Alex Jones - COINTELPRO? Fascist Tool?

[Off Topic?]

When Laura asked about "personal defence", the C's reply
often was/is: "Knowledge Protects, Ignorance Endangers".
(I hope I got the context right, correct me if it is wrong)

The AJ camp seems to advocate an offensive position by
trying to incite a mass revolution on a "subjective pretext"
but on the other hand, what about using weapons for
personal defence? Do we need weapons at all?

Just wondering,
Dan
 
JEEP, I have an anecdote to share that I hope is relevant to this discussion. After having read and participated in this thread, I decided to send the video to my dad, who is an ardent Obama supporter, and continues to be confused about why I am not as well, since in the pre-Obama era we agreed wholeheartedly in our dislike of the Bush administration. When I talked to him about it later that day, he said that he had started to watch it, but recognized the voice (it's hard not to!), and said he stopped watching because it was just "that guy from Texas". His reasons for disliking Jones agree in some respect with our reasons here (that he is a belligerent, loud-mouthed bully), and otherwise he dislikes him because he feels that he is "always gunning for Obama". The point, though, is that the messenger mattered, and I think it underscores the fact that a vector of truth can be right a lot of the time -- even most of it -- but mixed in will be that little bit of filth that can end up discrediting everything else that is good about the message, which makes them that more dangerous.

I felt this way for a very long time about David Icke -- I just couldn't understand for awhile why everyone here wouldn't give him a break because of all the similarities between his research and that done here, even if there were some differences. After all, most of the time he made really good points and exposed some very good information! I slowly but surely figured out (more quickly once Argonaut and E started really treating the subject of Icke in its entirety) that what I thought was a plus was actually a minus -- that the deeply-entrenched way that Icke understands reality and presents solutions to it undermined everything else he said and did that otherwise revealed the truth. Anyone identified with Icke, with very few exceptions, will swallow the entire pill, both the good and the bad, and the same is true of Jones and so many other "heroes of the people" who are currently enjoying very much public exposure. It can be good practice in discernment for us to listen to them, and separate the wheat from the chaff, but it doesn't negate their potential danger in acting on a general populace who will not be so inclined.
 
dant said:
Do we need weapons at all?

Just wondering,
Dan

Dan, I remember asking a similar question about pepper spray (which some may not consider a weapon, but it could be used that way). I thought kenlee had a good reply to my question at the time:

kenlee said:
RyanX said:
I've considered purchasing a can of pepper spray too just as a precaution. Do you guys think that would be a good idea? I know after my Dad got attacked a couple times by dogs in his neighborhood he purchased some pepper spray just as a precaution. It seemed to make sense in a situation where one feels threatened.

I do think pepper spray is OK since its not lethal and all you have to do is "spray and walk away." But, IMO, pepper spray (and the physical aspects of the martial arts) are not really forms of self defense but rather they are weapons and offensive weapons at that. The self defense part comes in when one knows under what circumstances to use it, be physically and psychologically trained for it and only use it when cornered and only when absolutely necessary. But, of course, I think the best form of self defense is using your smarts instead of your fists and knowing how to avoid getting into any physical attacks and confrontations.

Which gets back to what you said and the C's have empasized that "knowledge protects".
 
Shijing said:
JEEP, I have an anecdote to share that I hope is relevant to this discussion. After having read and participated in this thread, I decided to send the video to my dad, who is an ardent Obama supporter, and continues to be confused about why I am not as well, since in the pre-Obama era we agreed wholeheartedly in our dislike of the Bush administration. When I talked to him about it later that day, he said that he had started to watch it, but recognized the voice (it's hard not to!), and said he stopped watching because it was just "that guy from Texas". His reasons for disliking Jones agree in some respect with our reasons here (that he is a belligerent, loud-mouthed bully), and otherwise he dislikes him because he feels that he is "always gunning for Obama". The point, though, is that the messenger mattered, and I think it underscores the fact that a vector of truth can be right a lot of the time -- even most of it -- but mixed in will be that little bit of filth that can end up discrediting everything else that is good about the message, which makes them that more dangerous.

