Q posting about Project Looking Glass

[Jayke]

Posted by edina (here)
Often, I feel people actually agree in essence yet, are argue terminology.

People have cognitive bias. For example, some people have a bias to look for what is like, or common agreement. Others have bias to look for what is different, or distinctions.

I've seen this happen in something as innocuous as looking at two plants of the same type.

One bias will see all the differences in the two plants. The other bias will not. The bias that focus on like will often times more readily see the big picture, and not get distracted by differences. Both perceptions are valid, in my opinion.

Another bias emanates from personality differences. Some are more comfortable with ambiguity, as Jayke has mentioned in other discussions. And some are downright irritated by ambiguity, and consider it to be "nonsense". Both are valid, in my opinion.

Everyone, while similar, are also hugely unique.

And these unique perspectives can break down communication, especially when people are unaware of how bias works in our perception of the world, and/or disrespect natural differences in perception.

I'll share a short anecdote while Edinas on an interval regarding the Clare Graves Values systems material...

One of the reasons I bring up Graves work on character levels so often is because – as I was first starting out as a hypnotherapist, it used to completely bamboozle me why certain hypnotherapy techniques worked like gangbusters on some people – instant life changing and life affirming results – yet would leave other people staring at you cynically, as though you're some kind of weird, eccentric, 'voodoo doctor' madman: completely bemused and utterly unimpressed.

One size does not fit all in the hypnotherapy/psychology world.

Clare Graves had a similar problem during his tenure as Professor of Psychology, Union College, Schenectady, N.Y.

As a professor, he got fed up of the constant bickering and infighting of his students, constantly attacking each other over who thought which model of psychology was the best and most accurate model. Some thought Freud was the all-knowing master, others harped on about Piaget or Carl Jung. None of them could appreciate each other’s viewpoints or perspectives, none of them willing to give each other any ground in discussing their opinions. Everyone had to be right and everyone else was wrong. Full stop.

Graves took it upon himself to take the entire field of psychology and synthesise and systemise it in a way that everyone could be right, and everyone could have their opinions and insights validated, thereby ending the constant interruption to his lessons that frustrated him to the point that he nearly gave up his teaching career altogether.

Most people have heard of Abraham Maslow and his ‘Hierarchy of Needs’, what most people haven’t heard however is that Clare Graves and Maslow were friends. They were both working towards understanding the process of human behaviour, fulfilment and motivation. Graves once found Maslow in tears outside a peer review group. Maslows model – and his entire lifes work – had just been trashed by his peers for being unscientific and too subjectively interpreted, opinion-based rather than backed up by real world studies and data. Seeing his friends despair, Graves realised he didn't want to end up like Maslow, he learnt from Maslows mistake and made the decision to make his system of psychology as scientific and objective as possible.

He spent 9 years conducting the same study over and over again, and over 25 years seeing how the results of that study drew parallels with every other psychological system that had ever been written about in the field of psychology up to that point, including the new fields of psychoneuroendocrinology that were emerging. It was a huge undertaking and a massive contribution to the world of psychology. The results of his study are published in his little book Levels of Human Existence (which is really just a transcript of a presentation he gave to the Washington School of Psychiatry in 1971).

For me, this is a true 'Project Looking Glass' type technology. There's a reason the prime tenet of most ancient esoteric systems is 'know thyself and thou shall know the gods', like a master key for the psyche, the Graves model is a heuristic code that lets you know which style of psychology is going to help any type of patient overcome whatever type of existential challenge they may be experiencing at any given moment. Invaluable!

Plus it opens the door to understanding Multi-level analysis. Insight into how different character types respond to the same information in often diametrically opposed ways. A crucial skill in todays seemingly crazy world. The sooner people get to see and appreciate each others unique gifts and talents, the sooner all the infighting seen throughout all social media platforms can be brought to an end. An unrealistic hope I have for the near-future. If the yuga cycles I mentioned in my previous post are anywhere near correctly dated, we've got another 2000 years of tug-of-war 'milk churning' to go through before people can learn to see eye-to-eye.

Anyway, end of intermission, back to topic...

[muxfolder]

Hold on to your MAGA-hats, it's another Q-thread. After 4 years of hoping that the Clintons are going to jail and Donald is about to build the wall, do we still trust the plan? The plan, which no one even knows what it is. Shouldn't this be on the Q-section btw?

[Gracy]

Posted by muxfolder (here)
Hold on to your MAGA-hats, it's another Q-thread. After 4 years of hoping that the Clintons are going to jail and Donald is about to build the wall, do we still trust the plan?

Fair enough.

Posted by muxfolder (here)
The plan, which no one even knows what it is. Shouldn't this be on the Q-section btw?

This is just me but, I think the story line just overlapped into general forum business again.

