Barack Obama

[SAO]

I think that a good point is brought up here that telling apart good vs evil can really be a very subtle business. I mean, the smarter the good guys and bad guys are, the more they look like one another in the context where that is required to get something done. For bad guys it is the "mask of sanity", for good guys it is the "strategic enclosure". So we really do need to be very careful in our observation and assessment.

And perhaps the only real test will be "by their fruits ye shall know them". But everything matters, so none of the data that we have accumulated so far is useless or doesn't tell us anything, but I think we should keep watching as more data comes in. Remember how Bush stumbled and messed up phrases that had to do with describing human feelings like empathy and other "normal" emotions and simple understandings that non-psychopaths have but psychopaths don't understand? I mean it seems insignificant to most people and they just tend to make fun of him for that, but those with knowledge of psychopaths are able to see far more in such things than most people do.

So our ability to interpret what we observe correctly depends on our knowledge, and in our case, the collective knowledge of this network. What have we observed so far? What is its significance? Is there a way to determine that something is more likely to be a reflection of Obama's true "evil" nature rather than a clever strategic enclosure? There must be differences, lines that "good guys" will not cross in the name of strategic enclosure. Also, subtle things like Bush's stumblings would probably be an indication that it's not a strategic enclosure too. Actually stumbling over empathic statements would seem like its way more than necessary for someone's "bad guy act" to be successful, and I'm sure the same thing applies to other things that I just haven't thought of at the moment.

But we'll know what those things are as we keep observing and collecting and analyzing what we see.

[Nienna]

FWIW, I am trying to keep an open mind as far as Obama goes.  Unfortunately, from seeing just who he has appointed so far, things are looking dire.  However, I think that we need to keep in mind what Laura has pointed out.  In order to get elected, there have to be concessions made by him.

Do I think that he will make drastic changes?  No.

Do I think that he is good or bad?  That is a subjective question, for I am fairly sure that George W. thinks he is very good.   

But as the C's have continually said, "stay open to all possibilities" and this is what I think is important.  To close off all possibilities is blocking our efforts to see things objectively.  We have no real idea why Obama is doing the things he is doing.   The only way that we can find out is to objectively watch what he does, without any preconceptions.  To put our knowledge of how the mind of the psychopath works to use in seeing just what he is really doing, as SAO pointed out, is on the right track, osit.

I, also, keep thinking of what the C's told Laura about there being a time of chaos, then a time of calm and serenity followed by KABOOM and SPLAT.  We have no idea what the time of chaos and calm really is so keeping our minds open to all possibilities and not blinding ourselves with preconceived theories is, I think, the way to look objectively at this situation.  We have a pretty good idea of the kaboom and splat part.

So either Obama is just the same as all the rest of the pathocracy or he is playing wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove.  Only time will tell which is which.

[Azur]

To summarize at a high level this whole discussion, with disregard to the underlying, discordant and implied emotions unexpressed on an individual basis, we get a hope for this:

A change from a system that fleeces and eats the sheep,

to one that let's the sheep eat grass, and die after doing it's thing over and over and over again, peacefully. 

It seems to me that this whole Obama thingie is hiding a much bigger discomfort and some are again looking for an outward saviour.

It's the same pattern, but we all know it's pretty thin this time around. VERY thin, and more people know it viscerally.

Why do people continuously hope that someone else can change all of human behaviour for their own benefit?

How MANY times has this been written about over centuries?

Why are we still discussing this like it matters to our personal lives and the lives of billions?

Is it similar to casino disease? Shoveling chips into something easy to do that may pay something favourable, knowing it's a stacked system? (If you win, you spread the joy not by sharing your winnings, but gushing about the possibilities!)

The chips, of course, are hope: A.K.A. dispensed energy for an outcome desired.

When will the spell of a "leadership/caretaker" finally be understood for what it is?


How many ways can Gurdjieff, Buddha, and a million others say the same thing before it is understood?


Last and final question:

Why do I care so much that people see for themselves when I'm not even sure I can see myself?