This is a really good point that Shijing makes and I'd like to share what my own first impressions of Jones were back in 2004 when I first saw a video of his (I forget which one - does it matter??).

I really thought the guy was crazy. He was loud, obnoxious, sensationalistic and seemed to talk like he had a fuse that was about to go off. In many ways he reminded me of a pentecostal preacher, spewing out tales of fire and brimstone! This was before I had accepted the truth about 9/11 and a lot of other things at the time and it really turned me off from 9/11 truth material for some time. After a year or so, I started to read more credible sounding individuals talking about the same things Jones did and the pieces started to fall into place.

So, if I had come across the 9/11 material through a different messenger, I probably would have been more receptive to those ideas from the start and spent a lot less time pursuing dead ends. It was a good lesson for me, in discernment and COINTELPRO looking back on it.

Overall, I think that with the way AJ speaks, people don't want to believe him even if he does tell the truth every now and again. The man is dangerous, IMHO.

FWIW.
 
SAO said:
JEEP said:
Our military and police should be comprised of regular American citizens - citizens with ethics and a conscience!
Well first of all there is no such thing as "should be" - things just are the way they are because of our world being the way it is - if you, I, or anyone else doesn't like it, then we should first understand why things are this way before we blindly and naively try to "change" anything, applying our energy and efforts in fruitless and ignorant and ineffective ways.

Hi JEEP,
I was an officer in the military and during the last six months before leaving the military I had similar thoughts that an answer to the problems or a solution would be if officers actually followed the oath justifying rebellion "to protect the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic" But that was living in illusion. I was living in illusion, nothing good can come from armed rebellion when another 'slave' or 'machine' takes over. As SAO pointed out 'should' is not what is. Thinking back, I only met less than five people out of probably over a thousand that had a clue and would even consider that the government was broken and ways to fix it. I was a machine then and a slave as 'G' puts it and the others were slaves as well - each having there own programs, thoughts and grand "if this one thing was fixed, then..." ideas and passions that would have amounted to nothing. There are probably more now, but they are people that have the mindset of "might makes right" and "that the end justify the means" - they are like little John McCains. Jones is just being used to vector all the little McCains. Thank goodness I found SOTT and got a glimpse of just how corrupted the system was and the only real way to even consider change was first by changing myself via the work. Not that I was going to act, but I would have been reading books, Rense, Prison Planet/Jones and lost thinking I was getting somewhere or even eventually saying the hell with it and just stop caring. I think the below quotes might help put it in perspective.

Lost Christianity said:
We must occupy the body of the old Christianity, the mortal body of the immortal Truth. Criticism is not the point. Presence is the point, awareness of the gap separating the ideas and the actual situation. Moments of such presence are not enough, not nearly enough. In fact, such moments when one confronts the separation between what ought to be and what is are in themselves a great danger because if one does not value these moments rightly, the impulse to correct things takes over and one immediately and unconsciously loses contact with the helping force of the Holy Spirit. Such is the origin of Protestantism.

ISOTM said:
"There was a question about war. How to stop wars? Wars cannot be stopped. War is the result of the slavery in which men live. Strictly speaking men are not to blame for war. War is due to cosmic forces, to planetary influences. But in men there is no resistance whatever against these influences, and there cannot be any, because men are slaves. If they were men and were capable of 'doing,' they would be able to resist these influences and refrain from killing one another."

"But surely those who realize this can do something?" said the man who had asked the question about war. "If a sufficient number of men came to a definite conclusion that there should be no war, could they not influence others?"

