4Bhmm22xo">excellence</a> and rigor into the classroom and every subject we teach." <br />
<a href="http://www.fordham.edu/discover_fordham/fordhams_jesuit_trad">Fordham</a> University not at wikipedia – are you sure? <br />
<br />
According to the new Provincial for Germany, Denmark and Sweden Stefan Kiechle SJ, the "companions of Jesus" own exactly <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/03/you-build-castles-in-air.html">231 institutions</a> of higher education today, globally. <b>No other organization has a recruiting structure in place like this</b> 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." <br />
And Fordham in New York City, where Ray McGovern got his mind set from, is one of them. <br />
<br />
<b>But my point in <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/synchronistically-speaking.html">showing Rich</a> the Jesuit connection in the process of transferring the Prussian education system into the New World</b> by the "founding father" of American public education Horace Man and others <b>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.</b> <blockquote><p>"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. <br />
It seeks to have people march lockstep with its diktats. It produces weapons of mass instruction. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">Education not molested by the state would have to produce more critical thinkers."</font></p></blockquote>A comment left by Jtfreelander at <a href="http://www.quantumshift.tv/v/1198046178">quantumshift.tv</a> in December 2009. <br />
<br />
<br />
I mean, think about: <b>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? <br />
And it goes even beyond that,</b> because when I speak of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology">Christology</a> 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 <font color="#cc0000">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 <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/index.htm">secret teachings</a> 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 <a href="http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com">Atlantean</a> temple civilizations to what they are?</font> <br />
This is an example where traditional conspiracy theory creates unnecessary complications that a closer look at the devotional circumstances can quickly and easily resolve. <br />
<br />
Do you understand what I'm talking about, Max? <b>Richard's blindspotology</b> where you show me my blindspots and then I'll show you yours and so forth <b>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.</b> In other words, I think, <font color="#cc0000">the key to understand the "conspiracy" is to understand the mentality</font> 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 <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/trivium-vs-jesuitical-argument.html">opposite of teaching.</a> <br />
<br />
The <i>opposite of teaching</i> – 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. <b>It's a very intimate story. It's very personal.</b> <br />
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 <i>"personally</i> couldn't just do like 9/11 isn't a big deal". <br />
The same with me: Even if this <a href="http://www.con-spiration.de/texte/english/2007/maier2-e.html">act of inculturation</a> 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. <br />
The reason why I got rid of my teleadvisory set yet in November 2001 and never wanted it back again. <br />
<br />
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 <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
<h3 style="font-family:Lucida Fax; font-size:88%"; align="center">The CAFR is literally the audit of the Federal Reserve!</h3><br />
<center>American <a href="http://thecorporationnation.com/?page_id=13">Feudal Fiefdoms</a> (10/25'10 Clint Richardson with Dale Williams)</center> <br />
@ 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? <b>These layers of government, the City of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy,_Utah">Sandy,</a> 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.</b> <font color="#cc0000">Essentially, we never left the Feudal State</font> except for a little while maybe right before and right after our revolution but the powers came back in and they own everything. <font color="#cc0000">The governments owns just about everything in terms of what we think of as commercial property or commercial value in this country.</font> Am I going to crazy here? <br />
<br />
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. <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> I mean let's face it. If you like the president or if you <i>think</i> you like the president, who is the rest of government? Everybody that that president appoints. <br />
<b>Everybody in government is appointed except the president.</b> <br />
<br />
<br />
@ 16 min – Dave) <b>We have a monumental problem that is adversarial to human dignity, to the ownership of private property, to having some control over your future</b> and some futurity that you can pass on to your grand children and your children. <b>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</b> in terms of so-called private enterprise in this country, everything in the stock market. <br />
<br />
@ 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. <font color="#cc0000">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 <a href="http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/the-biggest-game-in-town-walter-burien-and-comprehensive-annual-financial-reports">tax-exempt discretionary</a> expense account for every board or committee that they sit on.</font> So some of these guys have multi-, multi-, multi-, <i>multi</i>-million dollars expense accounts, <b>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.</b> Well, here is Ron Paul saying we need to <a href="http://www.dailypaul.com/98585/demint-explains-why-we-need-to-audit-the-fed">audit the Fed,</a> but see: <b>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.</b> 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. <b>An audit is therefore already done. Ron Paul knows this. He has been asked this by Walther, actually.</b> If you are not familiar with Walter Burien you must know, you must go to <a href="http://cafr1.com">cafr1.com,</a> understand what he's trying to do to change this. Talk to the man and really just understand what the heck is going on. <br />
<br />
@ 34 min – Dave) You know, <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> <br />
<br />
@ 46 min – Clint) <b>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.</b> They are there to ensure the continuity of government by collecting fines, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fees">fees,</a> 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. <br />
<br />
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?' <br />
<br />
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. <b>The only way to possibly do anything about this is to do what I'm doing now.</b> <br />
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 <a href="http://cafrman.com">cafrman.com</a> – he is dead now. Walter Burien is the next guy, he learned from cafrman. <font color="#cc0000">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 <i>broke!</i></font> [...] 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
tt) Being trained in engineer skills, I guess, I don't have to tell you that <b>we really have to go to</b> the bottom of this stuff or, if you rather want to see it like a computer game, to <b>the absolute top level, because only there this whole labyrinth</b> of conspiracy entertainment (remember <a href="http://911epicfail.blogspot.com/2011/04/alan-watt.html">Alan Watt:</a> "enter" plus "tain" equals "under the cover") <b>and</b> with <b>that the whole maelstrom of infotainment business,</b> compounded by the corporate and the conspiracy mainstream, <b>will start to become transparent and understandable.</b> 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 <a href="http://corporatemainstream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-does-this-not-drive-you-insane.html">we're living in insanity.</a> 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. <br />
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. <br />
<br />
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 <b>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.</b> 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: <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-24-2011/24-hour-nazi-party-people">01/24'11</a> "The rhetoric is absolutely over the top." (O'Reilly) Stewart: "Wow! Wow! <font color="#cc0000">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."</font> 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. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://commentagency.blogspot.com/2011/03/youtube-comments.html">Here</a> 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 [...] <b>This is the mental illness of the American people.</b> <font color="#cc0000">We have a very serious person on the air talking about serious issues, not crack garbage.</font> 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 ..." <a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/89003/june-21-2007/vincent-bugliosi">Vincent Bugliosi</a> a serious person – <i>think about it!</i> Fascinating. <br />
<br />
Ibidem "Orwell's Ghost" Eric from Indiana: <blockquote><p>"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 <a href="http://greg-szymanski.blogspot.com/2011/03/ed-walsh-sj-in-alliance-unbroken-to.html">Edmund Walsh</a> 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. <font color="#cc0000">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."</font></p></blockquote>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. <br />