[bedower]

for I am fairly sure that George W. thinks he is very good.   
 

I wish you had elucidated a bit more on that comment, Nienna, and why you think so.

Because I can remember when Tony Blair was elected to the British premiership (after the convenient death of John Smith, the then leader of the Labour party) and how Margaret Thatcher gushed over his appointment. The actual words she used were; "I shall enjoy being a back-seat driver." This from a woman who was the Brit equivalent of a Neocon, speaking about a man who should have been a Socialist; i.e. on the side of the poor, the dispossessed and disenfranchised!

That was a massive clue right there, and NO-ONE picked up on it!

Thatcher also reputedly said; "The best idea I ever had was New Labour!" Wish I could remember which web-site I saw it on.

The whole world has witnessed since then the gradual removal of the Blair mask to expose the reptile beneath his skin.

Based on the Thatcher/Blair example, if George Bush thinks Obama is 'good', then that is another reason for caution, osit.

[Ruth]

To summarize at a high level this whole discussion, with disregard to the underlying, discordant and implied emotions unexpressed on an individual basis, we get a hope for this:

Well, to be blunt; I would have hoped that any 'summary' of a level sufficiently 'high' enough to merit a summary     would have been a little more balanced and leaning a little less towards the negative "all is doomed" side.... Afterall, what's the point of investing negative emotions in something that cannot and certainly will not change?   These are just emotions wasted on a situation over which they have very little influence...  Perhaps they are negative emotions destined simply for 4D sts dinner table?

As a matter or curiosity, who are these people who have the "underlying discordant and implied emotions unexpressed on an individual basis and get to seemingly 'hope' for some of the following things?"

A change from a system that fleeces and eats the sheep,

to one that let's the sheep eat grass, and die after doing it's thing over and over and over again, peacefully. 

It seems to me that this whole Obama thingie is hiding a much bigger discomfort and some are again looking for an outward saviour.

It's the same pattern, but we all know it's pretty thin this time around. VERY thin, and more people know it viscerally.

Why do people continuously hope that someone else can change all of human behaviour for their own benefit?

How MANY times has this been written about over centuries?

Why are we still discussing this like it matters to our personal lives and the lives of billions?

Is it similar to casino disease? Shoveling chips into something easy to do that may pay something favourable, knowing it's a stacked system?

The chips, of course, are hope; A.K.A. dispensed energy for an outcome desired.

Perhaps you have mixed up hope with wishful thinking?  I'm not sure if they are one and the same.  Perhaps they are to some people?  I always thought that 'hope' had a more spiritual side to it that 'wishful thinking' which I see as directly linked to imagination and foolishness.  One can hope, but it doesn't change anything and it also doesn't 'demand' that a person takes part in any 'system' since it can be a silent and personal thing.

When will the spell of a "leadership" finally be understood for what it is?

Perhaps you mean reality?  Probably never.       At least not until the individual wants, and is ready to 'see'.

Isn't it great that so many people do, though?  Even if they are only somewhat of a minority, but that this minority has the potential to grow?  And, yes, some people will continue to discuss the shared ignorance of the many and the way it effects our planet, probably for a very long time.

How many ways can Gurdjieff, Buddha, and a million others say the same thing before it is understood?

Hmmm, probably as many times as it takes.  Afterall, time is an illusion (of some particular sort)...  It takes what it takes.

Last and final question:

Why do I care so much that people see for themselves when I'm not even sure I can see myself?

Interesting question.  One for self reflection and deep thought?  Let us know if you 'see' any conclusions?

 

[Miss Isness]

Perhaps you have mixed up hope with wishful thinking?  I'm not sure if they are one and the same.  Perhaps they are to some people?  I always thought that 'hope' had a more spiritual side to it that 'wishful thinking' which I see as directly linked to imagination and foolishness.  One can hope, but it doesn't change anything and it also doesn't 'demand' that a person takes part in any 'system' since it can be a silent and personal thing.