"Those who dislike war have been trying to do so almost since the creation of the world," said G. "And yet there has never been such a war as the present. Wars are not decreasing, they are increasing and war cannot be stopped by ordinary means. All these theories about universal peace, about peace conferences, and so on, are again simply laziness and hypocrisy. Men do not want to think about themselves, do not want to work on themselves, but think of how to make other people do what they want. If a sufficient number of people who wanted to stop war really did gather together they would first of all begin by making war upon those who disagreed with them. And it is still more certain that they would make war on people who also want to stop wars but in another way. And so they would fight. Men are what they are and they cannot be different. War has many causes that are unknown to us. Some causes are in men themselves, others are outside them. One must begin with the causes that are in man himself. How can he be independent of the external influences of great cosmic forces when he is the slave of everything that surrounds him? He is controlled by everything around him. If he becomes free from things, he may then become free from planetary influences.

"Freedom, liberation, this must be the aim of man. To become free, to be liberated from slavery: this is what a man ought to strive for when he becomes even a little conscious of his position. There is nothing else for him, and nothing else is possible so long as he remains a slave both inwardly and outwardly. But he cannot cease to be a slave outwardly while he remains a slave inwardly. Therefore in order to become free, man must gain inner freedom.

"The first reason for man's inner slavery is his ignorance, and above all, his ignorance of himself. Without self-knowledge, without understanding the working and functions of his machine, man cannot be free, he cannot govern himself and he will always remain a slave, and the plaything of the forces acting upon him.

"This is why in all ancient teachings the first demand at the beginning of the way to liberation was: 'Know thyself.' "We shall speak of these words now."
 
So you are saying that there is the possibility of using
your 'smarts' to 'talk your way out of a crisis, while facing
the barrel of a gun', while potentially oneself and/or your family
could face the possibility of senseless attacks? From what I
have read everywhere, it seems that one cannot talk one's way
out of danger, when facing a psychopath or so it seems?

Many times I have asked myself this question and invariably
I could not find an answer to this 'hypothetical question', that is,
'what if I had a gun...', and yet never in my life, have I owned
nor fired a gun, but the thought arises occasionally, when I am
emotionally affected by watching senseless violence (games, tv,
news,...), and there again, that question arises!

This went on for a quite a long time, nothing was done, and yet,
nothing has 'happened'. I have never faced such a 'hypothetical
situation', so then I rationalized to myself, that it must be driven
by fear alone, and so there it sat dormant.

Interesting....
Dan
 
Thank you Shijing, RyanX, Bear, and Dant for those great responses. They really get to the heart of the issue and clarify how one's thinking can go askew. And I totally get the consensus of those who've weighed in, which I think the following picture sums up (swap out the Obama insert with one of Alex):


04_full_600.jpg


Thanks again everyone for your patience and persistence to get me to get it. :love:
 
Bear said:
ISOTM said:
Men do not want to think about themselves, do not want to work on themselves, but think of how to make other people do what they want. If a sufficient number of people who wanted to stop war really did gather together they would first of all begin by making war upon those who disagreed with them
That's pretty spot on about AJ, especially considering Perceval's youtube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzdqSQuLOGQ

His mentality doesn't get any more blatant than that.
 
ISOTM said:
Men do not want to think about themselves, do not want to work on themselves, but think of how to make other people do what they want. If a sufficient number of people who wanted to stop war really did gather together they would first of all begin by making war upon those who disagreed with them

Just the truthfulness of that statement is incredibly dismaying.

Just to digress for a moment, I was sending an email to my son and his wife who are expecting a baby in July. I've done my best to keep them informed of all the health hazards out there (vaccine dangers, toxins in our food, etc.), especially in regards to pregnancy and babies. Unfortunately, I'm inclined to think my missives are disregarded as my daughter-in-law's brother is a medical doctor, who himself had his first child less than a year ago. But I feel I have to at least attempt to warn them. One of the links I sent was in regards to fluoride:

Mercury and Fluoride - The Dumbing Down Of A Population
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/203059-Mercury-and-Fluoride-The-Dumbing-Down-Of-A-Population

Now here's where the irony comes in. The above is a really great video that makes it so clear that the agenda of the PTB is to dumb down the population via our water and vaccines for control purposes. But guess whose highly recognizable voices are included in this video - Alex Jones and David Icke! So, there they are, featured on a Sott.net offering, which could unintentionally lend credibility by association. In a case like this, should Sott.net put up a disclaimer pointing out that we feel Jones and Icke use factual expose as a means to misdirect people away from the real causes of the problems?
 