You know, maybe this is actually an ideal time to test what Victor Hugo said.

Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come

Is Q the idea whose time has come?

Like always "show me the money".

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mBS0OWGUidc

[edina]

Posted by Gracy May (here)

Posted by muxfolder (here)
Hold on to your MAGA-hats, it's another Q-thread. After 4 years of hoping that the Clintons are going to jail and Donald is about to build the wall, do we still trust the plan?

Fair enough.

Posted by muxfolder (here)
The plan, which no one even knows what it is. Shouldn't this be on the Q-section btw?

This is just me but, I think the story line just overlapped into general forum business again.

You know, maybe this is actually an ideal time to test what Victor Hugo said.

Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come

Is Q the idea whose time has come?

Like always "show me the money".

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mBS0OWGUidc

This is funny.

I know someone who has a quote graphic "Show me the FISA IG Report."

The delays have been frustrating for many people.

[Haujean Contactee]

The Q movement is designed to put patriots back to sleep, confuse the many, and discourage and discredit the rest. The claim the Robert Mueller who has a life history of being an establishment hit man by covering up aspects of 911, railroading Lyndon Larouche, and running a coup against President Trump was somehow the good guy, only to find out that he wasn't, should be enough to discredit "Q" once and for all. But there are people who make youtube ad revenue who will ignore the obvious and help keep the deception going for as long as the gravy train lasts.

[edina]

Coming back to responding to Gracy May's post.

As I said, I'll be doing this is parts.

The first part was here.

Posted by Gracy May (here)
Which is where a sizeable portion of the continuing great divide is happening. Liberal media vs. Conservative media, "the president is a treasonous Putin lover" vs. "the president is the fourth turning hero here to save the day and Make America Great Again".

I agree, when the media is used this way it amplifies and magnifies our differences, which leads to a greater felt sense of division.

This doesn’t mean we’re necessarily divided. It’s just that this language-style can lead people to feel they are divided.

It’s sort of like looking through a mirror that distorts the image of reality, skews it a bit. And in some cases skews it a LOT!

Candace Owens talks about this extensively in her work relating to the issue of race.

In thinking about this today, while I was running errands, I decided to look at this first from the specific examples above, and then to broaden that to what I feel is the much larger issue.

In my mind, it’s more of a human nature issue. Which makes this a really big topic, and one reason why I feel it’s important.

Specifically, to your examples here. I’ve heard both of these expressed in this forum and in other places, too.

The first example, "the president is a treasonous Putin lover" is definitely propaganda. People may agree or disagree.

And I feel it’s particularly dangerous propaganda because it derides actions of peace toward Putin/Russia.

The language uses what I call emotionally HOT language. Emotionally HOT language or emotionally charged language elicits an emotional reaction, almost unconsciously. It triggers certain centers in the brain.

Marketing and media use this because it traps a person’s attention. In a way it gets inside a person’s OODA Loop.

Many people call it click bait.

The first statement also employs the tactic of “guilt by insult”, that if the president is for better relations with Russia that is tantamount to, or equal to, treason. This is one reason why I consider it particularly dangerous.

On Twitter that statement is often shared with very graphic ugly images of Putin and Trump, often in sexually explicit positions. It’s meant to be demeaning, deriding, and mocking.

The language of the second example, "the president is the fourth turning hero here to save the day and Make America Great Again" is not as emotionally HOT, unless it is being stated in the context of mocking someone who may actually adhere to that idea.

Personally, when I’ve heard the second idea expressed it’s not been so much in terms of a hero to save the day, although I think some people very much appreciate Trump in that way, but more along the lines of analysis of the times and current events to the particular theory mentioned, the Fourth Turning.

I’ve seen this analysis treated very dispassionately, and not always in positive terms toward Trump. He comes up, because he just happens to the be the President right now.

I guess a question for me would be, if someone shows support, appreciation, or even admiration for Trump does that emotionally trigger some people?

In my experience, it does.

Another question occurs to me, why?

Why would a positive opinion of another person emotionally trigger another unrelated person?

This isn’t an invitation for people to start sharing their litanies of why they hate Trump.

I’m more interested in the mechanism.

Why would another person’s positive emotion trigger a negative emotion in some people?

This doesn’t just happen in regards to Trump. He’s just an example. It’s a part of what I call the larger human condition.

Human nature in part, and conditioning/programming also in part.

I consider that both idealizing (idolizing) and demonizing a person strips that person of their humanity.

Both are very dehumanizing.

Each creates a caricature of the human being, which has nothing to do with the real live person being either idealized, or demonized.

To me they are two sides of the same leaf. They seem to travel very closely together.

Also, appreciating, admiring, and supporting a person is NOT the same thing as idealizing them, or putting them on a pedestal.

Sometimes people try to make them the same.