<a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/350635/august-17-2010/newsweek-ranks-the-world-s-best-countries">08/17'10</a> Newsweek ranks the world's best countries – Fox News TV Show Star Sean Hannity: <br />
<b>"America is the single greatest nation that God ever gave man on this earth."</b> <br />
"We say it's the greatest country God gave men ... We live in the single greatest, best country God gave men" <br />
"The single greatest, best, freest country God ever gave men." <br />
<br />
<br />
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: <br />
<br />
Neil Kramer 99 %, Bruce Lipton 99%, Acharya S 99 %, <br />
Terence McKenna/Graham Hancock 88 %, <br />
Clint Richardswood/Walter Burien 88 %, <br />
Jordan Maxwell/Michael Tsarion/Christopher Hitchens 88 %, <br />
Richard Grove/Lisa Arbercheski 88 %, <br />
Jan Irvin/Brett Veinotte/Paul Verge 88 %, <br />
Frank O'Collins/Craig Oxley/Eric Phelps/Troy Space/Greg Szymanski/Thomas Richards/Tom Friess 88 %, <br />
Alex Jones 33 %, David Icke 44 %, Alan Watt 77 %, Webster Tarpley 55 %, <br />
Robert Newman 88 %, Stefan Molyneux 88 %, Mark Buchanan 77 %, Susan Blackmore 77% <br />
Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert 66 %, <br />
ARD/ZDF 33 %, Spiegel Online 33 % ... you know, something like that. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
You're really missing logic in my thoughts? Well, then how about a little exercise in logical thinking, okay? <br />
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) <i>and</i> 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
<h3 style="font-family:Lucida Fax; font-size:88%"; align="center">Corporations that are playing government with the people</h3><br />
Walter and Clint from the <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/where-walter-burien-meets-jon-stewart.html">CAFR faculty</a> 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. <b><i>This</i> is the biggest success of "9/11":</b> this unending and for the most part practically meaningless confrontation. <br />
<br />
<font color="#cc0000">"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."</font> 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 <b>a critical investigation into the mentality within the mafia machinery of Roman loyalty,</b> the whole search for what's real will more or less automatically become more and more non-confrontational, non-violent, and integrative. <br />
<br />
"I'm imagining a society that is based on rewarding employees for honesty and integrity instead of being the best thief. You know, <font color="#cc0000">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."</font> <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/03/clint-richardson.html">Richardson</a> again. <b>What Clint wants us to understand, I think, is that the issue of his documentary The Corporation Nation is</b> – in comparison with any other subject of investigation, where conspiracy theory tries to uncover the deeds of darkness of a shadowy elitist "ruling-class" – <b>not a controversy. What he presents is nothing but clear evidence.</b> 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 <a href="http://youtoogle.blogspot.com/2010/09/videos-on-google.html">The Corporation</a> or do you not? And the fact that's important to bear in mind at this point is that <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> 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: <blockquote><p>"I think people need Jesuits. <br />
<b>I think that people hunger for the Society of Jesus to be of <i>some good</i> in their lifes."</b></p></blockquote></span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-2479350570973608652011-04-11T23:00:00.004+02:002011-04-12T00:01:29.861+02:00Where Walter Burien meets Jon Stewart<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/03/clint-richardson.html">Clint Richardson</a> <br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://thecorporationnation.com/?page_id=13">12/02'10</a> Clint Richardswood with Angela on My Private Radio</center><br />
@ 7 min) For years now, <b>when you hear that we owe China money – that's not the case.</b> <br />
I mean, basically, <b>this country is <i>so</i> wealthy beyond measure that you can't even comprehend it.</b> <br />
Just in pension funds alone across this country you have 26 trillion dollars. Just in pension funds, okay? <br />
<br />
<br />
@ 29 min) <b>There's no such thing of ethics anymore in business.</b> 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 – <font color="#cc0000">this is so important to understand and I hope I can explain it well</font> – 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. [...] <br />
Government, you know, they're not dumb. <br />
<b>Anybody who thinks George Bush is dumb,</b> I've got a blog entry called George <a href="http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/911-and-george-bush-for-dummies">Bush For Dummies,</a> *) and if you watch it you'll see the four years before he got elected as president. <b>He was one of the best orators you'll ever seen.</b> 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. <br />
<br />
*) "For while an intelligent man can convincingly act like an idiot, an idiot will never pass as an intelligent man. Thus, <font color="#cc0000">an academy award should be handed to George Bush Jr. for his wonderful eight year performance as the bumbling fool of politics.</font> And, if you don't understand why <b>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! <br />
They are laughing at you!</b> 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)." <br />
<br />
<br />
@ 36 min) The major problem is transparency. <br />
<br />
@ 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 <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> <br />
Angela) OK, but we need to hold them accountable. <br />
Clint) Oh sure. But how you gonna do that right now? You can't do that. <br />
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 <b>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.</b> 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. <br />
<br />
@ 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 <b>work ethic has been replaced by greed, corruption, usury.</b> [...] 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. <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> <br />
<br />
@ 58 min) Well, that's kind of what I was referring to is like <font color="#cc0000">people don't even think about the jobs they are doing anymore, they just do it.</font> <b>They don't think 'oh, this is really corrupt, I shouldn't be doing this.' <br />
No one has the crisis of conscience that I was referring to</b> [...] <br />
Usury is just natural to people and that's what needs to stop. <br />
This will really gonna bake your noodle, actually – and again, some of you might know this, but – <font color="#cc0000">one thing we can't do, unfortunately, is fight this in any type of ordinary way,</font> because here is one of the worst things that I found out, and that was just recently ... <br />
<br />
@ 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 <i>have</i> 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. <font color="#cc0000">I mean, if you think the CAFR thing is big wait till you see some of the next stuff.</font> [...] <br />
It's gonna be an interesting ride, so wish me luck. <br />
<br />
@ 84 min) Transparency is the absolute solution. <br />
<br />
@ 87 min) Think of it this way: <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> 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. <b>There is no opposite side. There is no one party fighting against the other. It's all <a href="http://www.jesuitsources.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3&products_id=17">a charade.</a></b> <br />
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 – <font color="#cc0000">it's all fake,</font> 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, <b>it's not about the money as much as it is about ownership,</b> okay? <b>Ownership is the key.</b> <br />
<br />
<br />
cca) That was one of the deepest and completest radio interviews I've ever heard, Clint, at all. <br />
Thanks, man, for this tremendous inspiration! Also an impressive validation of some of my own key considerations from another research background. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">The personality of the corporation corrupts everybody's personality, but that's exactly what the corporation was designed for.</font> Based on which model? The brotherhood, of course, a mafia company of absolute loyal spiritual soldiers – <b>loyalty in the sense of its founder Saint Ignatius of Loyola as</b> military allegiance meaning <b>blind obedience.</b> 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 <b>made the whole society of Western civilization (and finally the entire world) a Society of Jesus.</b> <br />
<br />
My proposal of what could be done about the situation <i>"right now"</i> 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 ("<a href="http://corporatemainstream.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-does-this-not-drive-you-insane.html">You could create</a> a paradigm of a media organization that is geared towards 'No Bullshit'. And do it actively. And <b>stop pretending that we don't know what's going on.</b> And stop pretending that it's a right-left question. <font color="#cc0000">I don't buy that the world is divided into bi-chromatic thought</font> like that.") and already put in place in its original form since, I believe, four years through "Mr. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6yzwdw">9/11 Synchronicity</a>" 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 <font color="#cc0000">they probably would develop their new profession towards being the most direct counterpart some day</font> 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. <br />
