PDA

View Full Version : Raw Video: Security Breach at Newark Airport




Reason
01-07-2010, 01:54 PM
YouTube - Raw Video: Security Breach at Newark Airport (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfBOObjI-QU)

Bruno
01-07-2010, 01:59 PM
Looks like some guy meeting a friend of his at the gate. He still wouldn't have been able to get on the plane without a boarding pass.

MelissaWV
01-07-2010, 02:12 PM
Looks like some guy meeting a friend of his at the gate. He still wouldn't have been able to get on the plane without a boarding pass.

Not that I should be giving anyone ideas... but once you are past security, no one actually compares your ID with your boarding pass anymore, except for international flights. If you were to waltz into the area, you could actually snag someone's boarding pass while they weren't looking, and get on the plane. The most opportune place to do this would be a bathroom or someplace where the harried traveler would think they simply lost it.

While the person without a boarding pass is being hassled, the person who snuck onboard plants a device (they didn't go through security anyways) in the overhead bin, then sneaks right back off the plane if they don't want to get caught.

Let's say that the person whose pass was stolen gets another one. It will show as being double-scanned. This might cause a "quiet panic" as the flight attendant makes a count of passengers. However, if the person got right back off the plane, it'll be chalked up to confusion or someone's faulty printer at home or something. It probably won't cause enough alarm to deplane everyone.

squarepusher
01-07-2010, 02:30 PM
Not that I should be giving anyone ideas... but once you are past security, no one actually compares your ID with your boarding pass anymore, except for international flights. If you were to waltz into the area, you could actually snag someone's boarding pass while they weren't looking, and get on the plane. The most opportune place to do this would be a bathroom or someplace where the harried traveler would think they simply lost it.

While the person without a boarding pass is being hassled, the person who snuck onboard plants a device (they didn't go through security anyways) in the overhead bin, then sneaks right back off the plane if they don't want to get caught.

Let's say that the person whose pass was stolen gets another one. It will show as being double-scanned. This might cause a "quiet panic" as the flight attendant makes a count of passengers. However, if the person got right back off the plane, it'll be chalked up to confusion or someone's faulty printer at home or something. It probably won't cause enough alarm to deplane everyone.
wow, planning something we should know of ?

MelissaWV
01-07-2010, 02:35 PM
wow, planning something we should know of ?

No, but fully aware of the loopholes and lapses in everyday security :) It's important. Of course, being aware of your surroundings is a huge thing. If you saw someone getting OFF a plane during boarding, wouldn't you be a bit curious/suspicious as to what's going on? If you noticed them put down a bag, or put it in the bin, you'd likely be twice as interested.

I have a long, long list of areas in our life where there is next to no security at all, and they could all be exploited. I don't generally go into them, because quite frankly, if the Government ever realized it, they'd seize the chance to set up even more boundaries for us.

The fact is we're not "safe," the same way that parents can't 100% guarantee their kids will make it to adulthood. Government is an overprotective, neurotic, pathological liar of a parent that can't keep us safe. :p

dannno
01-07-2010, 02:35 PM
wow, planning something we should know of ?


lol

chudrockz
01-09-2010, 10:01 AM
Does anyone else here find it absolutely amazing that so many are essentially calling for this Jiang guy's head on a platter? I mean, really, what did he actually DO? Ducked under a rope to hang with his girlfriend? OMG, TERRORIST!! Execute him!!!

It's just beyond comprehension. IF he intended mass murder, by all means, throw him under a bus. But IF he intended no harm, leave him the HELL alone.

If a guy ducking under a rope - meaning no harm - is all that's required to shut down airports and cause mass confusion, then the terrorists have already won.

dr. hfn
01-09-2010, 10:13 AM
wow, planning something we should know of ?

an insurgency...

Justin D
01-09-2010, 10:13 AM
Where's that video footage of the airplane "bomber" going through security? What happened to the "manager" who let him on without a passport?

sofia
01-09-2010, 11:23 AM
Where's that video footage of the airplane "bomber" going through security? What happened to the "manager" who let him on without a passport?

wheres the video footage of the "19 hijackers" boarding the planes on 9-11?????

every square inch of an airport is under surveilance...has been for decades...so where's the video???


...and where are the missing and indestrucatable black box voice recorders from 911???......

CaseyJones
01-09-2010, 11:25 AM
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Arrest-Made-in-Newark-Airport-Scare---81065332.html
they arrested "the kisser"

Danke
01-09-2010, 12:12 PM
Not that I should be giving anyone ideas... but once you are past security, no one actually compares your ID with your boarding pass anymore, except for international flights. If you were to waltz into the area, you could actually snag someone's boarding pass while they weren't looking, and get on the plane. The most opportune place to do this would be a bathroom or someplace where the harried traveler would think they simply lost it.

While the person without a boarding pass is being hassled, the person who snuck onboard plants a device (they didn't go through security anyways) in the overhead bin, then sneaks right back off the plane if they don't want to get caught.

Let's say that the person whose pass was stolen gets another one. It will show as being double-scanned. This might cause a "quiet panic" as the flight attendant makes a count of passengers. However, if the person got right back off the plane, it'll be chalked up to confusion or someone's faulty printer at home or something. It probably won't cause enough alarm to deplane everyone.

Nothing is impossible, but in your example, one would have to defeat four different layers.

One, get into a secure area with a bomb. Two, get someone's boarding pass (and not have it reported as missing until well within the boarding process). Three get off the airplane without the Flight Attendants at the door of the aircraft noticing. And Four, get off the jet bridge and passed the customer service agent without them noticing.

InterestedParticipant
01-09-2010, 01:14 PM
Yup, the dialectical thesis that the TSA-can't-do-their-job is being promoted in the media. This is being done to create a synthesis that's already been planned, which probably includes centrally controlled body scanning machines that will eliminate the need for locally based TSA.

MelissaWV
01-09-2010, 01:19 PM
Nothing is impossible, but in your example, one would have to defeat four different layers.

One, get into a secure area with a bomb. Two, get someone's boarding pass (and not have it reported as missing until well within the boarding process). Three get off the airplane without the Flight Attendants at the door of the aircraft noticing. And Four, get off the jet bridge and passed the customer service agent without them noticing.

1. The video demonstrates that it's not exactly difficult. You can get to the "meeting passengers" area without any screening at all. You can even be carrying flowers, a gift, a laptop bag, or any number of things. You could easily create a distraction and get past a guard, or you could bribe a guard on duty.

2. Have you been around a mom with her screaming kids at the airport? Better yet, a grandmother wrangling a bunch of little ones? The boarding pass is usually hanging out of her diaper bag. In particular, in the bathroom the bag is largely unattended. Your easiest scenario would be to sneak past (in #1) with a bag that looks like most diaper bags or purses. Something where you could easily say "Oh God I'm sorry! I thought that was my bag!" if you're somehow found out. Actually, there was a huge epidemice not terribly long ago of people getting their bags stolen out of bathrooms at airports. The folks that did it weren't usually caught, because they would target bathrooms near the exits. Airport bathrooms have a lot of traffic, and being in the stall or rather busy at the time, most people don't get a look at the person who took their stuff. The bottom line is that if a boarding pass is just sticking out, you could nab it and the person wouldn't necessarily notice. The first reaction by that person would be that they probably lost it.

3. I have had to get off of a plane before. The flight attendants generally don't give a rat's behind about it. They're so busy dealing with people, that they let me off and just told me to be back on board before they took off. Keep in mind that, in this scenario, you're also going to blow up the plane. Your witness is dead.

4. The customer service people really really really REALLY could not be bothered with anything as I was getting off of the plane. They were dealing with standby passengers, people who wanted to be bumped up to first class, people with complaints about the fact they didn't want to check their oversized carryons, and in the scenario I described they'd probably have a frenzied person with a bunch of whining children saying they lost their boarding pass, and could they please check, and here's the card I used to buy the tickets, and I swear I just had it and it must have fallen out in the bathroom.

Implausible? Eh, it depends. You can do dry runs of 3 & 4 to test different airlines' methods of dealing with the situation. Step 1 is ridiculously easy. Step 2 is the only difficult one, and you literally have all day to scope out a patsy.

It's certainly less impossible than most of the scenarios the Government cooks up, by the way.

InterestedParticipant
01-09-2010, 01:27 PM
1. The video demonstrates that it's not exactly difficult.
This is precisely the purpose of the video. It is designed to drive public outrage so that the public will call for "better" and "more improved" security systems in order to "protect" them. What the public doesn't know is that the "solution" to this "problem" of inadequate "safety" is already ready for implementation, and it will be far more draconian than people realize.

In short, the video is pushing the public into solutions that they have already created and want to implement.

The further point is that none of this is about public security, but about control of the public. Let's stay focused on exposing the fake-dialectic and discussion the actually dialectic that is in play.

Danke
01-09-2010, 01:31 PM
No report of lost boarding pass before your section is called for boarding, and now the flight attendant doesn't check your seat assignment before you get off.

Then, when the dup (Duplicate) is discovered, they forget about a passenger getting off or decide not to do anything about it.

How everything works out perfectly as planned by the bomber that day.

MelissaWV
01-09-2010, 01:44 PM
No report of lost boarding pass before your section is called for boarding, and now the flight attendant doesn't check your seat assignment before you get off.

Then, when the dup (Duplicate) is discovered, they forget about a passenger getting off or decide not to do anything about it.

How everything works out perfectly that day.

lol the flight attendant checks your seat assignment before you get off? For what purpose? Never had it happen. Hell, the flight attendant didn't even ask for my pass.

Section called? People get called all jumbled together, for the most part, except for people needing assistance, which of course the person in my example would need. Upon discovering her pass is missing, though, she's not likely to leap up and scream "OH MY GOD MY BOARDING PASS FOR SEAT 13F IS MISSING!" especially since she's got her ticket, and tickets for each of her kids. She'd probably spend about five minutes looking through all the various bags to see where it could be. Seriously. Hang out at airports sometime. These people are absolutely easy to spot.

When a duplicate is discovered, what the flight attendant is going to do is to take a count. Phew! That's a close one! The extra person isn't on the plane. Of course, at THAT point, they might empty out all the carryons, have everyone get off the plane, and do a bag/person match. Based on a flight attendant thinking she saw someone get off and not get back on. They MIGHT go through the bathroom, I suppose, or the beverage cart, or all the seats, or anyplace someone could have stashed something. They MIGHT hold up that flight for ages while they do that, and all the customers complain.

Given recent performance, though, it's not really a safe bet. Even if you were "found out," you'd already be long gone, and you'd already have caused a scare. As we've seen, a "scare" is enough.

* * *

As for the TSA guard leaving his post being an argument to automate, there are already airports which "automate" that portion of things. You simply have a rotating gate. It only rotates in one direction, and you can only walk from the gate areas out towards the baggage areas. Think along the lines of a turnstyle you can't jump.

Danke
01-09-2010, 01:58 PM
At my airline they always check. Sorry to hear you have gotten off during boarding so often and no one did. You may wish to report that.

InterestedParticipant
01-09-2010, 02:14 PM
At my airline they always check. Sorry to hear you have gotten off during boarding so often and no one did. You may wish to report that.
Report it to who? And why?

Are you under the impression that security has anything to do this system?


As for the TSA guard leaving his post being an argument to automate, there are already airports which "automate" that portion of things. You simply have a rotating gate. It only rotates in one direction, and you can only walk from the gate areas out towards the baggage areas. Think along the lines of a turnstyle you can't jump.
Security has absolutely nothing to do with the TSA's role. This discussion remains totally within the their simulacrum of dialectics.

Danke
01-09-2010, 02:18 PM
Report it to who? And why?

Are you under the impression that security has anything to do this system?

To the airline she has had this experience. Some retraining may be necessary to their flight attendants.

MelissaWV
01-09-2010, 02:21 PM
At my airline they always check. Sorry to hear you have gotten off during boarding so often and no one did. You may wish to report that.

:rolleyes:

I guess you missed the point, which is that the whole thing can be prevented by a glorified turnstyle. Anyhow, someone asked what was the worst that could happen if people got into the boarding area by going in through the exit like the guy in the video. Not what was likely to happen, or what would be super easy to do, but what would actually be the worst that could happen.

I have no problem with getting on and off the plane. A lot of flights are sitting at the gate a little bit delayed, or often we're stuck waiting for a connection and I want to get off to buy a sandwich (flights don't have food anymore). Never been asked for my boarding pass, never been asked what seat I'm in, and never even been asked to take all of my belongings with me. The assumption is that they, and I, were screened appropriately because we came in through security. I think that SHOULD be a fair assumption for the airline to make, and that if security lines were actually efficient they could make that assumption outright. If people are able to get in through the exit, the assumption isn't safe.

Seriously. A glorified turnstyle would fix it. Some airports have them already :)

Matt Collins
01-09-2010, 02:58 PM
Here is the Judge's take on the situation:

YouTube - Glenn Beck Show - January 8, 2010 - Pt 4 of 8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB8Cjzo5Ee8&feature=player_embedded)

InterestedParticipant
01-09-2010, 03:41 PM
Yup, "the judge" keeps us inside the Simulacrum, keeping his rhetoric carefully within the notion that these are "security" lapse, helping to setup the need for more draconian security measure to "keep us safe."

When are people going to venture outside this bubble?

FrankRep
01-09-2010, 03:45 PM
Yup, "the judge" keeps us inside the Simulacrum, keeping his rhetoric carefully within the notion that these are "security" lapse, helping to setup the need for more draconian security measure to "keep us safe."

When are people going to venture outside this bubble?

Now you're attacking Judge Napolitano?

InterestedParticipant
01-09-2010, 09:59 PM
Now you're attacking Judge Napolitano?
I am simply pointing out what the "Judge" is doing. It is quite obvious. Do you wish to ignore it? Is so, why?

Further, I have no favorites, and honor the concept that Idolatry is a sin, so no one becomes an idol and then is somehow excluded from objective analysis.

Are you suggesting that the "Judge" receive a pass from what he is doing, or that these observations are to be buried? What exactly is your point of your post, and what is it that you think the "Judge is doing here?

Don't simply throw out a statement that leads the reader to perceive that you were somehow responding to a baseless "attack," back it up with something.... anything.

jmdrake
01-09-2010, 11:19 PM
All I can say is this. There's no way I'm getting body scanned. No way no how. If it means I never again travel overseas so be it. If it means I have to take Greyhound or drive so be it. I'd rather charter a small plane and fly from airstrips then put up with this crap. (I'm seriously looking into that. I have friends who have their own commercial license.) Sad day for America. Sad sad sad. And the worst part of all of this is that they're going after the "kisser". What about the boob who left his post? And how far are we going to allow ourselves to be pushed? There is a reason why terrorism is the U.S. has been limited to certain targets. Those behind the terrorism don't want Americans to wake up to the realization that the only way the government could "protect" us from such terrorism is through a total police state. If Americans realized that they would totally reject the "liberty for security" tradeoff. Instead we have to be lead into accepting tyranny one small bite at a time. Ah well. Freedom was nice while it lasted. :(

Danke
01-09-2010, 11:24 PM
I'd rather charter a small plane and fly from airstrips then put up with this crap. (I'm seriously looking into that. I have friends who have their own commercial license.)