There’s a word for that, but I can’t think of it right now? When people equate something as the same when they aren't?


Have you ever noticed that when someone is put on a pedestal, sooner or later, people want to knock that person off that pedestal? Very often by the people who put that person there in the first place.

This is the double edged blade of fame and celebrity.

I’ve noticed this a lot in alternative media, too. It seems to me that people eat their own.

It’s much easier to find fault and destroy than to appreciate and build/create.

Literally, … it takes less energy, focus and effort to do the first than the latter.

I wonder if the second example you gave triggers that idea or feeling that someone is being idealized, and all the emotions that go with that?



*******
(Note added: the link for the OODA Loop above clicks to the Q Analysis thread, which presently is quarantined within the membership only part of the forum. Here's a link to a wiki article about OODA LOOP. Essentially, it's a model for people's decision cycle. In military strategy, when someone gets inside another person's OODA Loop, or decision cycle, they can disrupt and unbalance them, which allows that person to better control the situation.)

[edina]

Responding to Gracy May's post.
The first part was here.
The second part is here.

Posted by Gracy May (here)
Well heres part of the problem as I see it Edina. For example FOX News commentary plays a very big roll on Q threads, and whether FOX cares to admit it or not, whether Q fans care to admit it or not, FOX is msm lumped right in there with the rest of them.

Which is where a sizeable portion of the continuing great divide is happening. Liberal media vs. Conservative media, "the president is a treasonous Putin lover" vs. "the president is the fourth turning hero here to save the day and Make America Great Again".

Posted by edina (here)
In my mind, it’s more of a human nature issue. Which makes this a really big topic, and one reason why I feel it’s important.

Posted by edina (here)
Emotionally HOT language or emotionally charged language elicits an emotional reaction, almost unconsciously. It triggers certain centers in the brain.

Marketing and media use this because it traps a person’s attention. In a way it gets inside a person’s OODA Loop.

Many people call it click bait.

To connect this to the the bigger situation.

I imagine that most of the people reading this probably already know about emotional triggers.

I first came across this concept of “emotional triggers” as an instructor for a Leadership School when I was in the Air Force, back in the 80’s.

The Leadership School is phase 3 of a 5 phase program of Professional Military Education, or PME. It’s designed to help airman make the transition from being line workers to supervisors.

The area of the curriculum for which I was responsible was communications.

The term “emotional trigger” is typically associated with psychology, or PTSD, therapy from abuse. And so on.

But I learned about the idea in terms of communication, and how emotional triggers can derail the communication process.

Emotions are essentially hormones released in the body that affect the body. Emotions can get triggered very often without our conscious awareness.

During the time I was learning about "emotional triggers", the concept came in real handy, when I found people reacting to me in surprising ways when I used the word, "meditation".

Here in Avalon, that word would probably not elicit an emotional response. But during that time, among a certain group of people it triggered huge emotional responses. People in that group had been taught to fear the word, in their mind it was associated with devil worship. So, when I used that word, they reacted. Very intensely.

With this understanding, I was able to adapt my language so that they didn't become so emotionally triggered. That's not always a solution.

Over time, I've learned to observe myself, and catch myself before I get emotionally triggered. Sometimes, I'll find myself accidentally using HOT language when I write. I usually catch it on the edit.

It's a skill set, and a learning process.

I sort of alluded to emotional triggers connection to media and marketing in my earlier comment.

The media, by inducing people into an emotionally agitated state, via emotional triggers, (ie using hot emotional language) can disrupt and unbalance the population.

Media and marketing know all about this, and have for a long time.

This is one of the mechanisms used to manipulate people into a state of perceived division and churn up actual division.

I suspect, based on some things mentioned by Q and from watching Trump, and a few others, that there will be a process to eventually address the broken parts of our media system.

Until then though, as individuals, we can't control what the media does.

However, we have the opportunity to learn about ourselves.

We have the opportunity to grow in self awareness and self control, become aware of how we may be getting emotionally triggered, and choose to not be triggered.

This is a part of soul or spiritual growth to me. Emotional maturity. Spiritual maturity. Energetic maturity.

Most of the nefarious plans in the works against humanity depend on keeping humans in an emotionally reactive state.

If humans can be kept reactive, emotionally triggered, then we are more readily manipulated and controlled.

When I read your comments about the "continuing great divide..." I thought of this.

This whole big cascade of thought processes.

The manufactured division isn't just liberal/conservative. Right now there are so many of these operations running that it's literally like an attempt for a massive fracturing of humanity.

Learning how to recognize when we are emotionally triggered and very quickly coming back into a state of calm and balance is one of the primary skill sets that a person can learn to counterbalance these forces for division, imo.

It can also help prevent breakdowns in communication.