<br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-45743647543072044782011-04-09T07:30:00.012+02:002011-04-25T06:44:49.197+02:00My conversation with Max<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/my-conversation-with-martin-chapter-two.html">04/11'11</a> My conversation with Max – chapter two <br />
<br />
David Icke on <a href="http://www.killermovies.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-462374-the-unhived-minds.html">08/26'07:</a> <blockquote><p>"Alex Jones, Alan Watt, Greg Szymanski and others, including the <a href="http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php">Unhived Mind</a> website (<b>most users ever online was 131 on March 11, 2011</b>), communicate some extremely valuable information, especially Alex and his team with their high profile in the US, and <font color="#cc0000">I wish them all well in their work.</font> 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. <br />
<br />
[Another irony is that <font color="#cc0000">Alan Watt agrees with Alex Jones about the Reptilian connection,</font> but seems to resent what he calls <font color="#cc0000">the 'superstars' of conspiracy research, apparently Alex and myself,</font> because they commit the cardinal sin of being well known and therefore able to communicate to a large potential audience. <b>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.</b> <br />
<font color="#cc0000">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.</font> Go figure.] <br />
<br />
<b>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.</b> <br />
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. <br />
<b>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. <br />
That is not questioning, it is being a slave to preconceived belief.</b> <br />
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. <br />
He has now made two television programmes bashing alternative healing methods, psychics etc., and this was the peg for the Phillips article. <br />
Dawkins is actually a professional basher addicted to rubbishing other peoples' lifestyles and ideas. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">I have debated with him at the Oxford Union at Oxford University and it is like being addressed by a wall.</font> 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."</p></blockquote><br />
<h3 style="font-family:Lucida Fax; font-size:88%"; align="center">Modern militarized Corporate Feudalism</h3><br />
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, <b>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.</b> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office">offices</a> (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. <br />
<b>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?</b> So if that's not extremely onesided, illusory, nonscientific and romantic I don't know.<br />
<br />
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 <font color="#cc0000">your instant water heater Alex Jones, who should be crowned as world champion in disintegration of information,</font> 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 "<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/synchronistically-speaking.html">fastest nimble sheeps</a>"), you see? <br />
So it's a matter of principle where you can choose whatever you want as an example, alright? <br />
<br />
"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. <b>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.</b> 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
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. <br />
As a information source I value him a top quality (miles better than corporate media). I wonder what fake paradigm Alex Jones is pushing.<br />
<br />
I roughly agree with the following people:<br />
David Icke: 89% <br />
Allan Watt: 93% <br />
Alex Jones: 93% <br />
<a href="http://www.sovereignindependent.com">Sovereign Independent:</a> 93% <br />
Webster Tarpley: 93% <br />
Vigilant Citizen: 90% <br />
Peter Joseph and the <a href="http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=13193">Venus thing:</a> 33% <br />
James Corbett: 97% <br />
On 9/11 <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html">Jim Hoffman:</a> 97% <br />
<br />
I don't see him as a prophet, but a valuable source of information, with his quality vastly offset his less good stuff. <br />
<br />
<br />
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 <b>one of the reasons that Rich started creating his own podcasts was to present the information in a fear-free environment <i>and</i> 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)</b> ...<br />
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) ...<br />
<font color="#cc0000">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 :)</font> <br />
<br />
<br />
tt) Hey, nice answer, Max, great! <br />
Was it your own idea or have you read my conversation with Tom before? <br />
Because that's exactly what I was referring to with <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/my-conversation-with-tom.html">the greater idea</a> behind <b>Jon Stewart's recommendation for a media revolution (or at least for <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/NextNewNetworks">a new kind</a> of media company) at a morning pint in New York City in autumn 2004.</b> <br />
<br />
<br />
<h3 style="font-family:Lucida Fax; font-size:88%"; align="center">The engine unit of the election process for the top journalists on the web</h3><br />
<b>Your numbers of how much you take the interpretations and conclusions, the opinions and standpoints, and finally the worldviews and philosophies</b> – theology: <a href="http://fora.tv/2009/10/06/Noam_Chomsky_Philosophies_of_Language_and_Politics">philosophies of</a> God as Soul of a society, as kind of the social spirit of a certain type of civilization – <b>of your, I guess, chief sources of information for real could be the rough sketch for future election polls.</b> Not the ones for administrative representatives, the party politicians, but the far more important ones for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_analysis">media analysis</a> representatives, the media politicians. And <font color="#cc0000">this is not abstract thinking, this happens already on a massive scale.</font> <br />
And the engine unit of this process can be described with Ted Wodoslawsky's accurate realization: <blockquote><p>"When someone's world view is mirrored back to them, they don't see it as a biased opinion."</p></blockquote>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. <br />
<br />
You know what, <font color="#cc0000">let's take "fake" aside and replace it with "political",</font> alright? Just to make it a little bit easier for me to do "my job as <a href="http://tragedyandhope.ning.com/forum/topics/carroll-quigley-and-the-jesuit">piety profiler</a>" ... 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. <br />
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. <br />
<br />
Now, <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/02/peace-revolution-podcast.html">Richard said</a> in August 2010 <blockquote><p>"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? <br />
Is it helping you to express who you are or is it working to suppress and tell you who you are?"</p></blockquote>and I assume you think that T-Rex Alex is, in any case, one of them who do <font color="#cc0000">help to expand your perceptiveness and awareness.</font> But is this really the case? <br />
<br />
Fact of the matter is, he exclusively provides informations that fit in his believe system. <br />
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. <br />
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. <br />
<b>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.</b> <br />
<br />
<br />
<h3 style="font-family:Lucida Fax; font-size:88%"; align="center">Corporatism as life-style and ideology</h3><br />
Look, we have the Corporate "9/11 Terror" paradigm where "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22Everything+is+OK%22#">Everything is OK</a>" ('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 <b>the same piety-strategical game</b> 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. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">Both sides integrate and desintegrate informations like they want to instead of synchronistically comprehend the undiminished, uncensored data volume.</font> <br />
So I think <b>the business model of Mr. Jones is basically to embody the role of "the <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/synchronicity-whisperweb-march-2011.html">Rush Limbaugh</a> of the conspiracy party",</b> 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, <font color="#cc0000">I can find it understandable when the Counter-Reformation feels like a conspiracy.</font> <br />
Here is why I believe it is not. <br />
<br />
Take, for instance, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_McGovern">Ray McGovern,</a> a Jesuit-trained CIA top agent, who was presenting the morning intelligence briefings at the White House for more than ten years ("from the <a href="http://antiwar.com/mcgovern">JFK administration</a> to that of G.H.W. Bush"), now a widely accepted leading figure in the <a href="http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060505_truthdigger_week_ray_mcgovern">truth movement.</a> 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? <br />
Because <b>the corporatocracy is only seen as a conspiracy by those who haven't internalized the spirit of Corporatism during their upcoming.</b> 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. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">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.</font> <br />