Only the very wealth or people with a lot of time to spare can afford this option. And yes, forget about most foreign travel.

jmdrake
01-09-2010, 11:36 PM
Only the very wealth or people with a lot of time to spare can afford this option. And yes, forget about most foreign travel.

Eh. The prices my friend quoted me were quite reasonable. $90.00 per hour for the plane. A flight from here to Atlanta would be 2 hours. Round that up to $100 per hour and divide it by 4 passengers and thats $50 per ticket. Ok. That doesn't include paying the pilot. But like I said. This is a friend. It's good to have friends. :D And before you ask, yes I'd just drive to Atlanta anyway so this most likely isn't a good example. :o

Matt Collins
01-09-2010, 11:46 PM
I am simply pointing out what the "Judge" is doing. It is quite obvious. And what is the Judge doing? :confused:

Danke
01-10-2010, 12:07 AM
Eh. The prices my friend quoted me were quite reasonable. $90.00 per hour for the plane. A flight from here to Atlanta would be 2 hours. Round that up to $100 per hour and divide it by 4 passengers and thats $50 per ticket. Ok. That doesn't include paying the pilot. But like I said. This is a friend. It's good to have friends. :D And before you ask, yes I'd just drive to Atlanta anyway so this most likely isn't a good example. :o

Ya, it is a terrible example.

First, you have to find four people who want to fly on the same dates, round trip.

Then, find pilots. haha, ya, free in your example.

$90/hour? You are not flying a jet (C-182?). But rather traveling twice (maybe three times if in between smaller communities) the speed of a car. And you can't even carry as much luggage (weight).

Now, let's talk about cross-country. You can't even come close to the time and price savings you will find in airline travel.

So stick to driving for relatively short trips, and even then many people will realize the savings in time and money with travel by airlines.

InterestedParticipant
01-10-2010, 12:39 PM
All I can say is this. There's no way I'm getting body scanned. No way no how. If it means I never again travel overseas so be it.
This is one of the major goals of this entire charade... to inhibit travel. For a public that is geographical restricted is easier to control.

So, as GATT moves the world economically toward "globalization," how is one expected to earn a living if simultaneously their travel is being restricted? Doesn't it seem as if only "insiders," or only those who are subservient to the system will be allowed to fly.... and therefore economically thrive?



And what is the Judge doing? :confused:

Here is what I said in an earlier post in this thread...


Yup, "the judge" keeps us inside the Simulacrum, keeping his rhetoric carefully within the notion that these are "security" lapse, helping to setup the need for more draconian security measure to "keep us safe."

When are people going to venture outside this bubble?

Questions?

Matt Collins
01-10-2010, 02:39 PM
Here is what I said in an earlier post in this thread...Of course it was a security lapse :rolleyes:

jmdrake
01-10-2010, 04:31 PM
This is one of the major goals of this entire charade... to inhibit travel. For a public that is geographical restricted is easier to control.

So, as GATT moves the world economically toward "globalization," how is one expected to earn a living if simultaneously their travel is being restricted? Doesn't it seem as if only "insiders," or only those who are subservient to the system will be allowed to fly.... and therefore economically thrive?


Well my overseas travel wasn't that much to begin with. And the part of the post that you snipped was me talking about a way to fly that doesn't involve using the major airlines. My personal response to this is to live my life as normal as possible while actively rejecting their anti-privacy dragnet. Your personal response may be different.



Here is what I said in an earlier post in this thread...


I disagree with you quite a bit. And I agree overall with what Judge Napalitano said, not because he's "da judge", but because it makes sense. However I do think that the judge should be a little more critical of the official story. He talks about the need to privatize airline security? In this case it was a private security firm (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1141434.html) that "failed". And the "failure" itself doesn't make sense. There's no reason to let someone without identification onto an international flight. I'm glad Ron Paul was at least willing to say that on Alex Jones. (I know. You don't like AJ either).

InterestedParticipant
01-10-2010, 09:25 PM
Of course it was a security lapse :rolleyes:

They are controlling both sides of the dialectic. On the one side we have security breaches and security lapses, and on the other side we have proposals for more draconian security measures. It's the pursuit of life versus the pursuit of liberty.... a catch-22 dialectic. They say they are better protecting our right to life while they are simultaneously taking away our right to liberty. But, THEY are the ones who are creating the threat to our lives in the first place. Get it?


Well my overseas travel wasn't that much to begin with. And the part of the post that you snipped was me talking about a way to fly that doesn't involve using the major airlines. My personal response to this is to live my life as normal as possible while actively rejecting their anti-privacy dragnet. Your personal response may be different.
So, you don't have a big problem with these draconian security measure if:
a) they don't affect you so much (ie Int'l Travel);
b) you can find other ways around them (via friends who have private plans).

Does that about sum it up?


I disagree with you quite a bit. And I agree overall with what Judge Napalitano said, not because he's "da judge", but because it makes sense. However I do think that the judge should be a little more critical of the official story. He talks about the need to privatize airline security? In this case it was a private security firm (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1141434.html) that "failed". And the "failure" itself doesn't make sense. There's no reason to let someone without identification onto an international flight. I'm glad Ron Paul was at least willing to say that on Alex Jones. (I know. You don't like AJ either).
It makes sense ONLY when the audience remains locked within the OFFICIAL STORY. As soon as someone questions the officials stories, or begins to question who is behind these dialectics and why, his rhetoric bubble falls apart.

Hey, if the airlines want to offer private security and market that as a benefit to their customers, I have no problem with it. But again, this skirts the heart of the matter, and that is that it is our own governments who is manufacturing the terrorism as well as the Islamic terrorist "threat."

So, in short, my problem, with all of the above people, is that their rhetoric remains within the boundaries of a set of lies... and that their rationale only is logical if one mountains this mountain of lies.

And my argument here is that the discussion should focus on deconstructing this mountain of lies and focus on solutions that address the real problems that we are facing. So far, this thread lives within the kingdom of falsehoods.

Matt Collins
01-10-2010, 09:34 PM
They are controlling both sides of the dialectic. On the one side we have security breaches and security lapses, and on the other side we have proposals for more draconian security measures. It's the pursuit of life versus the pursuit of liberty.... a catch-22 dialectic. They say they are better protecting our right to life while they are simultaneously taking away our right to liberty. But, THEY are the ones who are creating the threat to our lives in the first place. Get it?If you think the Judge is a part of some sort of conspiracy then you don't know what you are talking about :rolleyes:

InterestedParticipant
01-10-2010, 09:37 PM
If you think the Judge is a part of some sort of conspiracy then you don't know what you are talking about :rolleyes:
If you think that the owners of mainstream media would put somone in such a key role and allow them to simply speak their mind, then you have not invested any time researching how propaganda works in society.

Do you think that all of these events are real terrorism, and that terrorism is really sponsored by Islamists?

Matt Collins
01-10-2010, 10:15 PM
If you think that the owners of mainstream media would put somone in such a key role and allow them to simply speak their mind, then you have not invested any time researching how propaganda works in society.They do it all the time. I both work for the media and know the Judge :rolleyes:


And you have no idea what you are talking about.

devil21
01-11-2010, 04:11 AM
If you think that the owners of mainstream media would put somone in such a key role and allow them to simply speak their mind, then you have not invested any time researching how propaganda works in society.

Do you think that all of these events are real terrorism, and that terrorism is really sponsored by Islamists?

One of IP's gems, along with the others in this thread. Sometimes your vagaries and vagueness rub me the wrong way but when you're more descriptive I find much of what you write to be very insightful and accurate. It's taking the next layer of cake off to see what's just below, compared to the deeper, yet still not the whole depth discussion here. "How deep does the rabbit hole go?" iow.

I understand completely what you're saying. People with influence tend to be ALLOWED that influence and that influence is still subject to limits, usually within the confines of the overall agenda. Judge is a good guy and I like his thoughts more than most others but he too is paid very well to do a job of influencing your thoughts. They all are, even Ron Paul to an extent. There's stuff that even RP won't touch with a 10 foot pole, even if he knows the topic inside and out. Political assassination (both physical and materially) is very real. Ask Eliot Spitzer how it works. The guy went from being the Governor of NY to a CNBC hack in less than a year for daring to go after Wall St. on record. He didn't pay for that hooker. His blackmailer did.

Don't get caught up in following personalities, even the Judge (Matt, you are loosely acquainted with the Judge, you do not "know" him). They all have a part to play (teleprompters and producers) and if you want to make the "big time" you have to play your part to some extent. The bigger you are, the less leeway you have because you become more influential. It's still Fox News and I remember VERY clearly how my views were treated by Fox News a year ago. There's a much larger agenda under way and restricting movement, by making air travel either impossible (put you on a secret list) or highly aggravating (searches, naked scanners, throwing away your toothpaste just to piss you off, etc) is part of that equation. Kinda like what Gaza has turned into. One giant concentration camp with no freedom of movement and your basic necessities "provided" to you with one hand, while holding a gun in the other. Police state.

InterestedParticipant
01-11-2010, 09:59 AM
They do it all the time. I both work for the media and know the Judge :rolleyes:


And you have no idea what you are talking about.
The "judge" maintains the simulacrum (ie. the artificial construct that we are under thread from Islamic terrorists and that the gov't is attempting to improve the publics safety). This is self-evident in the video, and this is what I was commenting on. This is there for anyone to see.

If you work for the media, and the "judge," then you are no impartial objective observer of the situation.

jmdrake
01-11-2010, 10:07 AM
The "Judge" maintain the simulacrum (ie. the artificial construct that we are under thread from Islamic terrorists and that the gov't is attempting to improve the publics safety). This is self-evident in the video, and this is what I was commenting on. This is there for anyone to see.

If you work for the media, and the "judge," then you are no impartial object observer of the situation.

Did it cross your mind that the judge either A) believes the threat himself or B) is simply demurring on that point in order to make a different one? He'd have a difficult time convincing the core audience of the "simulacrum", so he's taking the tactic that, even if you assume the official report, the response doesn't make sense. That's the same tactic Ron Paul is using. I personally don't think it's the best approach, and I was glad to seen Dr. Paul depart from it (a little bit) recently on Alex Jones. But it's still a valid approach.

InterestedParticipant
01-11-2010, 12:39 PM
Did it cross your mind that the judge either A) believes the threat himself or B) is simply demurring on that point in order to make a different one? He'd have a difficult time convincing the core audience of the "simulacrum", so he's taking the tactic that, even if you assume the official report, the response doesn't make sense. That's the same tactic Ron Paul is using. I personally don't think it's the best approach, and I was glad to seen Dr. Paul depart from it (a little bit) recently on Alex Jones. But it's still a valid approach.

If the "judge" believes what he is saying (your point (A)) then he is obviously deluded and therefore I can't understand why anyone would give him a second of their time to listen to him.

If the "judge" is making his current point in order to make another point at some later time (your point (B)), then I would argue he has had 9 yrs since 911 to makes these other points, points that are outside the simulacrum (ie. outside the Islamic terrorist threat construct). When exactly does he plan to make these points and step outside the Simulacrum... how much time should his audience give him?

In short, I don't hold out much hope that the "judge" is ever going to step outside the simulacrum bubble. But yes, there is a chance he may do so. However, I am certainly not going to invest any time waiting to see if that happens.

Matt Collins
01-11-2010, 02:06 PM
The "judge" maintains the simulacrum (ie. the artificial construct that we are under thread from Islamic terrorists and that the gov't is attempting to improve the publics safety)Of course we are under threat from them :rolleyes:

But that threat isn't a valid excuse for violating the Constitution and abridging our liberty which I think is what the Judge is saying in addition to the fact that the government is incompetent and CAN'T protect us.

As Ron Paul would ask, WHY are we under threat from Islamic terrorists? Well because our government keeps swatting at a hornet's nest for it's own nefarious reasons whether it be corporate welfare, the warfare state, military-industrial complex, etc.

And of course our government has used questionable events as a basis for starting a war - USS Liberty, Lusitania, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, etc. there is no denying that. Should we trust the government? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy under every rock. And even moreso it doesn't mean that anyone who is not screaming conspiracy every moment is controlled opposition :rolleyes:


How many of the Judge's books have you read?:confused:

InterestedParticipant
01-11-2010, 02:42 PM
Of course we are under threat from them :rolleyes:

[snip]

And of course our government has used questionable events as a basis for starting a war - USS Liberty, Lusitania, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, etc. there is no denying that. Should we trust the government? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean there is a conspiracy under every rock. And even moreso it doesn't mean that anyone who is not screaming conspiracy every moment is controlled opposition :rolleyes:
So, which is it....


"we are under threat from Islam"

OR

"our government has used questionable events" as a basis for promoting a particular policy?


How do you know what you know? Where does your In-Formation com from?

Matt Collins
01-11-2010, 02:44 PM
So, which is it....The two are not mutually exclusive; in fact there could be an argument made that the latter causes the former (and even vice versa).

InterestedParticipant
01-11-2010, 04:30 PM
The two are not mutually exclusive; in fact there could be an argument made that the latter causes the former (and even vice versa).
I agree that these two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But you have yet to answer the questions.

Matt Collins
01-11-2010, 04:41 PM
I agree that these two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But you have yet to answer the questions.What questions? :confused:

InterestedParticipant
01-11-2010, 10:13 PM
What questions? :confused:
How is one to understand the media deception when one can't even keep a simple discussion thread straight?

Matt Collins
01-12-2010, 12:00 AM
You aren't making any sense. What is your question?

jmdrake
01-12-2010, 12:40 PM
If the "judge" believes what he is saying (your point (A)) then he is obviously deluded and therefore I can't understand why anyone would give him a second of their time to listen to him.

If the "judge" is making his current point in order to make another point at some later time (your point (B)), then I would argue he has had 9 yrs since 911 to makes these other points, points that are outside the simulacrum (ie. outside the Islamic terrorist threat construct). When exactly does he plan to make these points and step outside the Simulacrum... how much time should his audience give him?

In short, I don't hold out much hope that the "judge" is ever going to step outside the simulacrum bubble. But yes, there is a chance he may do so. However, I am certainly not going to invest any time waiting to see if that happens.

I know this is a waste of time but.....

On point A) I simply disagree with you that someone has to be "deluded" to still think there is a threat. For one thing patsies very much play a role in my view of what happened on 9/11 and I do NOT believe the official story. Just take the first WTC bombing in 1993. There was an FBI informant inside a real terrorist cell. The FBI informant made the bomb using real explosives because his handler told him too. That doesn't mean this cell couldn't have done real damage without the FBI handler. They might have had to use a less sophisticated device and chosen a different target. Further even if the threat is coming straight from the FBI, it's still a threat. Occasionally black ops get stopped by other parts of the same security apparatus because the right hand doesn't always know what the left hand is doing.