[edina]

Responding to Gracy May's post.
The first part was here.
The second part is here.
The third part is here.

Posted by Gracy May (here)
I have no problem with Q encouraging people to do their own research,

Thank you.

Posted by Gracy May (here)
but, it's also entirely possible for people to look into this stuff without Q, as has been done here on this very forum and others much farther back than October 2017.

I agree.

I’ve been looking into this stuff since the 90’s. The first time I ever came across the term, “Deep State” was back in 2014, when I read the paper I linked in an earlier post.

I’ve been aware of some of these issues since I was teenager in the 70’s.

And I had a personal experience in the 80’s that made me question the media in general. I’ve been watching the pattern of media propaganda and narrative steering/social engineering ever since.

As you can imagine, since I’ve been at this for so long, I’ve done tons of research on a wide range of topics long before Trump was president or Q started sharing posts in late 2017.

But that’s me. Many of the autists on the chan boards make my research skills looks like I’m still in elementary school.

Every one has their personal stories as to why they are drawn to one arena versus another.

I feel and think it’s important for people to trust their own instincts and intuition on this.

Posted by Gracy May (here)
One may be armed with all the useful information in the world, but if they are also convinced that simply destroying their perceived political enemy will say, end the pedophile problem, well then now we have another problem on our hands.

Maybe some people believe that?

I don’t know.

But in my experience that is not the common mindset of people in general. And it’s especially not the general mindset of people who have been looking at this issue seriously, whether through the Q posts, the previous Pizzagate researchers, or some of the newish researchers on the topic.

It’s an incredibly complex issue. And the conversations around this issue reflect that fact, in my opinion.

It’s a process, and a huge learning curve for just about anyone looking at this issue.

Posted by Gracy May (here)
We also learn what red flags (aka warning signs) look like. One big one for me is that something big is always just around the corner, just be patient for a little longer, a little longer, almost there, almost there...

Another one is the lure of "be a part of something special, the inside group with the inside scoop".

Yep those are red flags for me, too.

I especially see the … something big around the corner, with Extinction Level Events disinformation, and ET Disclosure.

I have other red flags, too.

In the Q movement, this hasn’t really been the case.

Earlier, it was like a educational process.

Lately, it’s been more like trying to set realistic expectations because of how long it can take the investigations to happen.

And also encouraging people that get discouraged or frustrated with the process.

There is a war-like situation going on in the background. At this point, people don't need Q posts to see that.

There are people invested in thwarting the release of the IG reports and stopping the investigations.

And the Q movement is not exclusive, not for just a few, or special insiders.
It's open, inclusive,… for anyone who wants and chooses to participate.

We had 93 days of dark, with no Q posts. But the Q community stayed connected, focused and continued to research and share our research.

Some choose not to participate.

That’s a personal choice.

But it’s not because someone is trying to exclude anyone.

That only the special can participate???

Naw , this movement is wide open and growing… it’s huge.

Posted by Gracy May (here)
My hunch about the Looking Glass comment is that a good deal of alternative media is being played as sort of an experiment, a potential breeding ground, a beta test if you will of what may well work in a larger setting, and how would it be done.

Sort of like how our own private information is collected, repackaged, and sent back to us for various forms of manipulation, monetary gain, social conditioning, divide and conquer, what have you.

Let's watch and see if that one has legs and, what may come of it from there.

It’s good to come back to the topic of Looking Glass. Thank you.

That’s the intended topic of the original post.

Your ideas have merit.

I imagine that ALL media is being played as a sort of experiment.

Our entire culture is being observed, measured, monitored, …

To what end is hard to say.

Some may be for our benefit.

Most seem driven by profit.

And some to our demise.

As for the reference to Looking Glass?

I’m still in observation mode, which means I’m not ready to make a decision just yet.

I require more information …

[edina]

Posted by HaveBlue (here)
Through the Looking Glass with Phase Conjugation (LANL, 1982) mentioned in Mountain Jims post is tech that is used to look into vehicles or buildings for people or contraband. Similar to Back Scatter X-Ray it will show up things that are hidden without having to say unload the whole banana truck to know there are humans hiding in the middle.

This is how certain tech that govt and law enforcement would rather not be too open about is given a cover story. There may well be more than one Project Looking Glass, but to see into the future? really? Predictive Programming much? The Lone Gunman pilot 'special' and 8 months later 911 happened!

BTW Bill Brockbrader aka Wood is featured by actual Navy Seal. Don Shipley and is a total fraud. (and worse) I saw a YT where he admitted to a court judge his Camelot stuff was all lies. This is all very easy to find if you spend 2 mins on it.