<br />
And I tell you on this occasion why I have to stay anonymous with thoughts like this for the moment: <br />
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 <b>their innermost playground,</b> so to speak – but <font color="#cc0000">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 "<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/03/you-build-castles-in-air.html">castles of piety</a>".</font> <br />
<br />
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? <br />
Your idea to list the topics one covers is also pretty useful. <br />
And you doesn't meant "obliviously", but obviously, right? Thanks for your inspiration, I totally appreciate this. <br />
<br />
<br />
Max) As for the people who <i>want to be ruled,</i> 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 <i>want to be</i> slaves (at least a large portion of them), also I agree to some extent to the farm analogy. <br />
<br />
<br />
tt) True, Max. This corresponds almost completely with the opening of WYBM <blockquote><p>"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. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbCKLr_vHhY&feature=&p=7A0B27B232F30DF7&index=0&playnext=1">This series</a> resurrects your ... and so on.</p></blockquote>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. <br />
You supposedly feel it yourself how vaguely you can make a point about the – let's say – psychology of the herd. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">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.</font> <br />
So end of story here, right? But at this point the piety theorist get just started ... <br />
<br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-64472475265933972362011-04-04T08:08:00.010+02:002011-05-05T20:25:01.449+02:00Jarett Sanchez<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
lopo) <br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=68560328831">Learning the Trivium</a> <br />
<br />
<font face="High Tower Text" size="4"><a href="http://tragedyandhope.ning.com/profile/JSanchez">website</a></font> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/15474-1">A decent talk</a> by Mortimer Adler at the National Press Club on the Great Books of the Western World <br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian">Underground Grammarian</a> Richard Mitchell <br />
"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 <i>funny</i> as hell!" <br />
<br />
<a href="http://c-realmpodcast.podomatic.com/entry/2011-02-16T12_25_27-08_00">C-Realm</a> Podcast # 245 "Here's a juicy refutation (of sorts) of Zeitgeist – Moving Forward. <br />
I think all Zeitgeist fans should consider the value of these arguments against Joseph and Fresco's TechnoUtopia." <br />
<br />
<b>Understanding Misunderstandings:</b> How to do a rhetorical analysis by <a href="http://www.drw.utexas.edu/roberts-miller/handouts/rhetorical-analysis">Trish Roberts-Miller</a> <br />
<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_107319542671143&view=permalink&id=138874629515634">Rhetoric 101:</a> A Primer for Rhetoric Students</center><br />
tt = Tosco T.) "Discern persuasive elements in communication between parties" ... <br />
Aren't we a little bit further than that yet, Jarett? <blockquote><p>"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, <b>brainstorming together, reciprocally provoking new ideas and standpoints, and having fun doing so.</b> <font color="#cc0000">It is this process of playing with arguments, among others, that typifies thinking together.</font> 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." <br />
Kuang-Ming Wu 1998: On the "Logic" of Togetherness – A Cultural Hermeneutic (<a href="http://books.google.de/books?id=eqqIM7I_GwEC&pg=PA133#">p. 133</a>)</p></blockquote><br />
Jarett) I'm not sure what you mean, Tosco. <br />
tt) You'll find out, Jarett, no problem, because I think we will keep in touch with each other ... <br />
It's harder to explain than to practice, you know, so I take a pass on this definition, alright? For now, at least. <br />
Or let's say not before we are in agreement about that other definition :) <br />
<br />
<br />
Jarett) This is what I was referring to: <blockquote><p>"Discern persuasive elements in communication between parties" ... <br />
Aren't we a little bit further than that yet, Jarett?</p></blockquote>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. <br />
<b>Rhetoric puts you in direct contact with critical thinking skills.</b> <br />
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 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kCgZUztkxo">my podcast,</a> The Next Step (world cafe, wisdom councils, etc). It just doesn't have anything to do with beginning to learn rhetoric.<br />
Aristotle said rhetoric was the ability to detect persuasion in speech acts and for the most part, I agree. <br />
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. <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> 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.<br />
Rhetoric is used almost every time a human being consciously speaks. <br />
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. <br />
<br />
<br />
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. <br />
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. <br />
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. <br />
"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. <blockquote><p>"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."</p></blockquote>True. I absolutely admit it. But you know what's also true? <br />
<br />
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. <br />
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 :) <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://262neck.webs.com/theaccuracydisciplines.htm">accuracy</a> 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. <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
*) <a href="http://blog.patriots4liberty.com/2011/03/an-unholy-alliance-obama-tied-to-gadhafi">03/07'11</a> 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 <b>to help create civil unrest,</b> which Gadhafi knows (better than many Americans) <b>is fomented by 'preachers'</b> who pipe the dangerous Marxist message of 'Black Liberation Theology'. It is Marxism first, 'theology' second with this crowd." <br />
<br />
The German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk wrote in one of his widely ridiculous books ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloterdijk,_Peter#Rage_and_Time">Zorn und Zeit</a>"): "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 <a href="http://rsa.cwrl.utexas.edu/node/4452">Blogora</a>" <br />
<br />
<br />
Jarett) Well the thing is that learning rhetoric puts you into contact directly with the old understandings of what rhetoric is. And <b>no matter what, we're almost always trying to persuade in conversation.</b> 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. <br />
<b>I'm into permaculture and all that,</b> 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 <font color="#cc0000">again, when applying rhetorical skills, identification of persuasion is a huge part of the game, although not the only.</font> 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. <br />
Isocrates is another great rhetorical teacher to look into. <br />
<br />
<br />
tt) "The old understandings" – exactly! <br />
Or let's say the traditional way of generating civility. <br />
But <b>all civility that we know of has a very strong military touch,</b> 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 <b>behind this shimmering veneer of sensationalist conspiracy theory:</b> which is the fact that, despite all this professional theatricality around apparent democratic proceedings, <b>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. <br />
And belligerent persuasion-oriented rhetoric is the way this system operates,</b> okay? <br />
<br />
<font color="#cc0000">Maybe we're already about to discuss a new definition of rhetoric here that takes this completely new cybertronic communication environment into consideration.</font> 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? <br />
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 ... <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
<b>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.</b> 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. <br />
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. <br />
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" ... :) <br />
<br />
<br />
Jarett) <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/trivium-on-facebook.html">You're continuing</a> 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. <br />
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!<br />
<br />
"The old understandings" – exactly! Are you aware of what the old understandings of rhetoric are? <br />
Here's <a href="http://rhetorica.net/textbook/index.htm">a synopsis</a> of some of the major threads, which is to say, not all schools of rhetoric were identical. <br />
So right away you can understand persuasion in a perhaps more fuller context. <br />
<b>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</b> where rhetoric is not solely focused upon influencing the public conversation. <br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<font color="#cc0000">It seems you become uncomfortable when your opinions are questioned.</font> <br />
<b>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.</b> <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_Adler">Mortimer Adler</a> certainly seems the most prominent in the field. <br />
And also, what is the definition of "educated" in this conversation? That's a crucial term.<br />