On point B) He hasn't had 9 years with the current audience. How long has he been on Fox? A year? Two? I certainly hadn't heard of him 9 years ago. Had he come out immediately saying "9/11 was an inside job" would he have this audience at all?

Hey. Maybe someday you'll start the "Interested Participant" show. And maybe you'll do a better job at waking people up than everyone else combined. Or maybe 9 years from now you'll still be preaching to the choir at RPF. Only time will tell.

InterestedParticipant
01-12-2010, 04:59 PM
You aren't making any sense. What is your question?
See ALL of Post #43


I know this is a waste of time but.....

On point A) I simply disagree with you that someone has to be "deluded" to still think there is a threat. For one thing patsies very much play a role in my view of what happened on 9/11 and I do NOT believe the official story. Just take the first WTC bombing in 1993. There was an FBI informant inside a real terrorist cell. The FBI informant made the bomb using real explosives because his handler told him too. That doesn't mean this cell couldn't have done real damage without the FBI handler. They might have had to use a less sophisticated device and chosen a different target. Further even if the threat is coming straight from the FBI, it's still a threat. Occasionally black ops get stopped by other parts of the same security apparatus because the right hand doesn't always know what the left hand is doing.

On point B) He hasn't had 9 years with the current audience. How long has he been on Fox? A year? Two? I certainly hadn't heard of him 9 years ago. Had he come out immediately saying "9/11 was an inside job" would he have this audience at all?

Hey. Maybe someday you'll start the "Interested Participant" show. And maybe you'll do a better job at waking people up than everyone else combined. Or maybe 9 years from now you'll still be preaching to the choir at RPF. Only time will tell.
When I read this post, I see rationalization of a cult figurehead, developed through the psychic driving of a media actor. I see absolutely no value in this actor's message, I see no provocation of thought beyond the authorized messages of the system. It's all just a rehash of existing memes and messages. If this is what you think will unlock you from your chains, then by all means continue to listen to him and support his large salary. I certainly have no interest in being sucked in to this.

And Hey, maybe someday you'll climb out of your mind box that's been created for you (what Paulo Freire describes as "Critical Consciousness"), but quite frankly, I highly doubt it. In the mean time, you are free to post your opinion and respond to mine, and I am free to post my opinion and respond to yours. How about you try to keep it respectful?

Matt Collins
01-12-2010, 05:07 PM
See ALL of Post #43

Already answered the first two questions, the second too are so vague that I didn't give them any thought.


But I get my information from a variety of sources on the web, e-mail, in person, and some from the MSM; I'm skeptical of all of it.

pacelli
01-12-2010, 05:30 PM
wow, planning something we should know of ?

wow, operating under the assumption that the lady is guilty of thoughtcrime? :D

InterestedParticipant
01-12-2010, 06:32 PM
Already answered the first two questions, the second too are so vague that I didn't give them any thought.


But I get my information from a variety of sources on the web, e-mail, in person, and some from the MSM; I'm skeptical of all of it.

So, after absorbing all of this material from the various sources that you reach out to, your conclusion is......(per your quote)


Of course we are under threat from them :rolleyes:

Tell me, what about your "conclusion" is so different than the standard authorized point of view published by the establishment? What independent thinking and analysis does your "conclusion" have over and above the establishment's construct?

I see no difference.

Matt Collins
01-12-2010, 10:39 PM
Tell me, what about your "conclusion" is so different than the standard authorized point of view published by the establishment? What independent thinking and analysis does your "conclusion" have over and above the establishment's construct?That the government created the contempt and made us all less safe because of it.

InterestedParticipant
01-13-2010, 12:17 AM
That the government created the contempt and made us all less safe because of it.
So, you are saying that the acts are retaliatory, and were perpetrated by the people described by the gov't/media complex? This is basically the Ron Paul vector, is it not?

InterestedParticipant
01-13-2010, 09:28 PM
That the government created the contempt and made us all less safe because of it.

Moreover, there is no material difference between your thesis on 'terrorism' and the the authorized view, for you are limiting your exploration ONLY to the the forces that caused the Islamic terrorism. You are NOT exploring who is really perpetrating the acts and to what end. Until you can do that, you will remain well inside the "we're under attack" box, which keeps the "Islam vs. the West" dialectic in full effect, and therefore, keeps the media charade going that pays "the judge's" salary.... and I guess yours as well too.

jmdrake
01-13-2010, 10:42 PM
See ALL of Post #43


When I read this post, I see rationalization of a cult figurehead, developed through the psychic driving of a media actor. I see absolutely no value in this actor's message, I see no provocation of thought beyond the authorized messages of the system. It's all just a rehash of existing memes and messages. If this is what you think will unlock you from your chains, then by all means continue to listen to him and support his large salary. I certainly have no interest in being sucked in to this.

And Hey, maybe someday you'll climb out of your mind box that's been created for you (what Paulo Freire describes as "Critical Consciousness"), but quite frankly, I highly doubt it. In the mean time, you are free to post your opinion and respond to mine, and I am free to post my opinion and respond to yours. How about you try to keep it respectful?

Jackass I've been respectful! Do you thrive off being a total jerk? Do you get your kicks off of disrespecting others and then lying and claiming to be the victim for no apparent reason? I was halfway agree with you because you make some halfway decent points, but that's not good enough. Your pathological dishonesty always gets in the way doesn't it? Well enough. My respect for you is gone. I think you're an op for the same you claim to be fighting against.

jmdrake
01-13-2010, 10:44 PM
So, you are saying that the acts are retaliatory, and were perpetrated by the people described by the gov't/media complex? This is basically the Ron Paul vector, is it not?

:rolleyes: This is "Ron Paul" forums after all. While I disagree with Ron on this, I do so respectfully. You could learn something from that.

InterestedParticipant
01-13-2010, 11:14 PM
Jackass I've been respectful! Do you thrive off being a total jerk? Do you get your kicks off of disrespecting others and then lying and claiming to be the victim for no apparent reason? I was halfway agree with you because you make some halfway decent points, but that's not good enough. Your pathological dishonesty always gets in the way doesn't it? Well enough. My respect for you is gone. I think you're an op for the same you claim to be fighting against.
First, the following quote was an attempted sleight against me, and I'm calling you out on it. It's as simple as that.

Second, I don't want your respect or followership. I've no interest in developing a cult personality. I'm here to help people along the path, no matter how uncomfortable that may be.

Third, you don't yet have the knowledge to understand what is an OP and why. That's going to take more time, and the knowledge will NOT be gained at this online place, for the dynamics are all wrong.


I know this is a waste of time but.....

[snip]


Hey. Maybe someday you'll start the "Interested Participant" show. And maybe you'll do a better job at waking people up than everyone else combined. Or maybe 9 years from now you'll still be preaching to the choir at RPF. Only time will tell.

InterestedParticipant
01-13-2010, 11:21 PM
:rolleyes: This is "Ron Paul" forums after all. While I disagree with Ron on this, I do so respectfully. You could learn something from that.
So, we are to put our own thinking abilities aside and follow what Ron says? I've been watching Ron since his first Presidential run... I like the Man, but that's not going to stop me from doing my own thinking and developing my own opinions.

Back to my point, and that is that the opinion that you have communicated in this thread shows me that you are not an objective analyst of 'the judge' for you have bought into the establishments dialectic of Islamic Terrorism vs The West. Hence, you are judging 'the judge' from this vantage point, and therefore cannot see beyond the manipulation.

Back to my point regarding the O.P. of this thread, and that is that the security breaches, security lapses, etc. are being deliberately manufactured in order to create support for more draconian security measures. Further, an objective and adult-like discussion into this area of though will never ever be engaged by MSM personalities, such as 'the judge" (other than to mock this area of discussion).

Matt Collins
01-13-2010, 11:30 PM
So, you are saying that the acts are retaliatory, and were perpetrated by the people described by the gov't/media complex? This is basically the Ron Paul vector, is it not?
You figured this out on your own? You're brilliant! :rolleyes:



Moreover, there is no material difference between your thesis on 'terrorism' and the the authorized view,What do you mean by "authorized" :rolleyes: This makes zero sense. No one authorizes my viewpoint I make up my own mind thank you very much.


for you are limiting your exploration ONLY to the the forces that caused the Islamic terrorism. You are NOT exploring who is really perpetrating the acts and to what end. Should I dare ask you to enlighten us?



Until you can do that, you will remain well inside the "we're under attack" box, which keeps the "Islam vs. the West" dialectic in full effect, and therefore, keeps the media charade going that pays "the judge's" salary.... and I guess yours as well too.I never said it was Islam vs the West and neither did the Judge and I don't make a salary.

InterestedParticipant
01-14-2010, 01:03 AM
You figured this out on your own? You're brilliant! :rolleyes:


What do you mean by "authorized" :rolleyes: This makes zero sense. No one authorizes my viewpoint I make up my own mind thank you very much.

Should I dare ask you to enlighten us?


I never said it was Islam vs the West and neither did the Judge and I don't make a salary.
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you simply not reading the thread or any of my previous posts, or do you really not understand the concept of "authorized" and dialectics and that this terrorism is manufactured by the same people who seek to introduce additional controls?

jmdrake
01-14-2010, 06:26 AM
First, the following quote was an attempted sleight against me, and I'm calling you out on it. It's as simple as that.

Second, I don't want your respect or followership. I've no interest in developing a cult personality. I'm here to help people along the path, no matter how uncomfortable that may be.

Third, you don't yet have the knowledge to understand what is an OP and why. That's going to take more time, and the knowledge will NOT be gained at this online place, for the dynamics are all wrong.

You stupid dufuss! Acknowledging the fact that some arguments are a waste of time is not disrespectful. It's simply pointing out that some people are going to end up saying the same thing no matter what you say. So shut up already. You're a broken record and a hypocrite. You go around putting others down and then you want to cry victim at the slightest provocation. You are "vectored" yourself.

InterestedParticipant
01-14-2010, 09:44 AM
You stupid dufuss! Acknowledging the fact that some arguments are a waste of time is not disrespectful. It's simply pointing out that some people are going to end up saying the same thing no matter what you say. So shut up already. You're a broken record and a hypocrite. You go around putting others down and then you want to cry victim at the slightest provocation. You are "vectored" yourself.
The bounds of your ignorance is astounding. Added to my ignore list.

MelissaWV
01-14-2010, 09:46 AM
The bounds of your ignorance is astounding. Added to my ignore list.

"Bounds" is a plural word, and the subject of your sentence. It should read "The bounds of your ignorance are astounding."

InterestedParticipant
01-14-2010, 09:48 AM
"Bounds" is a plural word, and the subject of your sentence. It should read "The bounds of your ignorance are astounding."
And so the attack begins. I wondered how long it would take before this thread, and me, would be pounced upon. Is this is as good as you get? I guess the ignorance is contagious.

Please feel free to correct any more spelling or grammatical errors, it is much appreciated. I'd rather be a bad speller/etc. than living totally deceived inside the simulacrum oblivious to the real world. Guess we all have to make our choices. Nice to see we have some good spellers here..... for the world needs them too.

By the way, this terrorism thing that occupies so many, it's contrived.... and the technique is as old as "civilization." Read a history book, one that's more than 50yrs old, for it'll give you a lot more relevant info than "the judge" will ever give you.

MelissaWV
01-14-2010, 10:02 AM
1. I don't watch "the Judge." I bowed out of this conversation the moment it became a back and forth psychic friends match, attempting to determine intent and affiliation of people not involved directly in the thread.

2. There's something impossible to resist about someone daring to call someone ignorant in such a poorly-constructed sentence. Now you've decided that this was an "attack."

Frankly, I said what I wanted to say early on in this thread. This "breach" and thread and entire conversation might have been avoided by installing a gate that already exists in many airports. There was a bad security guard, and automation here constitutes neither an intrusion on one's privacy, nor a significant financial burden. It doesn't even cause much of a delay (maybe about four or five seconds at most).

Instead, we have this thread, which failed many pages ago.


And so the attack begins. I wondered how long it would take before this thread, and me, would be pounced upon. Is this is as good as you get? I guess the ignorance is contagious.

Please feel free to correct any more spelling or grammatical errors, it is much appreciated. I'd rather be a bad speller/etc. than living totally deceived inside the simulacrum oblivious to the real world. Guess we all have to make our choices. Nice to see we have some good spellers here..... for the world needs them too.

By the way, this terrorism thing that occupies so many, it's contrived.... and the technique is as old as "civilization." Read a history book, one that's more than 50yrs old, for it'll give you a lot more relevant info than "the judge" will ever give you.

jmdrake
01-14-2010, 10:03 AM
The bounds of your ignorance is astounding. Added to my ignore list.

:rolleyes: Promises promises. You said that before. I hope you stick to it this time dufus.

jmdrake
01-14-2010, 10:04 AM
And so the attack begins. I wondered how long it would take before this thread, and me, would be pounced upon. Is this is as good as you get? I guess the ignorance is contagious.


You started the attacks. You always start them.

Matt Collins
01-14-2010, 10:25 AM
do you really not understand the concept of "authorized" and dialectics and that this terrorism is manufactured by the same people who seek to introduce additional controls?The terrorism is not "manufactured" :rolleyes:

It is the result of these interests trying to control things of which they shouldn't.

InterestedParticipant
01-14-2010, 12:51 PM
The terrorism is not "manufactured" :rolleyes:

It is the result of these interests trying to control things of which they shouldn't.
Who are "these interests"?

PS. Please see the following thread, it is a crucial data point:

Disinformation and Mass Deception: Democracy as a Cover Story (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=226398).

It will refer you to a very important book that has been suppressed.

Matt Collins
01-14-2010, 01:10 PM
Who are "these interests"?
Anyone who wants to use our government as a tool to further their own gain.

Matt Collins
01-14-2010, 01:11 PM
PS. Please see the following thread, it is a crucial data point:

Disinformation and Mass Deception: Democracy as a Cover Story (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=226398).

It will refer you to a very important book that has been suppressed.
TLDR. But in fact we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.

LittleLightShining
01-14-2010, 01:38 PM
TLDR. But in fact we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.

I hate when people think they are being intellectual in a debate and then they say tldr. You couldn't even skim it?


In direct response to your statement, have you never heard anyone explain what we are doing in terms of spreading democracy? Wake up, Matt.

Matt Collins
01-14-2010, 01:52 PM
In direct response to your statement, have you never heard anyone explain what we are doing in terms of spreading democracy? Wake up, Matt.When people say that I ignore them because they are obviously ignorant (or intentionally deceitful).

LittleLightShining
01-14-2010, 02:23 PM
When people say that I ignore them because they are obviously ignorant (or intentionally deceitful).