ALICE is the AI program that subverts public opinion. Alice is also a code word for Hillary Clinton. ALICE would have you believe Alice would win in 2016 with a 97% chance. ALICE takes real public opinion and spins it into what the CIA want it to be. I can see Hillary asking the magic mirror on the wall who will win in 2016? It tells her that she will because it doesn't want an ash tray thrown through it!

Dan B told us HRC would win according to their LG. It failed twice! Or maybe it is all BS and they were just trying to prepare the public for the steal. But stealing a landslide is so very difficult and that is why they failed. That is why during the campaign Trump said 'We need a landslide folks or this ain't gonna work'. He got the landslide and the DNC fireworks display was cancelled! They had already started popping the corks on the Champagne! Yes they really are that megalomaniacal. Completely out of touch with reality.

The 4am talking points for the day put out by the CIA for the MSM to peddle and spew forth is also not real public opinion. Most of us know this already (that the MSM is fake) but surely nobody has any excuse to be ignorant of this after the 2016 election in the USA. That was even more blatant than 911!

56 sec YT clip to cheer you up! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGcaNY5eBWw

KiwiElf shared this diagram with me:

ALICE & Wonderland are also on those S4 Project Looking Glass Diagrams. Click to enlarge to full size: "S4 Alice's Floor"



Caption of the Rabbit emphasized in red reads:

A STUFFED "ALICE IN WONDERLAND" RABBIT IS PERMANENTLY MOUNTED ABOVE THE ENTRANCE TO THE PROJECT LOOKING GLASS ROOM


Looking at this diagram brings to mind Henry Deacon's description of his experience in going to Mars?

Just popping this here, to see how it evolves.

[Jayke]

Posted by edina (here)
I first came across this concept of “emotional triggers” as an instructor for a Leadership School when I was in the Air Force, back in the 80’s.

The Leadership School is phase 3 of a 5 phase program of Professional Military Education, or PME. It’s designed to help airman make the transition from being line workers to supervisors.

The area of the curriculum for which I was responsible was communications.

Never realised you’d been in the military, Edina! Pretty cool!

Wyatt Woodsmall was one of Clare Graves students. He was influential in the early days of NLP and it’s formation. As one of the main NLP guys who taught a lot of the Advanced Behavioural Modelling and linguistic pattern systems to the Government, military and intelligence communities; he was in the Project Advisory Group (PAG) for the development of the “Strategic Intelligence Analysis Handbook". He also introduced most of the values systems/meta-program type techniques into the NLP community.

The Cognitive Basis of Intelligence Analysis (US army Research Institute for the Behavioural and Social Sciences, Jan 1984).

Thierry Meyssan has done an Interesting article on propoganda recently:
=======

• https://www.voltairenet.org/article208229.html

Propaganda and Post-Truth
by Thierry Meyssan

For 18 years, we have been debating the strange evolution of the media, which seems to place less and less value on facts. We attribute this phenomenon to their democratization through social networks. It would be because from now on any person can become a journalist, that the quality of information would have collapsed. The right to speak should therefore be reserved for the elites.
What if it’s exactly the opposite? If the censorship we are considering was not the answer to the phenomenon, but its continuity?

Propaganda

In political systems where Power needs the participation of the People, the purpose of propaganda is to get as many people as possible to adhere to a particular ideology and to mobilize them to apply it.

The methods used to convince are the same whether one is acting in good or bad faith. However, in the 20th century, the use of lies and repetition, the elimination of different points of view, and recruitment into mass organizations were first theorized by British MP Charles Masterman, US journalist George Creel and especially German minister Joseph Goebbels with the devastating consequences that we know [1]. This is why, at the end of the two World Wars, the United Nations General Assembly adopted three resolutions condemning the use of deliberate lies in the media to provoke war and enjoining Member States to ensure the free flow of ideas, the only prevention of intoxication [2].

While propaganda techniques have been perfected over the past 75 years and are systematically used in all international conflicts, they are gradually giving way to new techniques of influence in countries at peace: it is no longer a question of making the public adhere to an ideology and act in the service of power, but on the contrary of dissuading it from intervening, paralysing it.

This strategy corresponds to a so-called "democratic" organization of society where the public has the capacity to sanction Power, which was rarely the case before.

It has spread over the past 18 years with the "War on Terror". Many intellectuals have stressed the absurdity of this expression: terrorism is not an enemy, it is a military technique. However, we cannot wage war on war. Even if we did not understand it at the time, the invention of this paradoxical expression was intended to institute the era of post-truth.

Post-truth

Let us take the example of the recent execution of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. We all know that a helicopter squad cannot fly low across northern Syria without being seen by the population or spotted by Russian air defence systems. The narrative that is told to us is clearly impossible. However, far from questioning what we consider propaganda, we are discussing whether the Caliph, cornered by the US Special Forces, blew himself up with two or three children.