Hoping for a specific outcome that is highly unlikely can lead to disappointment.  Hoping to make the best of whatever life throws at you makes it possible to use your imagination to find creative solutions.  Perhaps hope is not always good, and imagination is not always bad.

[Black Swan]

And let's not forget the role anticipation can play:

Q: (L) OK, we've been talking earlier this evening about intent, and of course, our own experiences with intent have really been pretty phenomenal. We've come to some kind of an idea that intent, when confirmed repeatedly, actually builds force. Is this a correct concept, and is there anything that you can add to it?
A: Only until anticipation muddies the picture... tricky one, huh?
Q: (L) Is anticipation the act of assuming you know how something is going to happen?
A: Follows realization, generally, and unfortunately for you, on 3rd density. You see, once anticipation enters the picture, the intent can no longer be STO.
Q: (L) Anticipation is desire for something for self. Is that it?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) OK, so it's OK to intend something, or to think in an intentional way, or to hope in an intentional way, for something that is to serve another...
A: And that brings realization. But, realization creates anticipation.
Q: (L) Well, how do we navigate this razor? I mean, this is like walking on a razor's edge. To control your mind to not anticipate, and yet, deal with realization, and yet, still maintain hope...
A: Mental exercises of denial, balanced with pure faith of a nonprejudicial kind.
Q: (L) OK, so, in other words, to just accept what is at the moment, appreciate it as it is at the moment, and have faith that the universe and things will happen the way they are supposed to happen, without placing any expectation on how that will be, and keep on working?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) We have discussed a lot of concepts about "shaping the future." In our discussions, we have hypothesized that it is something like an intentional act of shaping something good, but without defining the moment of measurement. In other words, adding energy to it by intent, but not deciding where, when or how the moment of measurement occurs. Like a quantum jump: you know it is statistically likely, but not definite, so you cannot "expect" it, but you observe so that you can notice when it occurs on it's own, and in it's own way.
A: Yes. Avoiding anticipation. That is the key to shaping the future... When it hits you, it stops.
Q: (L) When what hits you? The fact that it's happening? That you are doing it?
A: Yes unless you cancel out all anticipation.
Q: (L) Well, this is very tricky.
A: Ah? We have doubts... And yes, you create your own reality!
Q: Well, but you have also said that anticipation messes things up, and so I don't want to have any anticipation.
A: Anticipation is not creating one's own reality.

[Windmill knight]

As the following article by Ralph Nader succinctly itemizes, Obama's senate record does not reflect "a decent man". It reflects a deeply conservative opportunist dedicated to maintaining the status quo, who supported the worst crimes and abuses of Bush's administration, and did NOT align himself with those "decent" men and women who opposed them. To expect his political character to radically change just because he has been elected president, is wishful thinking.

On the other hand, anybody who had opposed the Bush team over the past 8 years would have had ZERO chance of running for president, much less getting elected. 

If we consider that the Dominionists can so covertly plan years ahead to take over the government for evil intentions (which they, of course, do not perceive as evil though they are certainly delusional), why do we not think that a decent person could, under the very trying circumstances we have all endured over those same 8 years, decide to try to do something about it, to behave covertly, so as to get into position to do something?

It's probably not the case, but I think we ought to leave the door open to that possibility.

I agree with Laura. If anyone wishes to become POTUS, they need to ally with evildoers, whether Zionists or other. A decent man refusing to do so would simply not make it that far. A decent and smart man may. Unfortunately, I think that even if Obama is decent and smart, he won't be able to do any good with the pressure of the system. And if he crosses a certain line, he'll suffer JFK's luck. That is, of course, assuming that he is actually decent, which is something that is yet to be seen. We won't know until he actually starts doing stuff, because right now all he can do is talk and make promises, and words are blown by the wind.

Also, I still get the impression that the main plan was to bring McCain/Palin into power, but that they miscalculated. The reason I think so is that up to the very day of the election, much of the US media was still leaning against Obama, and before that, there was much serious manipulation to stop him. He wasn't just clapped into power.