I just reread the entire thread and you're totally missing the point. In a way, I can kind of sympathize with you because you've been hanging out with establishment Republicans. I know I have to listen to their crap about foreign policy and terrorism way more than I want to. If I wasn't careful I might actually buy into some of it.

That's the issue. You may or may not like IP's posting style but I think he's making an important point.

Let me piece it together for you...

This is the premise.


This is precisely the purpose of the video. It is designed to drive public outrage so that the public will call for "better" and "more improved" security systems in order to "protect" them. What the public doesn't know is that the "solution" to this "problem" of inadequate "safety" is already ready for implementation, and it will be far more draconian than people realize.

He acknowledges the Judge (who I really like btw, but we must be discerning) is using the approved language in framing his position.


Yup, "the judge" keeps us inside the Simulacrum, keeping his rhetoric carefully within the notion that these are "security" lapse, helping to setup the need for more draconian security measure to "keep us safe."

Personally, I think you have to be pretty thick to not get this:


This is one of the major goals of this entire charade... to inhibit travel. For a public that is geographical restricted is easier to control.

and this:


They are controlling both sides of the dialectic. On the one side we have security breaches and security lapses, and on the other side we have proposals for more draconian security measures. It's the pursuit of life versus the pursuit of liberty.... a catch-22 dialectic. They say they are better protecting our right to life while they are simultaneously taking away our right to liberty. But, THEY are the ones who are creating the threat to our lives in the first place. Get it?

There's the readers' digest version, which I think would be more palatable to you, Matt. If you still don't get it I don't know what to tell you.

LittleLightShining
01-14-2010, 02:25 PM
When people say that I ignore them because they are obviously ignorant (or intentionally deceitful).But they are saying it. By ignoring it and then pretending you don't know what people mean when they tell you they're saying it you've put yourself in a really small box, Matt. Especially when the people that are saying it just happen to be the people running this country.

Matt Collins
01-14-2010, 04:00 PM
He acknowledges the Judge is using the approved language in framing his position.What do you mean by "approved"?? :confused: That phrase makes zero sense in this context :rolleyes:

LittleLightShining
01-14-2010, 04:15 PM
What do you mean by "approved"?? :confused: That phrase makes zero since in this context :rolleyes:

It makes all the "since" in the world. Stop playing the fool... unless you're not playing. In that case I can't help you at all.

Matt Collins
01-14-2010, 04:26 PM
It makes all the "since" in the world. Stop playing the fool... unless you're not playing. In that case I can't help you at all.
No one tells the Judge what to say. If you think so, then you don't know what you are talking about. :rolleyes:

LittleLightShining
01-14-2010, 04:33 PM
No one tells the Judge what to say. If you think so, then you don't know what you are talking about. :rolleyes:I'm not saying that anyone's telling him what to say. I'm saying he's presenting the issue using the same language they use everywhere else.

I'm done here, Matt. Why don't you run along and bump a thread about yourself now?

InterestedParticipant
01-14-2010, 05:52 PM
I'm not saying that anyone's telling him what to say. I'm saying he's presenting the issue using the same language they use everywhere else.

I'm done here, Matt. Why don't you run along and bump a thread about yourself now?
If any media puppet every says anything outside the approved message-set then they are immediately terminated (best result) and possibly their lives destroyed.


“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”


- Former CIA Director William Colby

Matt Collins
01-14-2010, 05:55 PM
I'm saying he's presenting the issue using the same language they use everywhere else. And? So? :confused::rolleyes:

InterestedParticipant
01-14-2010, 06:14 PM
Am I the only one who thinks this, but doesn't 'judge' whats-his-face look an awful lot like Peter Lorre?

http://www.wpcircle.org/samson/t-Peter-Lorre.jpg

I mean, I guess if we're going to let this thread go to hell with an endless stream of feigned-stupidity, we might as well help it get there a little faster.

Mini-Me
01-14-2010, 06:30 PM
The way I see it, revealing the truth about our deception requires pulling back many layers (I'm not sure how many, but more than one ;)). Even if Napolitano is still talking "inside the box" from your point of view (IP), he's still pulling back several layers from the perspective of the average Fox viewer, and this is a net positive. It breaks down people's prejudices and brings them that much closer to pulling back more layers. Besides, Napolitano's approach isn't necessarily bad: Ultimately, his position is that the pertinent facts of our situation are unimportant, because even if we give the establishment its premise (turrists are attacking us!), their conclusion is still ridiculous anyway, and liberty is still the correct answer. I actually favor this approach, because it entirely sidesteps the endless marsh of historical controversy.

Anyway, I think part of the problem is that, for his own sake AND for his viewers' sake, Napolitano has to use restraint with his claims, and it would be an extraordinarily serious claim for him to say these "security breaches" are intentional and staged. Even if he were permitted to stay on the air and say his piece, no television audience - even an intelligent one - could take his claims at face value. They'd demand incontrovertible evidence for such an "audacious" claim, and if all he has is his subjective opinion about what sounds fishy to him, it's not going to fly one bit. That kind of statement wouldn't be productive in the least bit, because no viewers would be convinced by it unless he was just corroborating their own preexisting suspicions. Even if he made a strong case, if there was any room for doubt whatsoever, the average viewer would still cling to it and give the government the benefit of that doubt. In the end, Napolitano would lose his career (possibly more), and viewers would CHEER ON his sacking and retreat even further into their prejudices as a defense mechanism to ease any self-doubt.

On top of that, this kind of thing makes me wonder: How do we even tell real security breaches from staged events? After all, the government's reaction to any such event - real or fabricated - would be to take full advantage of it to gain more power, and I'm sure they wouldn't ignore any "beneficial" coincidences. Sure, I'm sure a lot of events are staged, but reliably separating the real ones from the fake ones would require an extraordinary amount of effort...and if you make a claim about a particular event and are proven wrong (or rather, if you cannot prove your case beyond any doubt to even the lowest common denominator), you end up losing credibility.

I guess my question is, IP, if you were Napolitano, what would you do? Would you stake your career (possibly your life) and any chances of educating Americans about anything, on the chances you might be able to convince TV viewers that a particular event was staged by the government? I think we can all agree that some events will inevitably be staged by a government like ours (or like any), but I think it's also unreasonable to assume that every "convenient" event that ever happens must necessarily be staged. Is that something you would argue? If not, how do you know with any certainty which events are staged and which are not?

In a nutshell, whenever "convenient" events happen for the government, I'm always suspicious...but I'm rarely certain about any given incident, and I have trouble understanding the mentality of people who never seem to show any doubt.

InterestedParticipant
01-14-2010, 07:25 PM
The way I see it, revealing the truth about our deception requires pulling back many layers (I'm not sure how many, but more than one ;)). Even if Napolitano is still talking "inside the box" from your point of view (IP), he's still pulling back several layers from the perspective of the average Fox viewer, and this is a net positive. It breaks down people's prejudices and brings them that much closer to pulling back more layers. Besides, Napolitano's approach isn't necessarily bad: Ultimately, his position is that the pertinent facts of our situation are unimportant, because even if we give the establishment its premise (turrists are attacking us!), their conclusion is still ridiculous anyway, and liberty is still the correct answer. I actually favor this approach, because it entirely sidesteps the endless marsh of historical controversy.

Anyway, I think part of the problem is that, for his own sake AND for his viewers' sake, Napolitano has to use restraint with his claims, and it would be an extraordinarily serious claim for him to say these "security breaches" are intentional and staged. Even if he were permitted to stay on the air and say his piece, no television audience - even an intelligent one - could take his claims at face value. They'd demand incontrovertible evidence for such an "audacious" claim, and if all he has is his subjective opinion about what sounds fishy to him, it's not going to fly one bit. That kind of statement wouldn't be productive in the least bit, because no viewers would be convinced by it unless he was just corroborating their own preexisting suspicions. Even if he made a strong case, if there was any room for doubt whatsoever, the average viewer would still cling to it and give the government the benefit of that doubt. In the end, Napolitano would lose his career (possibly more), and viewers would CHEER ON his sacking and retreat even further into their prejudices as a defense mechanism to ease any self-doubt.

On top of that, this kind of thing makes me wonder: How do we even tell real security breaches from staged events? After all, the government's reaction to any such event - real or fabricated - would be to take full advantage of it to gain more power, and I'm sure they wouldn't ignore any "beneficial" coincidences. Sure, I'm sure a lot of events are staged, but reliably separating the real ones from the fake ones would require an extraordinary amount of effort...and if you make a claim about a particular event and are proven wrong (or rather, if you cannot prove your case beyond any doubt to even the lowest common denominator), you end up losing credibility.

I guess my question is, IP, if you were Napolitano, what would you do? Would you stake your career (possibly your life) and any chances of educating Americans about anything, on the chances you might be able to convince TV viewers that a particular event was staged by the government? I think we can all agree that some events will inevitably be staged by a government like ours (or like any), but I think it's also unreasonable to assume that every "convenient" event that ever happens must necessarily be staged. Is that something you would argue? If not, how do you know with any certainty which events are staged and which are not?

In a nutshell, whenever "convenient" events happen for the government, I'm always suspicious...but I'm rarely certain about any given incident, and I have trouble understanding the mentality of people who never seem to show any doubt.
Oh goodie, another adult has entered the room. Thank you. Let me freshen-up and get my self back together again. But before I go (don't worry, I'll be back), let me just touch on two things really really quickly (called-out in bolded blue in quoted text):

1. I can't rationalize pulling back only some layers. Partial truth doesn't work for me any longer, and I dare say it doesn't work for the public either. So, I won't accept excusing the "judge's" rhetoric, no matter what percentage of "truth" it contains. There is only one level of discussion acceptable any longer, and that is a real adult-level discussion. No more protecting me from the truth BS that has been used as an excuse to exercise deceipt.

2. To your point about know whether these events are "real" (ie organic) or staged, the fact of the matter is we don't even know if these "events" even occur. Our entire discussion is being almost exclusively based on a media system of Full Spectrum Simulacrum. We don't know diddly-squat, and neither does the iconic personality reading the teleprompter on the other side of that stupid video camera.

3. As to what decision I'd make, well I've already made it. Bottom line, I won't play their game inside their Simulacrum. My soul is worth more than anything they have to offer. If the "judge" really gives a shit, and has any soul at all, he'd bail on their system, 'cause all he is doing is perpetuating their system. But let's not fool ourselves, that turkey is totally bought-in, I don't care what any one in this Simulacrum-pit has to say.

Back soon....

stilltrying
01-14-2010, 09:18 PM
Isn't it fishy how the turdists always hang out for the little guys on a plane. What a way to scare the masses, little people. They hate the average zombie boarding a plane so much that the turdists just cant stand it, they hate the brainless for their freedoms. Yep its the brainless average dick and jane who send trillions of dollars of machines and people to far away countries to maim and mutilate in the name of spreading democracy. I have never seen a more transparent dialectic ritual in my life, have to keep the pleabs in line with a scare tactic on their life. You do this, I'll do that, like a well written script. If this playwriter would only use their talents in the other world of make believe, Holy Wood, I'm quite certain they could net an oscar every year. But Holy Wood is fake say yee, Free Press and zombie approval for stricter screening is real. Its real alright and its a sick comedy being played on you and everyone else.

Mini-Me
01-14-2010, 09:18 PM
Oh goodie, another adult has entered the room. Thank you. Let me freshen-up and get my self back together again. But before I go (don't worry, I'll be back), let me just touch on two things really really quickly (called-out in bolded blue in quoted text):

1. I can't rationalize pulling back only some layers. Partial truth doesn't work for me any longer, and I dare say it doesn't work for the public either. So, I won't accept excusing the "judge's" rhetoric, no matter what percentage of "truth" it contains. There is only one level of discussion acceptable any longer, and that is a real adult-level discussion. No more protecting me from the truth BS that has been used as an excuse to exercise deceipt.
I understand that you're beyond the point where you'll gain anything from "partial truth," but would you have said the same years ago, when you were probably much more deceived than you are today? You say that partial truth doesn't work for you any longer, but apparently it used to...and for many, it's the only amount of truth remotely small enough to swallow and digest for the time being. You've gone so deep down the rabbit hole that I'm not sure if you appreciate just how much farther you've gone than well over 99% of the population. Baudrillard may argue that The Matrix is the kind of movie that the matrix would produce, but I still think the following quote holds a lot of water:

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
When you throw "normal" people into the "conspiracy theory deep end," they usually just shut down and react emotionally. Even people who are more open-minded are not much better off. The waters are so muddy that it takes a pretty brave person to even attempt wading through them, and it takes a lot of gradual exposure before people even reach this point. There's so much guesswork, accidental but widely repeated misinformation, deliberate disinfo, and half-truths all mixed together - including disputed factual claims from specialized scientific fields (in the case of 9/11) - that I can't see a way to draw any conclusions except, "I know very little about what went down, but I don't trust anybody." In some cases, I can at least conclude the official story is highly suspect, but I can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone who doesn't already have suspicions...so I think, "What's the point?"

Obviously, that's the point of muddying the waters so much, to make it impossible to discern reality from fiction. I had the thought several years ago (shortly after transforming from a neocon to a progressive liberal, and looking into 9/11) that we're intentionally being led in circles like rats in a maze, and that continuing to run around would get me nowhere. Exhaustion comes sooner for some of us than others, but it's inevitable, and there are really only a few paths to take from there:
Give up and turn your brain back off. Just start believing the official accounts by default, just to have some reference point. (Complacency is mandatory, angry defense of the official story from this point on is optional.)
Eenie, meenie, miney, mo...annnnnnnnd laser beams from space must have killed Kennedy and traveled through time to strike the WTC. ;)
Swim in a sea of doubt and recognize that you know little if anything about current events, and by extension, most (all?) of human history. This doesn't necessarily mean everything you thought you knew was false, but it does mean you have no idea which parts are true and which parts are false. This is a soul-crushing conclusion which takes a strong person to acknowledge at all and a much stronger person than myself to remember at all times.

Getting back to the point, I don't think most people are ready to listen to "the whole truth"* at all without shouting, "Crucify him!" The only way to get anywhere with them is to peel layers of deception back one at a time. This is especially important considering that, even among the more open-minded, very few are willing to accept the soul-crushing third conclusion above, and most will rush back to hibernation as fast as they can.

*Again, this just comes back to the question, "What is the truth, anyway?" It's obvious to me that we're being manipulated, but I can't ever say with certainty that any particular event was staged. Maybe it was staged, maybe it was real...or maybe, as you suggest below, it was fabricated entirely. I'll never know, and I guess if I were Napolitano, I'd certainly never feel comfortable arguing that any of the three are the case for any particular event. It just seems wise to me to avoid this trap entirely...