JEEP said:
Mercury and Fluoride - The Dumbing Down Of A Population
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/203059-Mercury-and-Fluoride-The-Dumbing-Down-Of-A-Population

Now here's where the irony comes in. The above is a really great video that makes it so clear that the agenda of the PTB is to dumb down the population via our water and vaccines for control purposes. But guess whose highly recognizable voices are included in this video - Alex Jones and David Icke! So, there they are, featured on a Sott.net offering, which could unintentionally lend credibility by association. In a case like this, should Sott.net put up a disclaimer pointing out that we feel Jones and Icke use factual expose as a means to misdirect people away from the real causes of the problems?

I don't think it's a problem to leave it the way it is. Theirs are just two voices among many and their appearance is not the point of the video. I don't suppose anyone will conclude that Sott is a Jones/Icke supporter because of that video - especially because we have made our position clear elsewhere.
 
JEEP, just a word to the wise, as they say:

Gurdjieff in ISOTM said:
"You must realize that each man has a definite repertoire of roles which he plays in ordinary circumstances," said G. in this connection. "He has a role for every kind of circumstance in which he ordinarily finds himself in life; but put him into even only slightly different circumstances and he is unable to find a suitable role and for, a short time he becomes himself.

"The study of the roles a man plays represents a very necessary part of self-knowledge. Each man's repertoire is very limited. And if a man simply says 'I' and 'Ivan Ivanich,' he will not see the whole of himself because 'Ivan Ivanich' also is not one; a man has at least five or six of them. One or two for his family, one or two at his office (one for his subordinates and another for his superiors), one for friends in a restaurant, and perhaps one who is interested in exalted ideas and likes intellectual conversation. And at different times the man is fully identified with one of them and is unable to separate himself from it.

"To see the roles, to know one's repertoire, particularly to know its limitedness, is to know a great deal. But the point is that, outside his repertoire, a man feels very uncomfortable should something push him if only temporarily out of his rut, and he tries his hardest to return to any one of his usual roles. Directly he falls back into the rut everything at once goes smoothly again and the feeling of awkwardness and tension disappears.

"This is how it is in life; but in the work, in order to observe oneself, one must become reconciled to this awkwardness and tension and to the feeling of discomfort and helplessness. Only by experiencing this discomfort can a man really observe himself. And it is clear why this is so. When a man is not playing any of his usual roles, when he cannot find a suitable role in his repertoire, he feels that he is undressed. He is cold and ashamed and wants to run away from everybody. But the question arises: What does he want? A quiet life or to work on himself?

"If he wants a quiet life, he must certainly first of all never move out of his repertoire. In his usual roles he feels comfortable and at peace. But if he wants to work on himself, he must destroy his peace. To have them both together is in no way possible.

"A man must make a choice. But when choosing the result is very often deceit, that is to say, a man tries to deceive himself. In words he chooses work but in reality he does not want to lose his peace. The result is that he sits between two stools.

"This is the most uncomfortable position of all. He does no work at all and he gets no comfort whatever.

"But it is very difficult for a man to decide to throw everything to the devil and begin real work.

"And why is it difficult? Principally because his life is too easy and even if he considers it bad he is already accustomed to it. It is better for it to be bad, yet known. But here there is something new and unknown. He does not even know whether any result can be got from it or not. And besides, the most difficult thing here is that it is necessary to obey someone, to submit to someone. If a man could invent difficulties and sacrifices for himself, he would sometimes go very far. But the point here is that this is not possible. It is necessary to obey another or to follow the direction of general work, the control of which can belong only to one person. Such submission is the most difficult thing that there can be for a man who thinks that he is capable of deciding anything or of doing anything.