<br />
"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 <i>really</i> 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? <br />
How do you judge which statements to question, then, if <i>certain</i> statements are off limits?<br />
<br />
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." <br />
<br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-89338608728808465692011-04-01T22:33:00.004+02:002011-04-06T10:45:15.177+02:00My conversation with Tom<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
lopo) <br />
Synchronicity <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/03/911-synchronicity-whisperweb.html">Whisperweb</a> <br />
<br />
<center>My conversation with Tom <br />
or <br />
Why corporate journalism is goverment journalism resp. <br />
why Mike and Matt Taibbi, for instance, work for the state corporation as its agents</center> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-owned_corporation">Wikipedia</a> on Indonesia: <br />
"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 ..." <br />
<br />
And apropos <a href="http://tragedyandhope.ning.com/profiles/blogs/selfcensored-in-the">Indonesia (@ 21 min):</a> <blockquote><p>William) Toy is a bad word because, as I said, they killed million and millions of people. <br />
<br />
Harold) <i>Millions?</i> <br />
<br />
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. <br />
But it's more than just the casualties in the overt wars: <b>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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly">oligopolies</a> in power in almost every country where they operate. And what that will generally mean is that the majority of the people, sometimes the <i>vast</i> 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.</b> <br />
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.</p></blockquote><br />
<center><a href="http://thecorporationnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Interview_2010-10-21_TheRabbitHole2_With-Edward-Mock.mp3">10/21'10</a> Clint Richardson on The Rabbit Hole with Edward Mock (pt 2), and he's on fire but in a cool way</center> <br />
@ 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. <b>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.</b> <br />
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 ... <b>I mean, it blows my mind and I'm the one who made it.</b> <br />
<font color="#cc0000">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 <i>high on the hog</i> right now.</font> 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. <br />
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. <font color="#cc0000">You're basically talking about pure, blatant, harsh, horrible usury that's been going on for all this time.</font> 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. [...] <br />
<br />
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 <b>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,</b> 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. <font color="#cc0000">I don't think most people can comprehend what that feels like, but I'm imagining a society that is based on that.</font> 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
@ 42 min) Monsanto is definitely a Fortune 500 company, and what does that mean? <br />
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. (<a href="http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/what-is-jp-morgan-chase">11/16'10</a> "What is JP Morgan Chase?") [...] <br />
<br />
In the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_Kr8N-d004">State of Delaware</a> 60 percent at least, it's probably up by now, but <b>60 percent of Fortune 500 company and 50 percent of all corporations in the U.S. are incorporated within the State of Delaware,</b> that small little state. The reason is and <b>the reason why most banks are incorporated there is because they have no or very limited usury laws.</b> 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. <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> That is the definition of a foreign corporation: any corporation that's incorporated in another state and operating inside of your state. <br />
So <b>"foreign corporation" is kind of a misleading term.</b> 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 <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware-AG#Delaware">Delaware.</a> 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. <b>You start to see,</b> you know, there's <b>all these little things</b> like that, you start to see this – <b>I mean, what else can you call it but a conspiracy, right?</b> <br />
<br />
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. <b>Everything boils down to this. Why are things that aren't food being sold as food?</b> 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. <br />
You know, <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Fried_Chicken">Kentucky Fried Chicken</a> 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.</b> <br />
So all of the sudden "Kentucky Fried Chicken" becomes "KFC". But who is regulating this? The government! <br />
So <font color="#cc0000">the conflict of interest factor in this all is so astounding you can't even begin to imagine.</font> <br />
<br />
So the regulators of Monsanto are government. And <b>then you have Obama hiring Monsanto's main auditor to the FDA,</b> an then he quits the FDA after, you know, <b>he writes a bill at Monsanto, joins the FDA, passes his own bill, and then gets rehired with a lot more money at Monsanto.</b> <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> <br />
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. <b>Monsanto has the patent on breast cancer! No one can do research on breast cancer without Monsanto's permission.</b> <br />
So, 40 percent of the gens in your body are now <a href="http://www.google.de/search?q=%22patented+by+pharmaceutical+companies%22#">patented by</a> 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. <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> You start to understand what I'm saying, right? <br />
<br />
<br />
<center>Hey Tommy, do you remember our little chat some days ago?</center> <br />
You know, I asked you how much you actually were decentralized to possibly get an entrance to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/DecentralizedByGuilt">your webspace</a> 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
Just to be absolutely clear, nothing is realistic without de-corporatized, de-bureaucratized, de-militarized media. <br />
And I think we have to find out yet what exactly belongs to such a concept of generating <a href="http://books.google.de/books?id=eqqIM7I_GwEC&pg=PA133#">mutual thinking together.</a> <blockquote><p>"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, <b>mutual thinking together does not argue but <i>play</i> with arguments, back and forth, brainstorming together, reciprocally provoking new ideas and standpoints, and having <i>fun</i> doing so. It is this <i>process</i> of playing with arguments, among others, that typifies thinking together. <br />
Such togetherness-thinking is a sort of music-making.</b> <br />
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 <i>one,</i> there would be no music." <br />
Kuang-Ming Wu 1998: On the "Logic" of Togetherness – A Cultural Hermeneutic</p></blockquote><br />
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 <a href="http://freemanontheland.com/freeman-chrisitian">Freeman on the Land</a> would open his own bank, you know, and I left that notion as a commentary on The Investigative Journal, where <font color="#cc0000">Greg Szymanski, who by the way had interviewed Walter Burien yet eight years ago</font> or so, was promoting John Harris by republishing his It's An Illusion lecture. <br />
<a href="http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Live-In-A-Sexless-Marriage/1468771">Then, some day in</a> 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 <a href="http://www.google.de/images?q=Exerzitienmeister#">Exerzitienmeister</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_Exercises_of_Ignatius_of_Loyola#Typical_methodology_and_structure">spiritual director</a>) or superior <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology">auditor</a> 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. <br />
A lot of ideas are whirling around in cyberspace right now, <a href="http://servanlog.blogspot.com/2010/12/state-is-dead-roll-on-global-free.html">Servan Keondjian's</a> is just one of them. <br />
And last weekend then I discovered the in my eyes "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=absolutely+fabulous+series+1#">absolutely fabulous</a>" Clint Richardson with his excellent Corporation Nation interviews, where among a lot of other things the following was to be found. <br />
<br />
From the same broadcast as above @ 2 min – Richardson on the question <font color="#cc0000">"What can you do to take action?"</font>) <blockquote><p><b>My first instinct is to refer people to Walter Burien.</b> 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 <b>he's looking for someone who will start what he calls a "<a href="http://taxretirement.com">Tax Retirement</a> Fund",</b> 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 <i>local</i> economy specifically. <br />
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. <b>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.</b> <br />
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.</p></blockquote><br />