2. To your point about know whether these events are "real" (ie organic) or staged, the fact of the matter is we don't even know if these "events" even occur. Our entire discussion is being almost exclusively based on a media system of Full Spectrum Simulacrum. We don't know diddly-squat, and neither does the iconic personality reading the teleprompter on the other side of that stupid video camera.
This is a valid point, and it does seem likely that some events really are fabricated entirely. Although I've registered my disagreement with you before about just how pervasive the "system" is and just how effective "they" are at full spectrum control, I think I agree with you here in large part. After all, it wouldn't really take many people to simply "invent" some of the day-to-day incidents that are so convenient for the state's agenda. Did you hear about Commander Ogilvy's bravery, btw? ;)



3. As to what decision I'd make, well I've already made it. Bottom line, I won't play their game inside their Simulacrum. My soul is worth more than anything they have to offer. If the "judge" really gives a shit, and has any soul at all, he'd bail on their system, 'cause all he is doing is perpetuating their system. But let's not fool ourselves, that turkey is totally bought-in, I don't care what any one in this Simulacrum-pit has to say.
What would the Judge bailing on the system accomplish, though? If he left, someone blatantly pro-establishment would take his place. He may not be shooting people into the deep end with a man-cannon, but I do think he's accomplishing something by doing what he's doing. As I mentioned before, he still makes effective arguments for liberty - and reining in the state - even while implicitly granting the establishment their premise (their accounts of current events). The great thing about this approach is that, it doesn't even matter what events the state takes advantage of, stages, or fabricates entirely to support its position...because in all cases, the state's position is still untenable and should be opposed regardless. In my opinion, demonstrating this is easier than trying to wade through the mirky mire of historical fact vs. historical fiction.

Moreover, by arguing these points to a neocon audience, Napolitano is challenging their intellectual stubbornness, bit by bit. He's gradually opening his audience up to the idea that maybe, just maybe, they're not right about everything, and this is a prerequisite for them to open their minds to alternative worldviews in general...and that includes very uncomfortable worldviews like the one you present. Consider this: If it weren't for men like Napolitano, Ron Paul, etc. - people with enough "restraint" to avoid overt conspiracy talk on national TV - how many people do you think would be in any way ready for anything you have to say? I can't really think of anyone who went from "hardcore anti-intellectual statist" to "Jacques Ellul reader" in one night. ;) (For the record, I haven't read any Ellul, but I know you like him a lot, so I thought it was appropriate.)

Incidentally, this illustrates why I'm not overly concerned about who is and isn't controlled opposition. Since "facts" and historical accounts are just so damn suspect and unreliable, I depend heavily on logic and principle. That way, if someone's arguing for the right principles, I can follow their logic and see if I can learn anything from that, without having to trust their facts and potentially be misled by them. I think LibertyEagle was probably quoting someone else when she said this, but I don't know who; either way, I always liked her saying, "Trust principles, not people."



Back soon....

Alrighty. :)

devil21
01-14-2010, 09:38 PM
It's not that the sheep aren't ready for the truth. The problem is that there is NO TIME LEFT to dally around the truth with weak "half truths" made for mass consumption. If the Judge is as informed as we hope he is, then he KNOWS this and he's not doing anybody (other than his bosses) any favors by taking his opportunity as a mainstream pundit and just scratching the surface with those "half truths". In that regard, he's only marginally better than the rest of his Fox News colleagues. At the end of the day the Judge is still more concerned with keeping his job than he is with really "telling it like it is" to his viewers.

Mini-Me
01-14-2010, 09:48 PM
Catch 22...there is no time, yet it takes time. :-/

jmdrake
01-14-2010, 09:58 PM
It's not that the sheep aren't ready for the truth. The problem is that there is NO TIME LEFT to dally around the truth with weak "half truths" made for mass consumption. If the Judge is as informed as we hope he is, then he KNOWS this and he's not doing anybody (other than his bosses) any favors by taking his opportunity as a mainstream pundit and just scratching the surface with those "half truths". In that regard, he's only marginally better than the rest of his Fox News colleagues. At the end of the day the Judge is still more concerned with keeping his job than he is with really "telling it like it is" to his viewers.

And how about Ron? He's getting a lot of MSM coverage these days. Should he blow it all by doing a Charlie Sheen? What about Rand? He's closer to winning a statewide election than any liberty candidate in recent memory. Just say "Screw it! Yall need to know that 9/11 was an inside job"?

I don't mean to be funny, but it's odd that people who are so risk averse that they don't even use their own name on a web forum expect others to tell their version of "the truth" on national TV.

A personal pet peeve of mine is people within the liberty movement trying to tell others within the movement what strategy to use or what should be said when. I'm miffed when I see antitruthers trying to silence truthers. I'm miffed when I see truthers accusing those who stay mainstream of either ignorance or cowardice. How about acknowledging that we all have different tactics that work with different people?

Dieseler
01-14-2010, 10:01 PM
YouTube - Building Demolition Fail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YevmEDd80So)

ghengis86
01-14-2010, 10:20 PM
read the entire thread and came to the following conclusions:

-IP is dead-nuts on with regard to the dialectic, simulacrum and the whole discussion staying within the bounds of the approved game. He's just abrasive to those not used to his posting style.

-Mini-Me I believe has the correct approach in bringing the dialectic/simulacrum message to the sheeple.

-Security breaches, manufactured or real, are always used to the benefit of those who control the media and thus the discussion.

Personal Note: i was a foaming at the mouth neo-con after 9-11. it took me a few years to get to this point of recognizing the simulacrum and the methods of control placed on us in everyday life. i don't think we can 'unplug' those who wish to remain in the matrix, but i do believe we can have a 'fast-tracked' approach to waking up those who have some willingness to believe. not the couple years in my case, nor the couple posts in Matt's case via IP, but somewhere in the middle. A days or weeks plan maybe?

Mini-Me
01-14-2010, 10:27 PM
And how about Ron? He's getting a lot of MSM coverage these days. Should he blow it all by doing a Charlie Sheen?
At the very least, we can rest easy knowing he won't be arrested for threatening Carol with a knife. ;)

...sorry, I couldn't resist, even in this serious thread...

InterestedParticipant
01-14-2010, 10:28 PM
It's not that the sheep aren't ready for the truth. The problem is that there is NO TIME LEFT to dally around the truth with weak "half truths" made for mass consumption. If the Judge is as informed as we hope he is, then he KNOWS this and he's not doing anybody (other than his bosses) any favors by taking his opportunity as a mainstream pundit and just scratching the surface with those "half truths". In that regard, he's only marginally better than the rest of his Fox News colleagues. At the end of the day the Judge is still more concerned with keeping his job than he is with really "telling it like it is" to his viewers.
OMG, I just may have to take you off my ignore list after this one. Someone spike your coffee? Good job, mate, good job!


read the entire thread and came to the following conclusions:

-IP is dead-nuts on with regard to the dialectic, simulacrum and the whole discussion staying within the bounds of the approved game. He's just abrasive to those not used to his posting style.

-Mini-Me I believe has the correct approach in bringing the dialectic/simulacrum message to the sheeple.

-Security breaches, manufactured or real, are always used to the benefit of those who control the media and thus the discussion.

Personal Note: i was a foaming at the mouth neo-con after 9-11. it took me a few years to get to this point of recognizing the simulacrum and the methods of control placed on us in everyday life. i don't think we can 'unplug' those who wish to remain in the matrix, but i do believe we can have a 'fast-tracked' approach to waking up those who have some willingness to believe. not the couple years in my case, nor the couple posts in Matt's case via IP, but somewhere in the middle. A days or weeks plan maybe?
Thank you. I'll take that as a really big compliment.

People need to read the big thinkers, the philosophers... these will get people to truth faster than anything else I've been around. Everything we're going through now has all been done before, except for perhaps the mind control through technotronics. Athens dealt with this, and sentenced Socrates to death.... and the struggle between elite-rule and big-D Democracy continues today.

Mini-Me
01-14-2010, 11:07 PM
OMG, I just may have to take you off my ignore list after this one. Someone spike your coffee? Good job, mate, good job!


Thank you. I'll take that as a really big compliment.

People need to read the big thinkers, the philosophers... these will get people to truth faster than anything else I've been around. Everything we're going through now has all been done before, except for perhaps the mind control through technotronics. Athens dealt with this, and sentenced Socrates to death.... and the struggle between elite-rule and big-D Democracy continues today.

Don't get me wrong, but the idea that people need to read the big thinkers and philosophers is extremely depressing. Most people refuse to read books at all, so getting them to read something so "boring" kind of sounds like pulling teeth (to use that tired phrase).

InterestedParticipant
01-14-2010, 11:12 PM
I understand that you're beyond the point where you'll gain anything from "partial truth," but would you have said the same years ago, when you were probably much more deceived than you are today? You say that partial truth doesn't work for you any longer, but apparently it used to...and for many, it's the only amount of truth remotely small enough to swallow and digest for the time being. You've gone so deep down the rabbit hole that I'm not sure if you appreciate just how much farther you've gone than well over 99% of the population. Baudrillard may argue that The Matrix is the kind of movie that the matrix would produce, but I still think the following quote holds a lot of water:

[snip]
Oh gawd, you're going to force me to use my brain. I'll have give you a more respectful response tomorrow, as I'm past my use by date today. You posted a lot of material for me to consider, most of which I've snipped from the quote above. Let me attack that additional material tomorrow.

But just to get back to you on the blue bolded part of your post (above). My answer to you is that I never accepted partial truth. Partial truth is always illogical. So, while I didn't know what the whole truth was, I knew that what I knew was insufficient, illogical and missing clarity, so I continued my pursuit and struggle.

As far as the public goes, they need to be treated with respect, they deserve to be treated with respect, and treating them with respect does NOT include giving them partial answers or revealing partial truths. This is the rationalization of someone who seeks to deceive. Some here see me as harsh and austere, but I do not hear those sorts of comments from people who are adult enough to desire as much information as it available and as much varying perspective as is feasible. I find that people of this type appreciate the fact that someone is not sitting across the Internet attempting to BS them.

CCTelander
01-14-2010, 11:26 PM
I never accepted partial truth. Partial truth is always illogical.

This comment brought the following to mind (paraphrased from memory):

"One of the most clever and effective ways to lie is to tell just the right amount of truth and then shut up." Robert A. Heinlein

Sorry for the digression.

Mini-Me
01-14-2010, 11:46 PM
Oh gawd, you're going to force me to use my brain. I'll have give you a more respectful response tomorrow, as I'm past my use by date today. You posted a lot of material for me to consider, most of which I've snipped from the quote above. Let me attack that additional material tomorrow.

But just to get back to you on the blue bolded part of your post (above). My answer to you is that I never accepted partial truth. Partial truth is always illogical. So, while I didn't know what the whole truth was, I knew that what I knew was insufficient, illogical and missing clarity, so I continued my pursuit and struggle.

As far as the public goes, they need to be treated with respect, they deserve to be treated with respect, and treating them with respect does NOT include giving them partial answers or revealing partial truths. This is the rationalization of someone who seeks to deceive. Some here see me as harsh and austere, but I do not hear those sorts of comments from people who are adult enough to desire as much information as it available and as much varying perspective as is feasible. I find that people of this type appreciate the fact that someone is not sitting across the Internet attempting to BS them.

Alrighty, I'll wait for your further response tomorrow...I'm tired, too. :p

I have to wonder though, out of all the people you talk with (online and in real life), how many are "adult" enough to listen without their heads exploding? I know you try to maintain an optimistic view of the average person's intelligence, but I imagine you are probably well into the 99th percentile. As much as you want to avoid an elitist attitude and treat people respectfully as intellectual equals, the sad truth is that most people are naturally much shallower thinkers, struggle more with abstract and theoretical concepts, and routinely substitute emotion for reason. Even extremely intelligent people are not always "ready," because people in general tend to keep their worldviews and egos too tightly intertwined. When this is the case, it takes a gentle approach to separate the two, and dropping an anvil is counterproductive.

Unless a very large proportion of people are already receptive to "respectful" frank discussion - unlikely based on my experience - we need to know how to approach the rest as well, without scaring them off with a "macho flash." How would you go about addressing the apparent super-majority of "non-adults," if not in the Napolitano/Paul/etc. way? (I suppose I shouldn't lump them together though, since Paul does stick his neck out a bit more.)

devil21
01-15-2010, 01:03 AM
And how about Ron? He's getting a lot of MSM coverage these days. Should he blow it all by doing a Charlie Sheen? What about Rand? He's closer to winning a statewide election than any liberty candidate in recent memory. Just say "Screw it! Yall need to know that 9/11 was an inside job"?

There's things RP won't touch with a 10 foot pole because it's political suicide. I think he tends to like being a Congressman. Whether it's just job security or because it gives him influence that leads to things like the Revolution, he still values his job. As such he still has to play within the defined "rules" of the game. He's in the rare position of being that guy that can get away with more than others can. The Judge is the same. Don't mistake that for meaning they don't censor themselves for personal protection.



I don't mean to be funny, but it's odd that people who are so risk averse that they don't even use their own name on a web forum expect others to tell their version of "the truth" on national TV.

If I had a mainstream tv show then there may be some comparison but an anonymous internet forum and a sitting role on Fox News aren't exactly on par. Anyway, I'm not "bashing" the Judge so don't misunderstand. I just understand very clearly why he says the things he says, or rather doesn't say. He works for FOX NEWS. Rupert signs his check, not me. Don't tell me you already forgot their little media games? The media itself is the reason you can't say "9/11 was an inside job". It's not the suggestion itself that is a problem but rather what the media does with suggestions like that (kooky, etc).



A personal pet peeve of mine is people within the liberty movement trying to tell others within the movement what strategy to use or what should be said when. I'm miffed when I see antitruthers trying to silence truthers. I'm miffed when I see truthers accusing those who stay mainstream of either ignorance or cowardice. How about acknowledging that we all have different tactics that work with different people?

Are you new here? That's one of the greatest strengths of this movement. We are all different in various ways but we believe in the same overall ideal of Liberty in living your life how you want. There are little to no grudges as differences come with the territory. Echo chambers are boring and don't elicit critical thought.




OMG, I just may have to take you off my ignore list after this one. Someone spike your coffee? Good job, mate, good job!

I rescind my praise of you earlier in the thread.

LittleLightShining
01-15-2010, 09:47 AM
The way I see it, revealing the truth about our deception requires pulling back many layers (I'm not sure how many, but more than one ;)). Even if Napolitano is still talking "inside the box" from your point of view (IP), he's still pulling back several layers from the perspective of the average Fox viewer, and this is a net positive. It breaks down people's prejudices and brings them that much closer to pulling back more layers. Besides, Napolitano's approach isn't necessarily bad: Ultimately, his position is that the pertinent facts of our situation are unimportant, because even if we give the establishment its premise (turrists are attacking us!), their conclusion is still ridiculous anyway, and liberty is still the correct answer. I actually favor this approach, because it entirely sidesteps the endless marsh of historical controversy.