{...}

On this occasion G. stopped in quarters on the Liteiny near the Nevsky. He had caught a severe chill and we met at his place in small groups.

He said once that there was no sense in our going on any further in this way and that we ought to make a definite decision whether we wanted to go on with him, wanted to work, or whether it was better to abandon all attempts in this direction, because a half-serious attitude could give no results whatever. He added that he would continue the work only with those who would make a definite and serious decision to struggle with mechanicalness in themselves and with sleep.

"You already know by this time," he said, "that nothing terrible is demanded of you. But there is no sense in sitting between two stools. Whoever does not want to wake up, at any rate let him sleep well."

He said that he would talk to each of us separately and that each of us must show him sufficient reason why he, that is, G., should trouble about him.

"You think perhaps that this affords me a great deal of satisfaction," he said. "Or perhaps you think that there is nothing else that I could do. If so you are very gravely mistaken in both cases. There are very many other things that I could do. And if I give my time to this it is only because I have a definite aim. By now you ought better to understand in what my aim consists and by now you ought to see whether you are on the same road as I am or not. I will say nothing more. But in the future I shall work only with those who can be useful to me in attaining my aim. And only those people can be useful to me who have firmly decided to struggle with themselves, that is, to struggle with mechanicalness."

{...}

P., the middle-aged man whom I have mentioned in connection with experiments in dividing personality from essence, came out of the situation with honor and quickly became a very active member of our group, only on occasions going astray into a formal attitude or in "literal understanding."

Only two people dropped off who, exactly as though through some kind of magic as it seemed to us, suddenly ceased to understand anything and saw in everything that G. said misunderstanding on his part, and, on the part of the rest, a lack of, sympathy and feeling.

This attitude, at first mistrustful and suspicious and then openly hostile to almost all of us, coming from nobody knew where and full of strange and quite unexpected accusations, astonished us very much.

"We made everything a secret"; we failed to tell them what G. had spoken of in their absence. We told tales about them to G., trying to make him distrust them. We recounted to him all talks with them, leading him constantly into error by distorting all the facts and striving to present everything in a false light. We had given G. wrong impressions about them, making him see everything far from as it was.

At the same time G. himself had "completely changed," had become altogether different from what he used to be before, had become harsh, requiring, had lost all feeling and all interest for individual people, had ceased to demand the truth from people; that he preferred to have round him people such as were afraid to tell him the truth, who were hypocrites, who threw flowers at one another and at the same time spied on the others.

We were amazed at all these and similar talks. They brought with them immediately a kind of entirely new atmosphere which up to this time we had not had. And it was particularly strange because precisely at this time most of us were in a very emotional state and were particularly well disposed towards these two protesting members of our group.

We tried many times to talk to G. about them. He laughed very much when we told him that in their opinion we always gave him "wrong impressions" of them.

"How they value the work," he said, "and what a miserable idiot I am from their point of view; how easily I am deceived! You see that they have ceased to understand the most important thing. In the work the teacher of the work cannot be deceived. This is a law which proceeds from what has been said about knowledge and being. I may deceive you if I want to. But you cannot deceive me. If it were otherwise you would not learn from me and I would have to learn from you."

"How must we speak to them and how can we help them to come back to the group?" some of us asked G.

"Not only can you do nothing," G. said to them, "but you ought not to try because by such attempts you will destroy the last chance they have of understanding and seeing themselves. It is always very difficult to come back. And it must be an absolutely voluntary decision without any sort of persuasion or constraint. You should understand that everything you have heard about me and yourselves are attempts at self-justification, endeavors to blame others in order to feel that they are in the right. It means more and more lying. It must be destroyed and it can only be destroyed through suffering. If it was difficult for them to see themselves before, it will be ten times more difficult now."

"How could this have happened?" others asked him. "Why did their attitude towards all of us and towards you change so abruptly and unexpectedly?"