<font color="#cc0000">Suddenly it turnes out that the leading (illuminative) expert on the exact mode of operation of the <a href="http://commentjournal.blogspot.com/2011/03/corporation-nation.html">Corporation Nation</a> works on the same idea</font> ... 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 <font color="#cc0000">their <a href="http://www.google.de/search?q=%22ultimate+goal%22%2B%22Aaron+Russo%22#">ultimate goal,</a> according to Aaron Russo, with a Jesuit "Litvinenko option" for unlimited and eternal God-like control.</font> <br />
<br />
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? <br />
<br />
This is where Jon Stewart's recommendation from October 2004 of finding <a href="http://a-conspiracy-so-monstrous.blogspot.com/2009/11/vatican-assassins-commentaries-1.html">an arbiter</a> (11/11'09) comes in: <blockquote><p>"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. <br />
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. <br />
I think it would make a shit-load of money, and not only that, you'd be able to sleep at night."</p></blockquote>The greater idea behind this notion of choosing arbiters or <i>mediators</i> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Magliola">K.-M. Wu's</a> Logic of Togetherness than <a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_107319542671143&view=permalink&id=138874629515634">an argument</a> of philosophical proportions. <br />
<br />
As regards <a href="http://tragedyandhope.ning.com/profiles/blogs/charlie-veitch-point-of-return">Kenneth's posting</a> 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 <a href="http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/04/blockbuster-finding-van-romero-attended.html">Van Romero</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Zelikow">Philip Zelikow</a> etc., even with Jon Stewart and other <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlXjNsPp9Jw">corporate comics.</a> <br />
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 "<a href="http://colbertbump.blogspot.com/2011/03/proud-tool-of-viacom.html">proud tool</a> of Viacom", marked as the "<a href="http://www.colbertnation.com/video/tag/Formidable+Opponent">formidable opponent</a>" of the as "*icians" tagged, unmasked opinion makers/propaganda soldiers and therefore almost completely useless, because they mostly have contra-productive effects. <br />
<br />
There's much more to say about, but I hope I got my idea across so far, more or less appropriately. <br />
<br />
"The United States has changed from a constitutional republic to <a href="http://sanityandsense.com/2010/11/19/the-corruptocracy">a corruptocracy.</a> <br />
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." <br />
R. Van Conoley: "400 Americans have the same wealth as 155 million Americans." <br />
<br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-75985330232444347692011-03-31T23:44:00.013+02:002011-04-12T23:43:23.418+02:00Clint Richardson<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
lopo) <br />
American <a href="http://thecorporationnation.com/?page_id=13">Feudal Fiefdoms</a> (10/25'10 Clint Richardson with Dale Williams) <br />
Corporation Nation <a href="http://commentjournal.blogspot.com/2011/03/corporation-nation.html">lopo</a> <br />
Synchronicity <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/03/911-synchronicity-whisperweb.html">Whisperweb</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/my-conversation-with-tom.html">04/01'11</a> My conversation with Tom <br />
<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/my-conversation-with-martin-chapter-two.html">04/11'11</a> My conversation with Martin – chapter two <br />
<a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/04/where-walter-burien-meets-jon-stewart.html">04/11'11</a> Where Walter Burien meets Jon Stewart <br />
<br />
<font face="High Tower Text" size="4"><a href="http://thecorporationnation.com">website</a> <br />
<a href="http://realitybloger.wordpress.com">realityblog</a></font> <br />
<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://thecorporationnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Interview_2010-10-21_TheRabbitHole2_With-Edward-Mock.mp3">10/21'10</a> Clint Richardson on The Rabbit Hole with Edward Mock (pt 2), and he's on fire but in a cool way</center> <br />
@ 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. <b>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.</b> <br />
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 ... <b>I mean, it blows my mind and I'm the one who made it.</b> <br />
<font color="#cc0000">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 <i>high on the hog</i> right now.</font> 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. <br />
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. <font color="#cc0000">You're basically talking about pure, blatant, harsh, horrible usury that's been going on for all this time.</font> 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. [...] <br />
<br />
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 <b>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,</b> 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. <font color="#cc0000">I don't think most people can comprehend what that feels like, but I'm imagining a society that is based on that.</font> 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
@ 42 min) Monsanto is definitely a Fortune 500 company, and what does that mean? <br />
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. (<a href="http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/what-is-jp-morgan-chase">11/16'10</a> "What is JP Morgan Chase?") [...] <br />
<br />
In the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_Kr8N-d004">State of Delaware</a> 60 percent at least, it's probably up by now, but <b>60 percent of Fortune 500 company and 50 percent of all corporations in the U.S. are incorporated within the State of Delaware,</b> that small little state. The reason is and <b>the reason why most banks are incorporated there is because they have no or very limited usury laws.</b> 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. <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> That is the definition of a foreign corporation: any corporation that's incorporated in another state and operating inside of your state. <br />
So <b>"foreign corporation" is kind of a misleading term.</b> 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 <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware-AG#Delaware">Delaware.</a> 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. <b>You start to see,</b> you know, there's <b>all these little things</b> like that, you start to see this – <b>I mean, what else can you call it but a conspiracy, right?</b> <br />
<br />
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. <b>Everything boils down to this. Why are things that aren't food being sold as food?</b> 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. <br />
You know, <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Fried_Chicken">Kentucky Fried Chicken</a> 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.</b> <br />
So all of the sudden "Kentucky Fried Chicken" becomes "KFC". But who is regulating this? The government! <br />
So <font color="#cc0000">the conflict of interest factor in this all is so astounding you can't even begin to imagine.</font> <br />
<br />
So the regulators of Monsanto are government. And <b>then you have Obama hiring Monsanto's main auditor to the FDA,</b> an then he quits the FDA after, you know, <b>he writes a bill at Monsanto, joins the FDA, passes his own bill, and then gets rehired with a lot more money at Monsanto.</b> <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> <br />
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. <b>Monsanto has the patent on breast cancer! No one can do research on breast cancer without Monsanto's permission.</b> <br />
So, 40 percent of the gens in your body are now <a href="http://www.google.de/search?q=%22patented+by+pharmaceutical+companies%22#">patented by</a> 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. <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> You start to understand what I'm saying, right? <br />
<br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-20292575998683052612011-03-30T06:44:00.005+02:002011-03-30T07:01:03.119+02:00William Schaap<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
<br />
<center><font face="Tempus Sans ITC" size="4"><b>Self-censored in the psychological make-up</b></font> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi5h3vZl6uo">07/13'98</a> William Schaap and Louis Wolff with Harold Channing</center> <br />
<br />
@ 36 min – William) The words are astonishing. <br />
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 ... <font color="#cc0000">an awful lot of it has become self-propelled, and through self-censorship more than anything else.</font> <b>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.</b> 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. <br />
<br />
<br />
<h3 style="font-family:Lucida Fax; font-size:88%"; align="center">Without stopping to think what it means</h3><br />
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. <br />
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 <a href="http://gaz.sagepub.com/content/9/2/157.extract">Social-Democratic Press</a> or the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democrat">Christian Democrat</a> 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. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
William) It was the establishment that got rid of Nixon. <br />
<br />