Anyway, I think part of the problem is that, for his own sake AND for his viewers' sake, Napolitano has to use restraint with his claims, and it would be an extraordinarily serious claim for him to say these "security breaches" are intentional and staged. Even if he were permitted to stay on the air and say his piece, no television audience - even an intelligent one - could take his claims at face value. They'd demand incontrovertible evidence for such an "audacious" claim, and if all he has is his subjective opinion about what sounds fishy to him, it's not going to fly one bit. That kind of statement wouldn't be productive in the least bit, because no viewers would be convinced by it unless he was just corroborating their own preexisting suspicions. Even if he made a strong case, if there was any room for doubt whatsoever, the average viewer would still cling to it and give the government the benefit of that doubt. In the end, Napolitano would lose his career (possibly more), and viewers would CHEER ON his sacking and retreat even further into their prejudices as a defense mechanism to ease any self-doubt.

On top of that, this kind of thing makes me wonder: How do we even tell real security breaches from staged events? After all, the government's reaction to any such event - real or fabricated - would be to take full advantage of it to gain more power, and I'm sure they wouldn't ignore any "beneficial" coincidences. Sure, I'm sure a lot of events are staged, but reliably separating the real ones from the fake ones would require an extraordinary amount of effort...and if you make a claim about a particular event and are proven wrong (or rather, if you cannot prove your case beyond any doubt to even the lowest common denominator), you end up losing credibility.

I guess my question is, IP, if you were Napolitano, what would you do? Would you stake your career (possibly your life) and any chances of educating Americans about anything, on the chances you might be able to convince TV viewers that a particular event was staged by the government? I think we can all agree that some events will inevitably be staged by a government like ours (or like any), but I think it's also unreasonable to assume that every "convenient" event that ever happens must necessarily be staged. Is that something you would argue? If not, how do you know with any certainty which events are staged and which are not?

In a nutshell, whenever "convenient" events happen for the government, I'm always suspicious...but I'm rarely certain about any given incident, and I have trouble understanding the mentality of people who never seem to show any doubt.Well said! Unfortunately the people who need to read this the most will say, "tldr" (too long didn't read).

So many other good posts the last page or so, glad to see the conversation shaping up the way it has.

InterestedParticipant
01-15-2010, 12:39 PM
This comment brought the following to mind (paraphrased from memory):

"One of the most clever and effective ways to lie is to tell just the right amount of truth and then shut up." Robert A. Heinlein

Sorry for the digression.

"If you give a man the correct information for seven years,
he may believe the incorrect information on the first day of
the eighth year when it is necessary, from your point of
view, that he should do so. Your first job is to build the
credibility and the authenticity of your propaganda, and
persuade the enemy to trust you although you are his enemy."

A Psychological Warfare Casebook Operations Research Officer,
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore (1958)


Alrighty, I'll wait for your further response tomorrow...I'm tired, too. :p

I have to wonder though, out of all the people you talk with (online and in real life), how many are "adult" enough to listen without their heads exploding? I know you try to maintain an optimistic view of the average person's intelligence, but I imagine you are probably well into the 99th percentile. As much as you want to avoid an elitist attitude and treat people respectfully as intellectual equals, the sad truth is that most people are naturally much shallower thinkers, struggle more with abstract and theoretical concepts, and routinely substitute emotion for reason. Even extremely intelligent people are not always "ready," because people in general tend to keep their worldviews and egos too tightly intertwined. When this is the case, it takes a gentle approach to separate the two, and dropping an anvil is counterproductive.

Unless a very large proportion of people are already receptive to "respectful" frank discussion - unlikely based on my experience - we need to know how to approach the rest as well, without scaring them off with a "macho flash." How would you go about addressing the apparent super-majority of "non-adults," if not in the Napolitano/Paul/etc. way? (I suppose I shouldn't lump them together though, since Paul does stick his neck out a bit more.)
NO.... NO.... NO! We're talking about different kinds of intelligence here.

The kind of intelligence that I am referring to is the kind that I find when I speak with street people, or really old Black Americans (and I imagine American Indians would qualify, but I don't have much experience with them). In short, these are some of the most fantastically brilliant people you'll ever meet.

Have you ever had a conversation with someone that meets this description?.... and I'm talking about a real conversation.... one where all the BS materialism, social status, bigotry and other manufactured layers of separation are dispensed with. I think if one can do this, one will find out just how ignorant we are and how blessed with knowledge they really are. It will surprise you.

They may have not read our big thinkers or major philosophers, but they don't have to, they already know what the big thinkers & philosophers know.... for they've experienced it first hand.... they've lived it! They understand the system, without its mask on, and how it works through a life of first hand experiences with it .

The intelligence that I wanna reference is the metric that describes ones awareness of humanity... the knowing of ones own soul, and the ability to rely up and trust ones own senses in order to acquire an accurate picture of ones surroundings.

The worst people to try to talk to are tech weenies from Stanford MIT, Caltech etc. They think they know everything, carry tremendous arrogance, but are probably the most heavily indoctrinated group on the planet..... That's why Google only hires these type of people, because they actually want to build the "scientific dictatorship" that the Collins Bros. allude to in their book (http://www.amazon.com/Ascendancy-Scientific-Dictatorship-Examination-Epistemic/dp/0595311644). But in short, education and intelligence in this system is typically measured and defined by ones indoctrination into the system. So, actually, I find traditional intelligence an impedance to the kind of understanding we're talking about.

So, its not about the traditional sense of intelligence, rather, I think it's about the battle between knowing your own soul (and understanding humanity) and honoring that, versus being indoctrinated into the simulacrum and dishonoring what humans are by believing the pathocracy more than we believe ourselves.


I rescind my praise of you earlier in the thread.
But ...but... I was paying you a compliment.


Well said! Unfortunately the people who need to read this the most will say, "tldr" (too long didn't read).

So many other good posts the last page or so, glad to see the conversation shaping up the way it has.
Nice to see people, like you, jumping in to help rescue it :)

jmdrake
01-15-2010, 12:52 PM
There's things RP won't touch with a 10 foot pole because it's political suicide. I think he tends to like being a Congressman. Whether it's just job security or because it gives him influence that leads to things like the Revolution, he still values his job. As such he still has to play within the defined "rules" of the game. He's in the rare position of being that guy that can get away with more than others can. The Judge is the same. Don't mistake that for meaning they don't censor themselves for personal protection.


The part in bold is most likely correct. And that was theh point I was making. We need some people like Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura and Charlie Sheen. We also need some people like Judge Napalitano and Ron Paul who can actually get on the air consistently and advance the freedom agenda.



If I had a mainstream tv show then there may be some comparison but an anonymous internet forum and a sitting role on Fox News aren't exactly on par. Anyway, I'm not "bashing" the Judge so don't misunderstand. I just understand very clearly why he says the things he says, or rather doesn't say. He works for FOX NEWS. Rupert signs his check, not me. Don't tell me you already forgot their little media games? The media itself is the reason you can't say "9/11 was an inside job". It's not the suggestion itself that is a problem but rather what the media does with suggestions like that (kooky, etc).


A) Don't assume every part of a post is directed only at you. While you may not have bashed the judge, a certain "participant" clearly has.

B) Rationalize it all you want, but you have not put yourself out at all by staying anonymous. I'm not saying that you should. Sometimes I think I should have stayed anonymous. There are certain things that I know I can't do because I've been open about some of my personal beliefs using my real name. Did you know that Matt asked me if I'd run for DCRP chair before he ran? I declined in part because I knew this forum is watched and I've said stuff that could bite me in the butt. Stuff that's mild by comparison was used against Matt. And yet some people seem to want everybody to parrot the same lines regardless of the consequences.




Are you new here?


Are you FREAKING KIDDING ME? I have over 5,000 posts and you think I'm "new"? :rolleyes:



That's one of the greatest strengths of this movement. We are all different in various ways but we believe in the same overall ideal of Liberty in living your life how you want. There are little to no grudges as differences come with the territory. Echo chambers are boring and don't elicit critical thought.


You're missing the point. I'm the one arguing for diversity of thought. Diversity of thought means accepting that there may be people in this movement that take a different view of 9/11 than you and that's ok. I knew 9/11 was a sham long before I heard of Ron Paul. And if case you've simply missed all of the 9/11 discussions I've been in here over the years you can just do a quick search and find a bunch of them.

But I'm not going around saying someone else is "deluded" just because they haven't come to the same conclusion that I have like IP did. I'm not they one saying that we don't have "time for half truths" like you did. I can accept not only a diversity of thought but also a diversity of tactics. As MelissaW pointed out, nobody here is psychic. Nobody can know the thoughts or motives of anybody else. The best we can do is make assumptions. Also nobody can know the future so no one knows for sure which tactics work best. Would the movement really gain that much from the judge saying "This underwear bomber thing was clearly a false flag op" and then subsequently being taken off the air? Or doesn't it gain from him essentially saying "Even if you take this at face value, the government response is stupid"? I don't know. I don't think you know. I don't think IP knows either. Let's look at another disaster, Katrina. We know for a fact that the levees were blown on purpose in the 1930s. Some think they were blown on purpose again. I don't know. I haven't seen the proof so I won't go there. But clearly FEMA's response was horrid and FEMA should be abolished. If someone else has more evidence to show "inside job" on the levees breaking I think they should go for it. That's accepting diversity of thought.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake
01-15-2010, 01:01 PM
I'm not saying that anyone's telling him what to say. I'm saying he's presenting the issue using the same language they use everywhere else.


What you, IP and others seem oh so eager to ignore is that is a valid debating tactic. Is it the only valid tactic? No of course not. But it's a valid tactic nonetheless. Using different tactics are ok as long as you don't stray from the strategy. So many people don't understand the difference between tactics and strategy and that's the cause of 90% of the arguments at RPF.

jmdrake
01-15-2010, 01:07 PM
Catch 22...there is no time, yet it takes time. :-/

Yep. That's why you need different people using different tactics to reach the same strategy. Not everyone can be on "TruTV" telling the "whole truth" about conspiracy theories. Not everyone can be on Fox News using the enemy's own language against him. In a shooting war there are different types of troops that do different tasks. I don't know why some seem to think an infowar would be any different.

LittleLightShining
01-15-2010, 01:11 PM
What you, IP and others seem oh so eager to ignore is that is a valid debating tactic. Is it the only valid tactic? No of course not. But it's a valid tactic nonetheless. Using different tactics are ok as long as you don't stray from the strategy. So many people don't understand the difference between tactics and strategy and that's the cause of 90% of the arguments at RPF.I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm fully aware of the the tactics. And I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. The quote from me that you posted was me trying to explain it to Matt and obviously not doing the best job :o

He seems to be completely oblivious to the existence of tactics on every level.

Mini-Me
01-15-2010, 02:26 PM
"If you give a man the correct information for seven years,
he may believe the incorrect information on the first day of
the eighth year when it is necessary, from your point of
view, that he should do so. Your first job is to build the
credibility and the authenticity of your propaganda, and
persuade the enemy to trust you although you are his enemy."

A Psychological Warfare Casebook Operations Research Officer,
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore (1958)


NO.... NO.... NO! We're talking about different kinds of intelligence here.

The kind of intelligence that I am referring to is the kind that I find when I speak with street people, or really old Black Americans (and I imagine American Indians would qualify, but I don't have much experience with them). In short, these are some of the most fantastically brilliant people you'll ever meet.

Have you ever had a conversation with someone that meets this description?.... and I'm talking about a real conversation.... one where all the BS materialism, social status, bigotry and other manufactured layers of separation are dispensed with. I think if one can do this, one will find out just how ignorant we are and how blessed with knowledge they really are. It will surprise you.

They may have not read our big thinkers or major philosophers, but they don't have to, they already know what the big thinkers & philosophers know.... for they've experienced it first hand.... they've lived it! They understand the system, without its mask on, and how it works through a life of first hand experiences with it .

The intelligence that I wanna reference is the metric that describes ones awareness of humanity... the knowing of ones own soul, and the ability to rely up and trust ones own senses in order to acquire an accurate picture of ones surroundings.

The worst people to try to talk to are tech weenies from Stanford MIT, Caltech etc. They think they know everything, carry tremendous arrogance, but are probably the most heavily indoctrinated group on the planet..... That's why Google only hires these type of people, because they actually want to build the "scientific dictatorship" that the Collins Bros. allude to in their book (http://www.amazon.com/Ascendancy-Scientific-Dictatorship-Examination-Epistemic/dp/0595311644). But in short, education and intelligence in this system is typically measured and defined by ones indoctrination into the system. So, actually, I find traditional intelligence an impedance to the kind of understanding we're talking about.

So, its not about the traditional sense of intelligence, rather, I think it's about the battle between knowing your own soul (and understanding humanity) and honoring that, versus being indoctrinated into the simulacrum and dishonoring what humans are by believing the pathocracy more than we believe ourselves.

You do have a point about people on the edges of the system, who haven't been indoctrinated as deeply and who have a lifetime of experiences looking in from the outside. I agree they'd be extremely receptive, but they aren't the people most of us here are surrounded by. There just aren't that many really old black Americans or Native Americans around anymore...and over our lifetimes, the system has found ways to mentally trap the underprivileged minority groups they came from, just in different ways from the middle class. (The system's primary "vector" for them is the "white racists and Republicans are our only problems" vector.)

Still, what about the people who have already been "ponerized" and who are smack in the middle of the system, like "Joe Schmoe Avid Fox News Viewer," "random college grad," and "white racism is our only problem lady?" Especially the first two classifications, these are the kind of people most of us are surrounded by, and they're the people we have the chance to talk with on a regular basis. The people I worry about the most are the TV-obsessed people...and there are a lot of them. Some of them are MSM-viewers who literally refuse to consider an idea that has not come from a media talking head. Others are not only apathetic about politics and the human condition but fiercely apathetic, and they resent thinking about anything more abstract or "boring" than what happened last night on Jersey Shore. "Deep thought is for nerds," basically. In their situation, I would argue that traditional intelligence - natural intelligence (not "knowledge," education, or accreditation) - is extremely helpful for analyzing the situation dispassionately (to sidestep manufactured emotions) and getting past their prejudices. It's not a prerequisite, but it makes it easier to notice the holes in the system's mental cage and then escape. Here's my point: In any case, these are the people we most need to reach...yet they're the most difficult to reach with a frank approach, because they've been so thoroughly conditioned to reject that approach. The system has equipped people with emotional defense mechanisms against obvious outside influence.