I suspect that Plan B is to force and secure Obama into the fascist agenda with another 9-11 type of thing (see how many high profile people are predicting it). If something happens during the first few months of his term (or even before), he will find that the pressure to support the war on terror and everything that comes with it will multiply by N. Even if he knows it was staged, he will find it very hard not to follow the script. The media and a traumatized public will demand a strong response; and that is on top of the pressure he will get behind closed doors. If he's just a political animal who likes power, he'll comply easily. If he is a decent man with a goal, he'll be in big trouble.

And of course there's also the possibility that they sacrifice him in a 9-11 event, regardless of his real intentions, just for the sake of getting fascism back on track. But I've speculated too much already.

[SAO]

A change from a system that fleeces and eats the sheep,

Speaking only for myself, I don't think the system will change itself. I don't know what it would take to change it, but I do know at the very least it requires all people to be aware of the true nature of the system. I am, however, considering the possibility, however minute, that Obama may not necessarily be on the same side as the system. But if he's a "good guy" I still don't think HE can change the system, but things he does, if he's smart enough, may make a difference.

Consider this crazy idea, for example. What would happen if during his presidential acceptance speech he suddenly just said "911 was an inside-job by members of US and Israeli governments, no foreign terrorists were involved in that attack". Can we even imagine what would be the consequences of someone like him saying that in front of dozens of millions of people LIVE? How would the PTB react? Would they turn off the transmission? Would they kill him right away? Would they kill his family? I think that they may have an impulse to do one or both, but if they did, would that backfire in a huge way? It might. Would they let him talk and then discredit him later? Would damage control after something like that even work? Again, maybe, but maybe not.

I don't think anyone could say for sure what something like this would create - it is certain that far more people would suddenly take 911 being an inside job much more seriously and HUGE things would be happening in this country right away. But what things? And what will they result in? Who knows.

All I'm saying is, from his position and exposure Obama can "stir up feathers" if he wanted to, to his and his family's potential peril and god knows what other consequences on everyone. PTB are very, very powerful and clever. But are they invulnerable to subterfuge? Hardly, wishful thinking gets ya every time. But most likely Obama is not on our side. And if he is, most likely he's not clever enough to outwit the PTB. And even if he's very clever, most likely he won't risk endangering himself and his family so fear can hold him back. The odds against him are certainly stacked.

However, we are in a non-linear world with butterfly wings having great potential. So you just never know which action results in which consequence, however subtle, however seemingly small. I don't think anyone could "secretly" fix the system without the population as a whole doing it, but if somehow Obama could "trick" the PTB into exposing themselves to the people by encouraging the PTB to do what turns out to be a "miscalculation", then that's one possibility.

Psychopaths manipulate us by exploiting our weaknesses, our blindness of them, our empathy, our programming, etc. But their weakness is their pride, their self-assurance, their wishful thinking and tendency to want to "create reality" and inability to accept inconvenient facts. So, just as they can use our nature against us, someone clever enough could "encourage" their weaknesses and faulty reasoning to cause them to make a bigger mistake and sooner than they would've otherwise.

We see it in movies (good movies) all the time - the good guy defeats the bad guy by complimenting them on their power and cleverness, and basically fanning the flames of their pride to the point that the bad guy either falls for a trick from the good guy and does something stupid, or the bad guy's blindness is so enhanced from the good guy's compliments that he makes a huge mistake quickly all on his own. He was too busy assuming how great and perfect and clever he was to worry the possible faults of his plans. It does tend to work like a charm in movies anyway! And we know that COINTELPRO agents use these tactics on leaders of "opposition groups" to compromise them, so, some of these tactics may work against the bad guys too perhaps.

[Spiral Out]

As the following article by Ralph Nader succinctly itemizes, Obama's senate record does not reflect "a decent man". It reflects a deeply conservative opportunist dedicated to maintaining the status quo, who supported the worst crimes and abuses of Bush's administration, and did NOT align himself with those "decent" men and women who opposed them. To expect his political character to radically change just because he has been elected president, is wishful thinking.

On the other hand, anybody who had opposed the Bush team over the past 8 years would have had ZERO chance of running for president, much less getting elected. 