Louis) There is an institution right now, run out of the U.S. Information Agency (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Information_Agency">USIA</a>), it's a sort of a new-fangled version of what Bill is talking about and it's called "World Net", where they have <b>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</b> it's real, it's live, <b>it happens live. The problem is that the people who are allowed to ask those questions are hand-picked,</b> and they have to submit questions in writing before they come in to ask them. <b>The whole thing is completely fraudulent.</b> And yet this is part of the whole media manipulation that we conducted. <b>It's only a small part, but it's pretty blatant.</b> <br />
<br />
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. <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> 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 (). <br />
<br />
<br />
<h3 style="font-family:Lucida Fax; font-size:88%"; align="center">It's gnosis what they <i>ex</i>clude (the Gnostic Media so to speak)</h3><br />
William) Well, that's what they say. I mean, <font color="#cc0000">now that you said it I'll probably take that down and use it next time.</font> 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. <b>You don't have that much to know what kind of a question the official would <i>like</i> to get asked, but you <i>do</i> have to know something to know what kind of a question the official would <i>not</i> like to get asked.</b> <br />
<br />
Harold) And the people in the media world – and <font color="#cc0000">very often, it might be in a certain sense: if you sit down at a dinner</font> – 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. <br />
<br />
William) Yeah, most of them, <font color="#cc0000">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</font> 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. <br />
<b>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.</b> <br />
<a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-24-2011/family-matters">We all know GE</a> [...] the TV station is a small part of it. Even the <a href="http://www.nytco.com/investors/financials/annual_reports.html">New York Times</a> 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. <b>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.</b> 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. <br />
<br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-3709682174285156132011-03-18T12:00:00.005+01:002011-03-18T12:31:21.384+01:00Mark Passio<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
lopo) <br />
<br />
<font face="High Tower Text" size="4"><a href="http://www.whatonearthishappening.com">website</a></font> <br />
<br />
April 9/10th 2011 Free Your Mind <a href="http://www.freeyourmindconference.com">Conference</a> in Philadelphia, PA <br />
<br />
<br />
<center><font face="Lucida Fax" size="2"><b><a href="http://www.gnosticmedia.com/mark-passio-interview-mind-control-105">02/28'11</a> First interview on Jan Irvin's Gnostic Media podcast</b></font></center> <br />
@ 59 min) "All astrotheological religious cults are based on the same basic retellings of these stories. <br />
Now, part of my work is helping people to understand why <b>all these religions were re-scripted to basically being exoteric retelling of these stories.</b> <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> 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. <br />
These were only symbols that represented aspects of the self. <br />
For example, <font color="#cc0000">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</font> or the pass of sights to the personality. <br />
Restfulness etc., they're all feminine qualities. And they were all internal qualities. And <b>they all have to do with the emotional maturity of the person,</b> the emotional aspects. <br />
And <b>that's what they were revering, not really the moon specifically as an actual object.</b> <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, these religions come down to us and are sort of worship of these actual objects. <br />
They are watered-down versions of these original mystery traditions that were ultimately about the self and aspects within the self. And, <b>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 <i>el</i>ect group,</b> as the case may be. <br />
<a href="http://outofpiety.blogspot.com/2011/03/qumraner-monche-vorbild-romischer.html">Look at Judaism,</a> <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> 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. <br />
Now, of course, as we've already talked about, <font color="#cc0000">for every positive aspect of the occult there is its mere opposite, there is the dark of cult.</font> 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 <b>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.</b> And indeed it has been, not just can be, that actually has been done. <font color="#cc0000">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</font> that we have already spoken about. <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">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.</font> Now, <b>maybe there was a group of Gnostic teachers that</b> started the mystery traditions or <b>were carrying that knowledge.</b> And they turned it Gnosticism or original Gnostic Christianity back then <b>and looked at this as a form of consciousness that was being taught and was being brought to people.</b> <font color="#cc0000">And that's another reason Constantin had to shut it down. <br />
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.</font> 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'. <br />
<br />
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 <b>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,</b> represents an idea that is held in the subconscious mind, whether they are consciously aware of it or not." <br />
<br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://www.gnosticmedia.com/mark-passio-interview-pt-2-mind-control-106">03/10'11</a> Second appearance on Gnostic Media</center> <br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-38242984859751848582011-03-10T07:44:00.004+01:002011-03-10T07:48:48.859+01:00Splinters of piety<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
<center><a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/03/you-build-castles-in-air.html">By saying</a> <i>you are</i> blinking with your second eye I realized <i>I am</i> only blinking with it also.</center> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/dont-talk-about-the-weather">litha</a>) <b>This all sounded so paranoid and far fetched until Wikileaks exposed some what is happening, then I stopped</b> in my tracks and realized OMG ... <font color="#cc0000">these corporations and governments are nuts.</font> <br />
In Japan their was a resolution passed by a UN committee not use <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-in-world-are-they-spraying.html">geo-engineering,</a> i.e. chemtrails ... <br />
<br />
"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 <br />
<br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-70677976638450855762011-03-06T13:33:00.002+01:002011-03-06T13:33:10.060+01:00The Central Comment Agency on FacebookTosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6438427291692867140.post-79777403876129657542011-03-06T12:30:00.004+01:002011-04-16T20:47:31.004+02:00You build castles in the air<div style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Sylfaen; font-size:130%"> <br />
<br />
"Hochschulen und Universitäten betreibt der Orden weltweit 231." <br />
"Today, the Company of Jesus owns <a href="http://loyal-zu-loyola.blogspot.com/2010/11/irdische-bindung-lediglich-zum.html">exactly 231</a> institutions of higher education globally." <br />
Recently specified by the new elected Provincial for Germany, Denmark and Sweden, Stefan Kiechle SJ, himself. <br />
<br />
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, <b>our whole beloved shepherd-sheep college education system is a Jesuit design. They invented it,</b> they are ruling it. <br />
Like <a href="http://worldpoliticalauthority.blogspot.com/2009/12/we-are-educating-people-out-of-their.html">Ken Robinson</a> in his famous "TED Talk" "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY">Do schools kill</a> creativity?" pointed out: <blockquote><p>"If you were to visit education, as an alien, and say 'What's it for, public education?' I think you'd have to conclude – <b>if you look at the output, who really succeeds by this,</b> who does everything that they should, who gets all the brownie points, who are the winners – I think you'd have to conclude <b>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."</b></p></blockquote>Weishaupt and Quigley were among those top scholars for the entire system of public knowledge. <br />
Maybe we should ask one of the highest initiated "fatherly" "Professe" (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_vows">fully professed</a> Jesuits) of our stateless Knights of Jesus for what J.T. Gatto precisely means with "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=82A5378A59A3E207">The Psychopathology</a> of Schooling" ... <br />
<br />
His lecture begins with: <blockquote><p>"One of the really useful pieces of research that I've been engaged in for the past eleven or twelve years is studying <b>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.</b> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andover,_Massachusetts">Andover,</a> John McCain went to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_High_School_(Alexandria)">Episcopal High,</a> Steve Forbes went to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_School">Brook,</a> and Al Gore went to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Albans_School_(Washington,_D.C.)">Saint Albans.</a> <br />
These schools only graduate about a thousand kids a year. <br />
<b>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.</b> <br />
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. <br />