I also want to argue in defense of the Stanford, MIT, Caltech, etc. tech grads, who are far from the most indoctrinated group on the planet; that honor would almost certainly go to sociology or economics majors, who basically learn Marxist propaganda and social engineering as part of their very field of study, and who go through college utterly surrounded by devoted Marxists. Perhaps all college students are more indoctrinated than people who spend less time in the school system, depending on whether the others made up for it by watching too much TV. However, as part of their majors, tech grads (computer scientists, electrical engineers, etc.) are exposed to far less political/psychological propaganda than most other college students, with the exception of math, physics, and maybe chemistry students. Their egos are a problem, because if left unchecked they lead to arrogant ideas like setting up a scientific dictatorship, but their elitism is far from an insurmountable problem. Perhaps techies are one of the most dangerous groups on the planet if left indoctrinated, since they're the ones developing tools for the system, but they're far from the most deeply indoctrinated in the first place...there's a difference.

You have to remember something about the techies: In large part, the people you're talking about are nerds who have gone their whole lives being "different from the other kids," and who have learned firsthand the dangers of group think and mob rule. This is what endears them so readily to elitist ideas like a scientific dictatorship, but they're also only a hop, skip, and a jump away from realizing the danger of all coercive power (especially centralized power). Even their elitism gives them an edge in one respect, because they have the confidence to realize that at least some authority figures are complete dumbasses - less qualified than themselves - without doubting themselves on that point. This can open the door, even if the first kneejerk reaction is thinking, "We need a scientific dictatorship" or something like that. Sometimes all it really takes is for them to recognize tyranny coming from "smart people" as well, just once. In addition, a lot of these kids already have experience overcoming indoctrination of the parochial religious kind, and this lowers their resistance to reexamining other deeply-held assumptions. Many of them are fiercely independent thinkers because of their life experiences, and whether they know it or not, many have already even been exposed to ideas like, "the ring must be destroyed." The bottom line is, as dangerous as they are when left indoctrinated, they're by no means the most difficult group to reach.

jmdrake
01-15-2010, 03:53 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm fully aware of the the tactics. And I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. The quote from me that you posted was me trying to explain it to Matt and obviously not doing the best job :o

He seems to be completely oblivious to the existence of tactics on every level.

I would say Matt knows a lot more about tactics than you are willing to give him credit. While you are apparently tired of hearing about it, we wouldn't have had the success we did in this area without good tactics. Have all of our tactics been perfect? Of course not, and I'll be the first to admit it.

Matt is also more familiar with what IP is trying to say than you realize. Does he agree with it? I don't know. But what he dismissed as TLDR can basically be summed up as Operation Northwoods and Operation Mockingbird. (Yeah. I went back and read it. Nothing earth shattering in what IP posted. Not that I disagreed with it. But it didn't go beyond what I already knew from O.N. and O.M.) Trust me. He (Matt) has heard all of this. What's his take? I don't know. And that's probably a good thing because none of our adversaries can use that against him.

Look at this from Matt's point of view. What tactical advantage is there from IP insinuating that Judge Napalitano is saying what he is to "make a salary"? What tactical advantage would there be from Matt publicly taking IP's position even if he agreed with it? What you see as an attack on IP or simply Matt not "getting it", Matt sees as a defense of the integrity of the judge.

Now, part of me wishes that both Ron Paul and Judge Napalitano would take some different tactics. I think the envelope could be pushed a bit more without losing the audience. I also think if either went as far as IP seems to want there would be no audience. Could I be wrong on that? Certainly. Tactics are fluid and fallible and subject to change. Strategy is what we need nailed down. But hey, if you go to the summit in Atlanta you'll get a chance to tell them both what you think are the best tactics.

InterestedParticipant
01-15-2010, 06:35 PM
Still, what about the people who have already been "ponerized" and who are smack in the middle of the system, like "Joe Schmoe Avid Fox News Viewer," "random college grad," and "white racism is our only problem lady?" Especially the first two classifications, these are the kind of people most of us are surrounded by, and they're the people we have the chance to talk with on a regular basis. The people I worry about the most are the TV-obsessed people...and there are a lot of them. Some of them are MSM-viewers who literally refuse to consider an idea that has not come from a media talking head. Others are not only apathetic about politics and the human condition but fiercely apathetic, and they resent thinking about anything more abstract or "boring" than what happened last night on Jersey Shore. "Deep thought is for nerds," basically. In their situation, I would argue that traditional intelligence - natural intelligence (not "knowledge," education, or accreditation) - is extremely helpful for analyzing the situation dispassionately (to sidestep manufactured emotions) and getting past their prejudices. It's not a prerequisite, but it makes it easier to notice the holes in the system's mental cage and then escape. Here's my point: In any case, these are the people we most need to reach...yet they're the most difficult to reach with a frank approach, because they've been so thoroughly conditioned to reject that approach. The system has equipped people with emotional defense mechanisms against obvious outside influence.
You're hitting the nail on the head, which is how do we reach the right people with the right message. For this is our greatest challenge.

What might be the greatest irony ever witnessed here at RPF is that right on the heels of your post we see a post by someone who is hopelessly caught in the system, discussing tactics and strategies inside a system, that by design, is created to control, manipulate and deceive. There is no winning for the public inside this system, irrespective of the tactics and strategies taken, for its a rigged game. But you already know this, and so do many here.

However, how is it that we can be right in the middle of discussing how to reach people who cannot see the bars of confinement, and sure enough, one of those in the target audience responds as if this discussion is not even taking place. This, more than anything, exemplifies the significance of the challenge that we are discussing.


I also want to argue in defense of the Stanford, MIT, Caltech, etc. tech grads, who are far from the most indoctrinated group on the planet; that honor would almost certainly go to sociology or economics majors, who basically learn Marxist propaganda and social engineering as part of their very field of study, and who go through college utterly surrounded by devoted Marxists. Perhaps all college students are more indoctrinated than people who spend less time in the school system, depending on whether the others made up for it by watching too much TV. However, as part of their majors, tech grads (computer scientists, electrical engineers, etc.) are exposed to far less political/psychological propaganda than most other college students, with the exception of math, physics, and maybe chemistry students. Their egos are a problem, because if left unchecked they lead to arrogant ideas like setting up a scientific dictatorship, but their elitism is far from an insurmountable problem. Perhaps techies are one of the most dangerous groups on the planet if left indoctrinated, since they're the ones developing tools for the system, but they're far from the most deeply indoctrinated in the first place...there's a difference.

You have to remember something about the techies: In large part, the people you're talking about are nerds who have gone their whole lives being "different from the other kids," and who have learned firsthand the dangers of group think and mob rule. This is what endears them so readily to elitist ideas like a scientific dictatorship, but they're also only a hop, skip, and a jump away from realizing the danger of all coercive power (especially centralized power). Even their elitism gives them an edge in one respect, because they have the confidence to realize that at least some authority figures are complete dumbasses - less qualified than themselves - without doubting themselves on that point. This can open the door, even if the first kneejerk reaction is thinking, "We need a scientific dictatorship" or something like that. Sometimes all it really takes is for them to recognize tyranny coming from "smart people" as well, just once. In addition, a lot of these kids already have experience overcoming indoctrination of the parochial religious kind, and this lowers their resistance to reexamining other deeply-held assumptions. Many of them are fiercely independent thinkers because of their life experiences, and whether they know it or not, many have already even been exposed to ideas like, "the ring must be destroyed." The bottom line is, as dangerous as they are when left indoctrinated, they're by no means the most difficult group to reach.
Okay okay.... I'm not going to debate you on who is more indoctrinated. Each vector obviously has its own unique indoctrination that must be pierced. But as far as techies understanding the dangers of mob rule, I would say that you haven't been around to any of the major tech companies, for these are cult operations, with practically every aspect of the group controlled through finely tuned social pressures.

jmdrake
01-15-2010, 06:59 PM
You're hitting the nail on the head, which is how do we reach the right people with the right message. For this is our greatest challenge.

What might be the greatest irony ever witnessed here at RPF is that right on the heels of your post we see a post by someone who is hopelessly caught in the system, discussing tactics and strategies inside a system, that by design, is created to control, manipulate and deceive. There is no winning for the public inside this system, irrespective of the tactics and strategies taken, for its a rigged game. But you already know this, and so do many here.


Wow! You can't even keep your own promises inside the same thread. I thought I was on your ignore list dufus? Really what is your "tactic" for even posting here?

Mini-Me
01-15-2010, 07:08 PM
You're hitting the nail on the head, which is how do we reach the right people with the right message. For this is our greatest challenge.

What might be the greatest irony ever witnessed here at RPF is that right on the heels of your post we see a post by someone who is hopelessly caught in the system, discussing tactics and strategies inside a system, that by design, is created to control, manipulate and deceive. There is no winning for the public inside this system, irrespective of the tactics and strategies taken, for its a rigged game. But you already know this, and so do many here.

However, how is it that we can be right in the middle of discussing how to reach people who cannot see the bars of confinement, and sure enough, one of those in the target audience responds as if this discussion is not even taking place. This, more than anything, exemplifies the significance of the challenge that we are discussing.
I think you're being pretty harsh towards jmdrake here though. He's discussing strategies/tactics for reaching people (in the abstract sense, not specific tactics), sure, but so are we! It's kind of presumptuous to assume that jmdrake is necessarily limiting himself to tactics "inside" the system. Besides, elements of "the system" can indeed be used to spread genuine anti-establishment messages. The fact that we're having this conversation on the Internet, rather than face-to-face, exemplifies this. Come to think of it, in a full spectrum simulacrum with blurred and indistinct boundaries (rather than a clear inside and outside, like the matrix), can we even completely differentiate between tactics inside and outside the system? The word "spectrum" seems to carry extra meaning here.

The word "spectrum" applies also to our own recognition of what's going on. Except perhaps when dealing with people who are completely oblivious and make no effort (TV-lovers :-/), I really dislike pointing at someone and basically saying, "Damn, look at him. He doesn't get it. This is what we're dealing with." This is divisive and haughty, and jmdrake is probably a lot less of a sheeple...sheeperson...singular...than I am anyway. :p Our own levels of deception are on a spectrum, and much as you said before in another post, "sheeple" is not them; it is us.

The comprehension gap between most of us in this thread is far, far smaller and more subtle than the gap between anyone participating in a conversation remotely like this and, say, TV-viewers. This isn't to say, "Hey, let's pat ourselves on the back," just to say that it's not really appropriate to point fingers at each other in pity. I think it's also dangerous and counterproductive towards actual understanding to do so anyway, because pointing fingers and criticizing does not pressure anyone to think deeper (nor is it necessary for demonstrative purposes). Instead, it just functions as a divide and conquer scheme, even if that's not the intent. Doing this divides people into "praise-worthy" and "scorn-worthy" groups and manipulates people into merely wanting to show agreement, due to an emotional desire for praise and acceptance. These emotional pressures are less effective on the Internet than in real life, and I think most of us here have personalities that are somewhat resistant to them anyway, but they still exist, and I think we should avoid producing them.



Okay okay.... I'm not going to debate you on who is more indoctrinated. Each vector obviously has its own unique indoctrination that must be pierced. But as far as techies understanding the dangers of mob rule, I would say that you haven't been around to any of the major tech companies, for these are cult operations, with practically every aspect of the group controlled through finely tuned social pressures.
Perhaps you're right, because I haven't been around to any of these companies. My experience with techies is limited to what they're like at the time of college graduation. :p

InterestedParticipant
01-15-2010, 08:06 PM
I think you're being pretty harsh towards jmdrake here though. He's discussing strategies/tactics for reaching people (in the abstract sense, not specific tactics), sure, but so are we! It's kind of presumptuous to assume that jmdrake is necessarily limiting himself to tactics "inside" the system. Besides, elements of "the system" can indeed be used to spread genuine anti-establishment messages. The fact that we're having this conversation on the Internet, rather than face-to-face, exemplifies this. Come to think of it, in a full spectrum simulacrum with blurred and indistinct boundaries (rather than a clear inside and outside, like the matrix), can we even completely differentiate between tactics inside and outside the system? The word "spectrum" seems to carry extra meaning here.

The word "spectrum" applies also to our own recognition of what's going on. Except perhaps when dealing with people who are completely oblivious and make no effort (TV-lovers :-/), I really dislike pointing at someone and basically saying, "Damn, look at him. He doesn't get it. This is what we're dealing with." This is divisive and haughty, and jmdrake is probably a lot less of a sheeple...sheeperson...singular...than I am anyway. :p Our own levels of deception are on a spectrum, and much as you said before in another post, "sheeple" is not them; it is us.

The comprehension gap between most of us in this thread is far, far smaller and more subtle than the gap between anyone participating in a conversation remotely like this and, say, TV-viewers. This isn't to say, "Hey, let's pat ourselves on the back," just to say that it's not really appropriate to point fingers at each other in pity. I think it's also dangerous and counterproductive towards actual understanding to do so anyway, because pointing fingers and criticizing does not pressure anyone to think deeper (nor is it necessary for demonstrative purposes). Instead, it just functions as a divide and conquer scheme, even if that's not the intent. Doing this divides people into "praise-worthy" and "scorn-worthy" groups and manipulates people into merely wanting to show agreement, due to an emotional desire for praise and acceptance. These emotional pressures are less effective on the Internet than in real life, and I think most of us here have personalities that are somewhat resistant to them anyway, but they still exist, and I think we should avoid producing them.
Check out The Political Illusion by Jacques Ellul. I've posted about the book here, so you can search for it.

In short, I don't have any expectations that the current institutions of media, politics, economy, academia etc. will save the public, for these ARE the instruments of feedback and control. The simulacrum cannot save us from itself, and it is a fallacy to think otherwise.

Only we as individuals can make the necessary changes to "save us" collectively. The struggle is an internal one.... it is within each of us. Neo diving back into the Matrix (in the final scenes... in a reference to a Jesus figure) to "save us" is a New Age socially engineered construct that is deliberately designed to fail. So, I'm going to call it out for what it is when I see it, which is precisely what I did in the previous post.

TheEvilDetector
01-15-2010, 08:38 PM
System as discussed here is more of an abstract concept rather than anything else imo.

Its "power" is reinforced naturally by those benefitting from it, but also by those criticising it, because, even those who are not aware of the system, become aware of it and
normally cannot come to any sensible plan to make changes, but simply become one more person locked into a "system versus me" mindset and the probable paralysis and frustration that follows.

The entire system could disappear entirely, if people thought differently about group memberships, ie. necessity and cost/benefit analysis.

ie. Do we need/want to join a particular group? Why? Does it have a position of authority? How much power does that authority claim to have? etc

But some people like belonging to groups (belonging to groups is very strongly reinforced also throughout life), most groups tend to have positions of authority, and these positions naturally can be abused.

In my opinion, a flattened group power structure is preferable except in cases of emergency eg. survival of the entire group may be best carried out with an organised defence.

Ie. visualise a straight horizontal line with very few peaks, which are very shallow and few between, as opposed to a sharp pyramid of today.

InterestedParticipant
01-16-2010, 11:41 AM
System as discussed here is more of an abstract concept rather than anything else imo.