At other times, we would have agreed that an essential element of this story being impossible, we cannot take seriously the other elements that are before us, starting with the death of the Caliph. Now we think otherwise. We accept that this factual element has been falsified, a priori for reasons of national security, and we consider the rest of the narrative as authentic. In the long run, we will forget our concern with this or other elements and publish encyclopedias that will tell this beautiful story with its most unlikely elements.

In other words, we instinctively understand that this narrative does not tell facts, but conveys a message. We are therefore not positioning ourselves in the face of the facts, but in the face of the message as we have understood it: as Osama bin Laden, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was executed; Power remains in the United States of America.

To move our consciousness from facts to message, speech writers have an obligation to deliver an inconsistent narrative. It is not an unfortunate mistake on their part that is repeated, but a technical requirement of their work.

In classical propaganda, the aim was to tell coherent stories, if necessary by concealing certain facts or falsifying them. Not anymore. Because we no longer try to convince with beautiful stories, if necessary by getting comfortable with reality. But we are addressing an intermediate state of consciousness through which we convey messages. We are aware that this helicopter affair is impossible, but we can reason by eliminating it from our field of consciousness. A part of our intellect has been inhibited.

We lie to ourselves.

We can find a very large number of examples of the use of this packaging technique in recent years. All those I could mention will make most of my readers nervous because each example requires us to recognize that we have been fooled with our own complicity. We hate to have our mistakes pointed out to us.

A small example anyway. It is ancient, but fundamental. It still plays a vital role today. During the attacks of September 11, airlines immediately published complete boarding lists of passengers and personnel who had died. Two days later, the FBI Director presented his account of the 19 hijackers who, in his opinion, had carried out the attacks. However, none of them, according to the airlines’ first-hand accounts, had boarded the four aircraft. His version is therefore impossible. Eighteen years later, however, we continue to discuss the personalities of these individuals.

Antidote

For the past 18 years, we have been told that by offering everyone the ability to express themselves on a blog or social networks, technological progress has devalued public speech. Anyone can say anything. In the past, only politicians and professional journalists had the opportunity to express themselves. They ensured the quality of their interventions and writings. Today the vulgum pecus, the ignorant crowd, takes bladders for lanterns and spreads fake news.

However, it is exactly the opposite. Leading politicians, starting with President George Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Tony Blair, have assumed inconsistent speeches to inhibit the reactions of the public in general and their constituents in particular. This technique substitutes absurdity for truth as others substituted lies. It has destroyed the functioning of the democratic systems that ordinary people are trying to restore with their means.

CRT televisions display 625-line images. It suffices that one of them be blurred for us to perceive so it alone in the image. On the same principle, it is enough to hear a single different point of view for the lies of omnipresent propaganda to be obvious. That is why propaganda, when it lies, requires relentless censorship. But if the lie introduces an inconsistency into the discourse so that this inconsistency becomes voluntarily obvious, alternative points of view should no longer be censored. On the contrary, we must let them express themselves and highlight them by publicly denouncing some of them as fake news.

The antidote to post-truth is not the verification of facts, this has always been the basis of the work of journalists and historians, it is the restoration of logic. This is why a new form of censorship is needed today. Most Facebook users have been logged out at one time or another. In countless cases, users are unable to understand why they have been censored. They search in vain for which prohibited word would have been detected by a computer, or which uncivil position would have been prohibited by a supervisor. In reality, what they are often accused of and arbitrarily sanctioned for is restoring logic to their reasoning.

=======

Funny that the project looking glass is associated with the white rabbit from Alice in wonderland. Since Alice in Wonderland is historically a tool of Monarch mindslave programming. Indicates to me project looking glass is a psychological technology based on deep insight and masses of data collected from the internet as a way to predict future human behaviour.

[edina]

Posted by Jayke (here)
Wyatt Woodsmall was one of Clare Graves students. He was influential in the early days of NLP and it’s formation. As one of the main NLP guys who taught a lot of the Advanced Behavioural Modelling and linguistic pattern systems to the Government, military and intelligence communities; he was in the Project Advisory Group (PAG) for the development of the “Strategic Intelligence Analysis Handbook". He also introduced most of the values systems/meta-program type techniques into the NLP community.

The Cognitive Basis of Intelligence Analysis (US army Research Institute for the Behavioural and Social Sciences, Jan 1984).

Thanks for these resources Jayke!

I enjoyed your earlier story about Abaham Maslow and Clare Graves. I have never heard that story before.
The Maslow Hierarchy of Needs was also a part of the Leadership School Curriculum.
Of course, this was back in the 80's.
Decades ago!!!
I have no idea what that curriculum is now.

There are a lot of quotable lines in the Thierry Meyssan article on propaganda.
I don't necessarily agree with his assumptions about helicopters.
Maybe he knows more about that topic than I do?