I agree with Laura. If anyone wishes to become POTUS, they need to ally with evildoers, whether Zionists or other. A decent man refusing to do so would simply not make it that far. A decent and smart man may. Unfortunately, I think that even if Obama is decent and smart, he won't be able to do any good with the pressure of the system. And if he crosses a certain line, he'll suffer JFK's luck. That is, of course, assuming that he is actually decent, which is something that is yet to be seen. We won't know until he actually starts doing stuff, because right now all he can do is talk and make promises, and words are blown by the wind.

Well, as SAO said, there is a fine line between "strategic enclosure" and "the Mask of Sanity".
It could also be that  the ptb learned their lessons as well and perfected the puppet that is supposed to push the agenda.
It also may be the case that Obama is neither a psychopath, nor a decent person, but simply so mind controlled that he says exactly what the masses want to hear, yet his allegiance is elsewhere. Kinda like a Manchurian candidate. What do we really know about Obama's past? Where did he come from? It seemed he appeared out of nowhere....who were/are his mentors and supporters?

Anart also mentioned in a past post that this is not 1961 anymore, which I think we should keep mind.  Personally I think the JFK comparison is a bit rooted in wishful thinking, but that is just my personal view. I'll give it the benefit of the doubt that Obama my be a "JFK", however 47 years later it seems that the forces controlling this world seem to have "evolved" in their measures of control as well, perfecting the idea of "people building their own prison out of free will", which we see very well in the New Age Movement.
"New Agers" in particular rave about Obama. Living in California, with Obama parties all over the place since the elections, the whole Obama hype is rather disturbing to me. It doesn't seem like "hope", but more wishful thinking with a high level of anticipation and not much critical thinking. More emotional projections based on the slogans of "Hope", "Change" and "We can!!".
Any time I say anything against Obama or simply state that we should be more careful before getting excited too quick, I'm being told that I'm just negative and a pessimist, that I should watch "my thoughts and use the momentum to create something positive". All kinds of "channellings" have appeared over the past year that pushed Obama as a "Light Worker" as PopHistorian has showed us too. That alone are some red flags in my eyes. Next thing you know he'll be on Oprah and teach "The Secret" to the masses.

I've always thought that democracy is the best way to control the people if you can shape and control the people's beliefs, give them options and control all sides of them, especially if there are only TWO. Apart from that it also seems that government has never really been in place for the people by the people, but it is mere a control system for the elite to keep the power and wealth to a few. Frank Zappa used to say :" Government is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex". And let's not forget the 4D STS empire behind all this.

Also, I still get the impression that the main plan was to bring McCain/Palin into power, but that they miscalculated. The reason I think so is that up to the very day of the election, much of the US media was still leaning against Obama, and before that, there was much serious manipulation to stop him. He wasn't just clapped into power.

You see, I'm not sure about that. The more I reflect on it, the more I see Obama as the calculated move here. It was basically a slam dunk. No problem at all. Almost too easy how fast he got declared president. But who knows? Maybe it was a miscalculation, but the "Obama team" may also not be in place "for the people".

In regards to "strategic enclosure" vs "the Mask of Sanity", as everyone agreed here on the forum anyway:
We'll have to wait and observe.

However, some of the main issues Obama supports so far are major lies that have cost millions of lives and suffering world wide, namely the war on terror, the 9/11 lie, the Al Qaida scam and support of Israel. Will he make a 180 degree turn on these issues? If he's truly a decent man, how much more will he feed the crocodiles and sacrifice more lives for his supposedly "in cover hero" role?
Not too long ago, he made his stance clear on theses issues, including a threat before he ever got elected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XTC1V4fk

Liar, hero, strategic enclosure, the "perfected" mask of sanity or a Manchurian Candidate?
Time will tell.....

[Nienna]

for I am fairly sure that George W. thinks he is very good.   
 

I wish you had elucidated a bit more on that comment, Nienna, and why you think so.