I think we can do a pretty darn good job defining the system and the techniques it uses, identifying specific aspects of control. For example:

We know that the economic system is largely based upon Marx's writings, and we understand that that system is controlled by controlling the unit of exchange through our monetary system (FED), controlling production by offshoring virtually all major manufacturing, and controlling consumption through media..

We certainly know government is controlled, through lobby firms managing legislation development, a tightly controlled 2-party framework to keep outsiders at bay, media that only facilitate soundbite debates and high cost elections, election recording and tallying systems that have no accountability, and an array of centrally funded nonprofit organizations that pretend to represent the people's input into the process.

Further, we also can understand how all forms of consumption is directed by understanding propaganda techniques through various authors such as Goebels, Ellul and Bernays. Further, we can look to Baudrillard's System of Objects to help us better understand how images (like some people's Avatar's here) and their meaning are manipulated in order to manipulate the publics behavior. We know that they own all newspaper, television, radio, magazine and other electronic media, even sources that are presented as "opposition," so this is an incredibly powerful force.

Additionally, we can learn how our culture industry (TV, Fashion, Language, Movies, Music, "Art") are shaped by reading from the works of the Frankfurt and Tavistock Institutes. These help explain Adorno's Dialectic of Mass Enlightenment through the massification of culture, and show how these powerful inputs help shape our thoughts and behavior in ever aspect of our lives.

In short, a little reading, a little thinking, and a little organization of ones thoughts can go a long long way to breaking down they system and understanding its frameworks, its boundaries and its impact. So, given the above summary examples, I would argue that we CAN understand the system, and the only reason we do not is because we have yet to invest the time and energy necessary TO understand it.

LittleLightShining
01-16-2010, 02:58 PM
I would say Matt knows a lot more about tactics than you are willing to give him credit. While you are apparently tired of hearing about it, we wouldn't have had the success we did in this area without good tactics. Have all of our tactics been perfect? Of course not, and I'll be the first to admit it.

Matt is also more familiar with what IP is trying to say than you realize. Does he agree with it? I don't know. But what he dismissed as TLDR can basically be summed up as Operation Northwoods and Operation Mockingbird. (Yeah. I went back and read it. Nothing earth shattering in what IP posted. Not that I disagreed with it. But it didn't go beyond what I already knew from O.N. and O.M.) Trust me. He (Matt) has heard all of this. What's his take? I don't know. And that's probably a good thing because none of our adversaries can use that against him.

Look at this from Matt's point of view. What tactical advantage is there from IP insinuating that Judge Napalitano is saying what he is to "make a salary"? What tactical advantage would there be from Matt publicly taking IP's position even if he agreed with it? What you see as an attack on IP or simply Matt not "getting it", Matt sees as a defense of the integrity of the judge.

Now, part of me wishes that both Ron Paul and Judge Napalitano would take some different tactics. I think the envelope could be pushed a bit more without losing the audience. I also think if either went as far as IP seems to want there would be no audience. Could I be wrong on that? Certainly. Tactics are fluid and fallible and subject to change. Strategy is what we need nailed down. But hey, if you go to the summit in Atlanta you'll get a chance to tell them both what you think are the best tactics.

I can't help but find it amusing that you're in here explaining where Matt's coming from. He can't do it for himself without looking like an ignorant doofus so you swoop in to save his face.

You also (probably because you heart Matt so much) are overlooking the fact that I haven't said anywhere that I think the Judge is wrong in his tactics. I was acknowledging that the Judge is using the approved language. Matt was acting oblivious (didn't I already explain this?) and I was trying to explain it to him.

Since you've taken up Matt's cause what's the tactical advantage to acting ignorant and using the rolly eye and confused face icon in 98% of his posts?

BTW, I went ahead and bolded the part of my post that's relevant to the real conversation here.

MelissaWV
01-16-2010, 04:04 PM
Seriously. A turnstyle would've fixed this whole shit right up.

This entire thread is just the other side of the looking glass. The politicians argue and argue, and the people in charge of security bluster and soapbox-preach, but usually something simple was all that was needed to fix the problem. Something humble, removed from politics and special interests and pet projects, along the lines of a simple piece of low-tech hardware. I've seen people argue for hours when all that needed doing was spraying some WD40 on a hinge before. In this case, I've seen people debate for days when all that would resolve the problem is a mechanism on a door. Somehow it's become about the Judge, and about disinfo, and about trying to make someone look bad so that giant killer body-scanning TSA cyborgs can give us a radioactive cavity search, or something.

No, really; some guy left his post, and someone else went "in" through the "out." There's an easy solution to this, and it doesn't do anything to our freedoms at all, and instead it got mega-derailed out into the aether.

InterestedParticipant
01-16-2010, 08:15 PM
Seriously. A turnstyle would've fixed this whole shit right up.
This is NOT the problem. Pull your head out of the Simulacrum.

jmdrake
01-16-2010, 08:44 PM
I can't help but find it amusing that you're in here explaining where Matt's coming from. He can't do it for himself without looking like an ignorant doofus so you swoop in to save his face.


I'm trying to be nice but you are pushing it. Matt's doing fine on his own, but it looks like he's quit wasting his time on this thread and I probably should too. You want to suck up to a dumbass like "Interested Participant" go right ahead. But you are only making yourself look stupid. I didn't say you attacked the judge. But Interested Participant clearly did! And all Matt has done to draw your ire is defend him.

But this isn't about Matt or the judge. IP is a jackass who thinks he's the only one who's figured out that we've been lied to about 9/11. Well whether he realizes it or not, whether you realize it or not, he isn't. I've taken more than my share of lumps on this forum defending people who want to speak out about 9/11. And I'm not about to take disrespect from him or you because I have the common sense to know that disrespect from the 9/11 truther side isn't helpful either. Quit your petty bickering and your jealousy and redirect your energy against our real enemies. Whether you realize it or not that's not me or Matt.


. I was acknowledging that the Judge is using the approved language. Matt was acting oblivious (didn't I already explain this?) and I was trying to explain it to him.

Now this if funny. Matt acknowledged early on that the judge is using the same language that you call "approved". So you really didn't explain anything that everybody here doesn't already know. What you seem "oblivious" to is the fact that this is already known.

The disagreement isn't on whether or not the judge was using certain language. The dispute is whether judge is being controlled or not. IP implied that he was. Matt resented that.



Since you've taken up Matt's cause what's the tactical advantage to acting ignorant and using the rolly eye and confused face icon in 98% of his posts?

If you want me to "explain Matt" to you, why don't you explain to me why jackass (Interested Participant) accused me of "disrespecting him" just because I said this conversation was probably a waste of time? Clearly I was right on that much.

jmdrake
01-16-2010, 09:14 PM
1. I don't watch "the Judge." I bowed out of this conversation the moment it became a back and forth psychic friends match, attempting to determine intent and affiliation of people not involved directly in the thread.


One of the best observations in the entire thread. People should quit trying to guess what's in another person's head.

TheEvilDetector
01-17-2010, 05:16 AM
Well, the truth is never so clear, most of the time its assumed, to make things easier to process..


I think we can do a pretty darn good job defining the system and the techniques it uses, identifying specific aspects of control. For example:

We know that the economic system is largely based upon Marx's writings,


Show me the connection? Is this intentional?



and we understand that that system is controlled by controlling the unit of exchange


Its that simple?



through our monetary system (FED),


FED is the entire system?



controlling production by offshoring virtually all major manufacturing,


Stats?



and controlling consumption through media..


How?



We certainly know government is controlled


Specifics?



, through lobby firms managing legislation development,


Specifics?



a tightly controlled 2-party framework to keep outsiders at bay,


Define outsider?



media that only facilitate soundbite debates and high cost elections,


Define media ?



election recording and tallying systems that have no accountability, and an array of centrally funded nonprofit organizations that pretend to represent the people's input into the process.


Specifics?



Further, we also can understand how all forms of consumption is directed by


That's quite an assumption



understanding propaganda techniques through various authors such as Goebels, Ellul and Bernays. Further, we can look to Baudrillard's System of Objects to help us better understand how images (like some people's Avatar's here) and their meaning are manipulated in order to manipulate the publics behavior. We know that they own all newspaper, television, radio, magazine and other electronic media, even sources that are presented as "opposition," so this is an incredibly powerful force.


Who is they?



Additionally, we can learn how our culture industry (TV, Fashion, Language, Movies, Music, "Art") are shaped by reading from the works of the Frankfurt and Tavistock Institutes. These help explain Adorno's Dialectic of Mass Enlightenment through the massification of culture, and show how these powerful inputs help shape our thoughts and behavior in ever aspect of our lives.

In short, a little reading, a little thinking, and a little organization of ones thoughts can go a long long way to breaking down they system and understanding its frameworks, its boundaries and its impact. So, given the above summary examples, I would argue that we CAN understand the system, and the only reason we do not is because we have yet to invest the time and energy necessary TO understand it.

Everything you say reinforces this system, that mostly exists in imagination of people, its not that tangible. It is in the interest of those who enjoy control, to reinforce this imagination, so that no real physical activity (with its inherent dangers) is necessary to maintain slave mindset.

In concrete terms, we are dealing with individuals, who like most human beings can be persuaded with the right approach. Its not a gigantic borg organism and frankly spinning in circles elaborating on the tentacles present in the dark recesses of the horror show of the worst tyrannies imaginable, leaves little to the real, effective acts which preserve liberties.

ScoutsHonor
01-17-2010, 09:35 AM
^
:o:rolleyes::eek:

InterestedParticipant
01-17-2010, 11:26 AM
Everything you say reinforces this system, that mostly exists in imagination of people, its not that tangible. It is in the interest of those who enjoy control, to reinforce this imagination, so that no real physical activity (with its inherent dangers) is necessary to maintain slave mindset.

In concrete terms, we are dealing with individuals, who like most human beings can be persuaded with the right approach. Its not a gigantic borg organism and frankly spinning in circles elaborating on the tentacles present in the dark recesses of the horror show of the worst tyrannies imaginable, leaves little to the real, effective acts which preserve liberties.
First, the system can be defined, but the person is going to have to be willing to do some reading in order to understand that definition. No one is going to give your understanding on a silver platter, although, some people here are doing a damn good job of providing hint and reference points. At some point, you have to be willing to make an investment.

Second, I agree that our enslavement is the result mostly of our own perceptions. But our perceptions are what are managed, and what becomes our own reality. Baudrillard is probably the best writer at explaining this issue.

Third, you are correct, we are dealing with individuals, which is why I posted the following earlier in this thread....


Check out The Political Illusion by Jacques Ellul. I've posted about the book here, so you can search for it.

In short, I don't have any expectations that the current institutions of media, politics, economy, academia etc. will save the public, for these ARE the instruments of feedback and control. The simulacrum cannot save us from itself, and it is a fallacy to think otherwise.

Only we as individuals can make the necessary changes to "save us" collectively. The struggle is an internal one.... it is within each of us. Neo diving back into the Matrix (in the final scenes... in a reference to a Jesus figure) to "save us" is a New Age socially engineered construct that is deliberately designed to fail. So, I'm going to call it out for what it is when I see it, which is precisely what I did in the previous post.

I'm not sure where your concept of it being "a gigantic borg organism" is coming from, for that sounds like COINTEL talk to me.

LittleLightShining
01-17-2010, 11:41 AM
I'm trying to be nice but you are pushing it. Matt's doing fine on his own, but it looks like he's quit wasting his time on this thread and I probably should too. You want to suck up to a dumbass like "Interested Participant" go right ahead. But you are only making yourself look stupid. I didn't say you attacked the judge. But Interested Participant clearly did! And all Matt has done to draw your ire is defend him. I'm not the one sucking up. I don't know IP so I have no personal stake in what he does or says. Matt's defense of the Judge was lame. He could have done a better job than emoticonning and acting ignorant. Especially if he isn't.


But this isn't about Matt or the judge. IP is a jackass who thinks he's the only one who's figured out that we've been lied to about 9/11. Well whether he realizes it or not, whether you realize it or not, he isn't. I've taken more than my share of lumps on this forum defending people who want to speak out about 9/11. And I'm not about to take disrespect from him or you because I have the common sense to know that disrespect from the 9/11 truther side isn't helpful either. Quit your petty bickering and your jealousy and redirect your energy against our real enemies. Whether you realize it or not that's not me or Matt. I don't think IP thinks he's the only one who's figured that one out. I think IP is trying to point out the use of vectors in shaping public perception and how it works against the truth.

I don't know who you think I'm jealous of.




Now this if funny. Matt acknowledged early on that the judge is using the same language that you call "approved". So you really didn't explain anything that everybody here doesn't already know. What you seem "oblivious" to is the fact that this is already known. Based on the responses I think you're wrong.


The disagreement isn't on whether or not the judge was using certain language. The dispute is whether judge is being controlled or not. IP implied that he was. Matt resented that. To a certain extent he is. If you can't recognize that the use of predetermined language is a part of that I don't know what else to tell you.

jmdrake
01-17-2010, 12:01 PM
I'm not the one sucking up. I don't know IP so I have no personal stake in what he does or says. Matt's defense of the Judge was lame. He could have done a better job than emoticonning and acting ignorant. Especially if he isn't.


:rolleyes: I didn't say you were sucking up to IP. I said IP attacked the judge. You clearly have a personal beef with Matt that clouds your judgment. And you keep putting words in other people's mouths. That's what is "lame".



I don't think IP thinks he's the only one who's figured that one out. I think IP is trying to point out the use of vectors in shaping public perception and how it works against the truth.


IP implied the judge was doing this for a "salary". If you missed that then you need to go back and re-read the thread.

As for "working against the truth", do you know the truth? I'm sure you think you do, but do you really? IP claims there is "no terrorist thread". Looking at the 1993 WTC bombing I'd say that's an overstatement. Yes we had an FBI informant inside the terror cell and yes he was the one that built the bomb. That doesn't mean the other patsies didn't really intend to kill anyone. Nor does it mean that a threat created by the FBI isn't a "threat".

IP claimed that Matt was using the "Ron Paul vector" and Matt agreed. Do you think Ron Paul is "hurting the truth"? Do you think attacking Ron Paul helps the truth?



Based on the responses I think you're wrong.

To a certain extent he is. If you can't recognize that the use of predetermined language is a part of that I don't know what else to tell you.

*sigh* Go back and read the thread. Matt earlier said he agreed that the judge is using "their language". So it's "lame" for you to "point that out". What I was trying to explain to you, but you seem determined not to understand, is that using someone else's language against him is a valid tactic. Maybe IP doesn't think that's the best tactic. Maybe you don't. Maybe you go to all of the Tea Parties and talk about 9/11 being an inside job and there not being a real threat to terrorism etc, but somehow I doubt it. If you do use that tactic good for you.

It's the twists that this thread has taken which is why we even have HT when we really shouldn't have it. All was fine until Matt posted the clip of the judge, IP took it upon himself to attack the judge, Matt took it upon himself to defend the judge and others decide to "pile in" and "explain" things which aren't even being disputed.