He raises some interesting points about propaganda.
I saved it as a pdf, to put in my Mockingbird Media folder.

I'm not certain I want to buy into the label of post-truth, it's the same with the label of post-modern.
I've been considering lately how the term "post-modern" may be a part of the social engineering/information operation on our culture.

These words//phrases slip into our vocabulary, usually through the intellectual class, and we often don't examine how they shape our thinking?

Posted by Jayke (here)
Funny that the project looking glass is associated with the white rabbit from Alice in wonderland. Since Alice in Wonderland is historically a tool of Monarch mindslave programming. Indicates to me project looking glass is a psychological technology based on deep insight and masses of data collected from the internet as a way to predict future human behaviour.

This description seems the most plausible to me, so far.

#MilitaryPrecision

[Ratszinger]

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by Jayke (here)
Wyatt Woodsmall was one of Clare Graves students. He was influential in the early days of NLP and it’s formation. As one of the main NLP guys who taught a lot of the Advanced Behavioural Modelling and linguistic pattern systems to the Government, military and intelligence communities; he was in the Project Advisory Group (PAG) for the development of the “Strategic Intelligence Analysis Handbook". He also introduced most of the values systems/meta-program type techniques into the NLP community.

The Cognitive Basis of Intelligence Analysis (US army Research Institute for the Behavioural and Social Sciences, Jan 1984).

Thanks for these resources Jayke!

I enjoyed your earlier story about Abaham Maslow and Clare Graves. I have never heard that story before.
The Maslow Hierarchy of Needs was also a part of the Leadership School Curriculum.
Of course, this was back in the 80's.
Decades ago!!!
I have no idea what that curriculum is now.

There are a lot of quotable lines in the Thierry Meyssan article on propaganda.
I don't necessarily agree with his assumptions about helicopters.
Maybe he knows more about that topic than I do?

He raises some interesting points about propaganda.
I saved it as a pdf, to put in my Mockingbird Media folder.

I'm not certain I want to buy into the label of post-truth, it's the same with the label of post-modern.
I've been considering lately how the term "post-modern" may be a part of the social engineering/information operation on our culture.

These words//phrases slip into our vocabulary, usually through the intellectual class, and we often don't examine how they shape our thinking?

Posted by Jayke (here)
Funny that the project looking glass is associated with the white rabbit from Alice in wonderland. Since Alice in Wonderland is historically a tool of Monarch mindslave programming. Indicates to me project looking glass is a psychological technology based on deep insight and masses of data collected from the internet as a way to predict future human behaviour.

This description seems the most plausible to me, so far.

#MilitaryPrecision

Abraham Maslow would agree here at least in part, as humans have stimulus needs and if deprived of sensory input for too long the mind begins to create it's own reality depending on and related to his theories on hierarchy of needs.


In his theory from 1943 titled, A Theory of Human Motivation and his later book from 1954 titled Motivation and Personality discuss and lay out the pyramid for his hierarchy of needs from the most fundamental of needs to the most advanced in the species development apexing at morality and creativity. https://www.simplypsychology.org/mas...Dactualization.

[edina]

Posted by Ratszinger (here)

Abraham Maslow would agree here at least in part, as humans have stimulus needs and if deprived of sensory input for too long the mind begins to create it's own reality depending on and related to his theories on hierarchy of needs.


In his theory from 1943 titled, A Theory of Human Motivation and his later book from 1954 titled Motivation and Personality discuss and lay out the pyramid for his hierarchy of needs from the most fundamental of needs to the most advanced in the species development apexing at morality and creativity. https://www.simplypsychology.org/mas...Dactualization.

I want to give you another Thank YOU, Ratszinger.
The page you linked is a tremendous resource for people to better understand Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Five thumbs up!!!!

[Gracy]

So I reckon it comes back to basics for me.

I'm seeing a lot of good psychological evaluations on this whole thing, and that's all well and good normally but, it still comes down to "where's the beef" when it comes to the Batman/Robin type duo of Trump/Q.

I see a lot of rhetoric, but I see very little overall change.

Is the harvest really about to begin, are there really more suicide watches, and is DC (meaning the democrats) really in panic mode again?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JAVauRQ9qlw

Where's The Beef?

Show me the money.

[edina]

Posted by Gracy May (here)
So I reckon it comes back to basics for me.

I'm seeing a lot of good psychological evaluations on this whole thing, and that's all well and good normally but, it still comes down to "where's the beef" when it comes to the Batman/Robin type duo of Trump/Q.

I see a lot of rhetoric, but I see very little overall change.

Is the harvest really about to begin, are there really more suicide watches, and is DC (meaning the democrats) really in panic mode again?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JAVauRQ9qlw

Where's The Beef?

Show me the money.