Because I can remember when Tony Blair was elected to the British premiership (after the convenient death of John Smith, the then leader of the Labour party) and how Margaret Thatcher gushed over his appointment. The actual words she used were; "I shall enjoy being a back-seat driver." This from a woman who was the Brit equivalent of a Neocon, speaking about a man who should have been a Socialist; i.e. on the side of the poor, the dispossessed and disenfranchised!

That was a massive clue right there, and NO-ONE picked up on it!

Thatcher also reputedly said; "The best idea I ever had was New Labour!" Wish I could remember which web-site I saw it on.

The whole world has witnessed since then the gradual removal of the Blair mask to expose the reptile beneath his skin.

Based on the Thatcher/Blair example, if George Bush thinks Obama is 'good', then that is another reason for caution, osit.

There were two reasons for saying this.

First, that as most of us see things subjectively, we define good and bad to our liking.  And, hence, George W. would see himself as good.  And just from watching and listening to him in various pictures and clips and speeches, he seems to really think rather highly of himself.

Second, from all that he has done and said, there have been a couple of psychologists that have come right out and said that George W.  behaves as a psychopath would.  They would have to actually analyze him to be 100% sure, but at this point they are very sure that he is one.  And a psychopath sees himself as good no matter what he does.  He has created his own reality where he is very good and cannot understand if others don't see him as good also, that is when it matters to him what anyone else thinks.

If I am still not being clear enough, I apologize and please keep asking until I make myself clear.

Or if I am mistaken in any way, feel free to correct me.

[bedower]

I am fairly sure that George W. thinks he is very good.   
 

If you meant that G.Bush thinks G. Bush is very good, then apologies are due from me, Nienna.
I misread the sentence, and thought you meant G.Bush thinks Obama is very good. Hence my question. Ah well, no harm done.  Sorry about that.

As for the rest of your reply, I agree with you 110% (also with the psychologists!).

Time for a  , I think.

[PepperFritz]

The more I reflect on it, the more I see Obama as the calculated move here. It was basically a slam dunk. No problem at all. Almost too easy how fast he got declared president.

Yep. That's where it doesn't add up for me, as well. If Obama truly represents a "threat" to the status quo, why didn't they put up a better fight? I mean, these are the people who did not think twice about stealing an election in order to keep their stranglehold. What caused them to suddenly lay down and surrender, with even GWB calling the Obama win "awesome"?

Makes me nervous. Very nervous.

What's that phrase that someone here uses as their signature?:
"More than than the sound of jackboots at the door, I fear the silence of slippers...."

[PepperFritz]

Here's something else that's making me very nervous about Obama. I keep thinking back to that very strange speech Joe Biden made back in October, to a group of Obama supporters in Seattle:

We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us. There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound.

Before Obama was even elected, he was warning that Obama's policies and decisions as president would be met with resistance -- not by Republicans and Obama detractors, but by Obama supporters. What clearer message do we need that Obama will NOT be fulfilling the expectations of his supporters, but rather alarming them with his actions? The only question is how long those supporters will "stick with" him before cluing in that they've been misled....

[Nienna]

Here's something else that's making me very nervous about Obama. I keep thinking back to that very strange speech Joe Biden made back in October, to a group of Obama supporters in Seattle:

We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us. There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision'," Biden continued. "Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound.

Before Obama was even elected, he was warning that Obama's policies and decisions as president would be met with resistance -- not by Republicans and Obama detractors, but by Obama supporters. What clearer message do we need that Obama will NOT be fulfilling the expectations of his supporters, but rather alarming them with his actions? The only question is how long those supporters will "stick with" him before cluing in that they've been misled....

Yes, that was quite unsettling to hear that, I agree.  To me it looks like the CIA/MOSSAD have been told to gear up for another false-flag operation.  Don't want to let things get too peaceful, doncha know.  And all of those poor, poor rich elite need the blood money from the Military-Industrial-Complex war machine.

The only way to do that is another 9/11-type event, or so I think.  Either that or this is just fear-mongering.  But we do know that Obama's advisers are pro-war no matter which way you look at it and that ain't good.