The first of these themes is that no kid should graduate without a theory of human nature."</p></blockquote>Furthermore one could ask our leading culture creators in which way John <a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_144438402285092&view=permalink&id=144683728927226">Trudell's statement,</a> 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. <blockquote><p><font color="#cc0000">"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.</font> That you've lost your ability to see it for what it is, much less to resist it in any coherent way. [...] <b>See how you got civilized because terrible things happened.</b> [...] because <b>they created irrationalization</b> [...] <br />
<b>And at some point the descendants of the tribes of Europe no longer knew what it meant to be a human being.</b> They just didn't know and they didn't want to know. <br />
<b>In the end, they had to love what they feared,</b> which was there to possess them."</p></blockquote><br />
<h3 style="font-family:Lucida Fax; font-size:88%"; align="center">The noble lie is whatever mechanism is able to keep people in mental prisons</h3><br />
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. <br />
Sucessfully executed down to the present day. <br />
<br />
<center><a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/02/paul-verge.html">Paul Verge</a> on Truth Be Told Radio with Bob Tuskin @ 18 min – <font face="Lucida Fax" size="2"><b><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhvA70ngeA4">This is something</a></b></font></center> <br />
Bob) Wow, that's a lot to put on our shoulders – <font color="#cc0000">man, Jesus! Can we do it?</font> <br />
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? <br />
<br />
Paul) Well, if people want to know, you know, what's really going on they should check out "What you've been missing – <a href="http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B14C115443F2A882">The Noble Lie</a>." 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. <br />
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. <br />
So people going around blaming the Masons, the Jesuits, the Zionists, the Catholics ... they don't realize that <b>it's the idea of itself</b> that () the N.W.O. <b>And it's made up of many many pieces</b> just like [...] <b>they're all suspects. And guess what? They're all guilty. They all did it.</b> [...] 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, <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> <br />
<br />
Bob) It's an in-place system that's been there for thousands of years, folks. This is something ... <br />
We have to realize the Henry Paulsons, the Rothschilds, whoever – these guys die. They live their lives and they die. And <b>what continues are the slavery based, debt based ideals</b> – 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. <br />
Because there is a need to get this information out. <br />
<br />
<br />
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. <br />
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 <b>theo</b>retical dogmas regimented by positivist paradigms which I am not. <br />
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. <br />
They are just the source from which every citizen is drinking ... <br />
When I was wondering several <a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_193580940662270&view=permalink&id=195059900514374">days ago</a> 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 <a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_107319542671143&view=permalink&id=133341253402305">willful ignorance</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=61A1F391970B3C8A">joyful stupidity</a> are what matters not necessarily secrecy. <br />
Secrecy is important too, of course, but its role is overrated on purpose. <br />
<br />
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 <font color="#cc0000">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.</font> 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. <br />
So we are all more or less psychopaths and therefore, psychopathic behaviour is the order of the day. <br />
Alright, let's assume they both are right and "9/11" or the "<a href="http://diephalanx.blogspot.com/2011/02/frank-ocollins.html">Holocaust</a>" would then be some kind of thermometer or barometer for the current level of psychopathology in society. What would that mean? <br />
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 <b>the reason for this lies in the nature of what's called piety or in few simple words, how cults become cultures.</b> <br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXpMVOofP-A">these gentlemen</a> here psychopaths? <blockquote><p>"I think people need Jesuits. <br />
<b>I think that people hunger for the Society of Jesus to be of some good in their lifes."</b></p></blockquote><font color="#cc0000">To be <i>of some good</i> in their lifes – what does that say about the theory of human nature that they graduated with?</font> <br />
Richard's "there <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/03/trivium-as-critical-thinking-meme_01.html">will always be</a> 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. <br />
This central circumstance of life makes pieties as practical results of certain belief systems to a major major subject. <br />
<br />
Now, the research paradigm of the conspiracy rhetoric let lots of questions unanswered. Mainly because of their strict focus on the primarily "evil elites". <br />
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. <br />
<b>"What's important is having a process to deal with all of this, because it gives you serenity of mind"</b> 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: <b>"We are friends, <a href="http://vatican-assassins.blogspot.com/2011/02/big-takeover-by-roman-cult-of.html">we all sharpen us</a> by correcting us</b> ..." Because <font color="#cc0000">when it comes to gaming what matters most is being able to compete on a higher level.</font> And this is valid for the culture creators' side as well as for "piety theorists". <font color="#cc0000">That is why the ordinary Jesuit military monk goes through fifteen years of basic training before he's allowed to join the company.</font> <br />
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. <br />
<br />
What questions should conspiracy researchers be unable to investigate and to clarify? <br />
Well, let's take the elephant in the room first, alright? <br />
Why is it that the herd loves the herdsman via his "<a href="http://the-conspiracy-is-us.blogspot.com/2010/07/he-sends-his-fastest-nimble-sheep-out.html">fastest nimble sheep</a>"? <br />
Or <font color="#cc0000">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?</font> <br />
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 <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ_9-Qx5Hz4">Meme Machine</a>" and Mark Buchanans "The <a href="http://thesocialatom.blogspot.com">Social Atom</a>" 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 <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/03/they-have-twisted-words-trivium-and.html">don't talk</a> about religion or politics" or Solomons Asch's conformity experiments, for example. <br />
<br />
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 <b>"Wahrheit"</b>), only the more insightful minds concentrate on cognitive abilities in general (in German <b>"Wahrnehmung"</b>). Role models like Mr. "9/11" Synchronicity, Richard Andrew Grove, who once said: <br />
<b>"There is no freedom without cognitive liberty."</b> <br />
<br />
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. <br />
<font color="#cc0000">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?</font> <br />
<br />
Every reason for the popularity of the <a href="http://tragedyandhope.ning.com/video/alex-jones-an-eye-opener">columbian</a> 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 <a href="http://lookingforthearbiters.blogspot.com/2011/02/jakob-steen-madsen.html">castles in the air</a>.") <br />
<br />
<center>Two examples for the "blinking of the second eye":</center> <br />
Richard in the cognitive liberty round-table discussion, PR podcast no. 10: <blockquote><p>"If everyone was given full disclosure, nobody would be supporting these people. <br />
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."</p></blockquote>Podcast <a href="http://tragedyandhope.ning.com/group/nonelectedrulers/forum/topics/the-jesuits-are-indeed-a?commentId=3972500%3AComment%3A26204">no. 15:</a> <blockquote><p>"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 ..."</p></blockquote>"If everyone was given full disclosure, nobody would be supporting these people." <br />
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. <br />
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. <br />
Because <b>"transparency shows democracy that it is none"</b> (<a href="http://corporatemainstream.blogspot.com/2011/03/transparenz-zeigt-der-demokratie-dass.html">political satire</a> on national prime time television, the allmighty media-industrial complex, the citizen's modern church pulpit). <br />
<br />
"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. <br />
A conspiracy so monstrous that everyone is in it makes the term "conspiracy" absolutely obsolete, Mr. Hoover. <br />
That is what Mr. Grove means by saying "once people understand why words are structured that way" ... <br />
Because "the conspiracy" is actually us: <br />
conspiring against one another on the basis of one's own favorite little castle of piety. <br />
<br />
"Slaves can only be slaves by lack of ability to be able to think. <br />
That's why creating a critical thinking meme, a trivium meme is so important." (Jan Irvin PR # 12 @ 77 min) <br />
<br />
</span></div>Tosco Torpedohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03530779792397520696noreply@blogger.com0