Perhaps this is were our perceptual processes differ.

I'm seeing movement, understandable and realistic movement, on events unfolding.

What specifically are you looking for that your not seeing?

[Gracy]

Posted by edina (here)
What specifically are you looking for that your not seeing?

Thank you for being so courteous Edina.

This is a basic one just to get the ball rolling.

Has US foreign policy really changed under our current president?

For the better that is?

[edina]

Posted by Gracy May (here)

Posted by edina (here)
What specifically are you looking for that your not seeing?

Thank you for being so courteous Edina.

This is a basic one just to get the ball rolling.

Has US foreign policy really changed under our current president?

For the better that is?

I see it in a flux right now.

It's definitely not "status quo".

Which is one reason why Trump is under such an assault from the political elite and their media proxies.

I'm encouraged that we're NOT in WWIII right now.

I felt that was definitely on the political elites' agenda, or perhaps the criminal element of the political elite.

I see the situation with the trade agreements a little different than I hear most pundits talk about.

This is probably because I came across a particular blogger who shared information about the Triffin Dilemma.

He foresaw what we are presently seeing before it started happening because of his understanding of this dilemma.

The renegotiated agreements are necessary to help rebalance national accounts as we move from a unipolar system to a multipolar system.

I also see Trump and his administration working quietly in the background with other nations to address the issues that many people are concerned about regarding corruption.

This shift in focus on foreign policy is in motion. And there are some very entrenched players who benefited from the way things were resisting his efforts.

It's too soon for me to say if it's for the better, or not. I'm still in observer mode on that point.

I'm watching signs for a switch from fiat currency to asset-backed basket of currencies.

I'm also trying to educate myself more about that as well, and about money reform in general.

I'm not sure if your looking for what I'm observing or for something entirely different.

How about you, what are your thoughts about foreign policy?

Did you know that President Trump is NOT a member of the Council of Foreign Affairs?

And I don't think he has ever been invited to a Bilderberg meeting?

He's definitely not one of the "Davos" crowd.

[edina]

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by Gracy May (here)
So I reckon it comes back to basics for me.

I'm seeing a lot of good psychological evaluations on this whole thing, and that's all well and good normally but, it still comes down to "where's the beef" when it comes to the Batman/Robin type duo of Trump/Q.

I see a lot of rhetoric, but I see very little overall change.

Is the harvest really about to begin, are there really more suicide watches, and is DC (meaning the democrats) really in panic mode again?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JAVauRQ9qlw

Where's The Beef?

Show me the money.

Perhaps this is were our perceptual processes differ.

I'm seeing movement, understandable and realistic movement, on events unfolding.

What specifically are you looking for that your not seeing?

There is a clip of the recent Attorney General Barr talk at the Federalist Society in this particular X22 Report.

I found it quite educational.

For people who would be interested in seeing the whole speech.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=MeMwdtbPR6g

In watching this talk I learned some history I didn't know.

For example, there was an earlier, failed attempt at a Republic in France.

AG Barr gave what I feel is probably a historic talk at Notre Dame last week, too.

AG Barr: Attack on Western Values / Faith 2019 Notre Dame

He raised some interesting points and issues in this talk.

I've downloaded the transcripts of both talks for further study.
Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks to the Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame

Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers the 19th Annual Barbara K. Olson Memorial Lecture at the Federalist Society's 2019 National Lawyers Convention

[Gracy]

Posted by edina (here)
Did you know that President Trump is NOT a member of the Council of Foreign Affairs?

I'm assumining you meant Council on Foreign Relations? But anyway I'm not so sure if that matters any more or not.

Posted by edina (here)
And I don't think he has ever been invited to a Bilderberg meeting?

Again, is this a litmus test for guilty vs. innocent? Which part of "the club" someone belongs to?

Show me evidence our foreign wars, the coups, the starvation sanctions, the drone strikes, the mass surveillance, etc., are slowing down.

Consider me the apostle Thomas. Don't tell me, show me.

[edina]

Posted by Gracy May (here)

Posted by edina (here)
Did you know that President Trump is NOT a member of the Council of Foreign Affairs?

I'm assumining you meant Council on Foreign Relations? But anyway I'm not so sure if that matters any more or not.

Posted by edina (here)
And I don't think he has ever been invited to a Bilderberg meeting?

Again, is this a litmus test for guilty vs. innocent? Which part of "the club" someone belongs to?

Show me evidence our foreign wars, the coups, the starvation sanctions, the drone strikes, the mass surveillance, etc., are slowing down.

Consider me the apostle Thomas. Don't tell me, show me.

Why? Are you asking me to prove something to you?

I've made it a point to check out these potential relationships for a while now.

Just information, ... It's meaningful to me.

Doesn't mean that it has to be meaningful to you.