"It is the first case for you," said G., "and therefore it appears strange to you, but later on you will see that it happens very often and you will see that it always takes place in the same way. The principal reason for it is that it is impossible to sit between two stools. And people usually think that they can sit between two stools, that is, that they can acquire the new and preserve the old; they do not think this consciously of course but it comes to the same thing.

"And what is it that they most of all desire to preserve? First the right to have their own valuation of ideas and of people, that is, that which is more harmful for them than anything else.

"They are fools and they already know it, that is to say, they realized it at one time. For this reason they came to learn. But they forget all about this the next moment; they are already bringing into the work their own paltry and subjective attitude; they begin to pass judgment on me and on everyone else as though they were able to pass judgment on anything. And this is immediately reflected in their attitude towards the ideas and towards what I say. Already 'they accept one thing' and 'they do not accept another thing'; with one thing they agree, with another they disagree; they trust me in one thing, in another thing they do not trust me.

"And the most amusing part is that they imagine they are able 'to work' under such conditions, that is, without trusting me in everything and without accepting everything. In actual fact this is absolutely impossible.

"By not accepting something or mistrusting something they immediately invent something of their own in its place. 'Gagging' begins —new theories and new explanations which have nothing in common either with the work or with what I have said. Then they begin to find faults and inaccuracies in everything that I say or do and in everything that others say or do.

"From this moment I now begin to speak of things about which I have no knowledge and even of things of which I have no conception, but which they know and understand much better than I do; all the other members of the group are fools, idiots. And so on, and so on, like a barrel organ.

"When a man says something on these lines I already know all he will say later on. And you also will know by the consequences. And it is amusing that people can see this in relation to others. But when they themselves do crazy things they at once cease to see it in relation to themselves. This is a law. It is difficult to climb the hill but very easy to slide down it. They even feel no embarrassment in talking in such a manner either with me or with other people. And chiefly they think that this can be combined with some kind of 'work.' They do not even want to understand that when a man reaches this notch his little song has been sung.
 
Hi JEEP,
Some other thoughts. Leaving out the possibility of Jones being a conscious agent. He is an unconscious agent and is being vectored as has been shown through this thread.

He is appealing and inciting in people the emotions of anger and frustration and since they haven't done work on themselves and attempte to gain self-knowledge they react like machines. Machines who sooner or later will need to release this energy and considering that everyone has their own programs and the crowd that Jones seems to draw with his out of control actions are those with the program of misplaced patriotism and that revolution through violence, instead of revolution through self-knowledge and helping others gain such, can be an answer. In fact they are either overtly pushed or subtlety pushed to think of it as the only way by Jones, because he believes it but knows he can't say it. He thinks he would be arrested and/or neutralized.

Video of Jones walking up to crowd and just starts bullhorning to no one in general ( time 0:30 ) and (time 1:09 on) where he shouts down a lady.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai5wsCBA8CU
Perceval said:
Totally agree, honestly it was hard to watch.

Jones may indicate that overthrow of the government and open violent revolution is not condoned, but his actions and expressions of himself show by example otherwise.

Laura said:
Maybe some more of us should watch it? I have always kept it in mind that Alex could be sincere, but just simply does not know his own machine and has made a lot of mistakes, and has a lot of buffers, etc. He can be so easily used by the PTB for those reasons, obviously, but that doesn't mean he is conscious of it.

Along the lines of the above:
Let's consider that Jones has the possibility to feel remorse for his many outbursts and actions showed linked in this thread, such as his outburst at the protest, or at one time had the ability to feel remorse. Does he feel remorse for such obvious lashing out, demeaning another, hurting another NOW? What could have happened is that at one time he did feel remorse for hurting another and empathy with people, but now he does not for various reasons. First he has let the terror of the situation go to his head and abandoned the idea and true feeling that hurting another in the pursuit of a 'greater' goal is not the way. His ego program, that a lot if not the majority of people run of 'I know the truth and/or working to find it out', has suppressed it. This lacks the portion of truthseeking or becoming an agent of change that is the most important step, that of the need to work on the self first. Who or what are you fighting for now if you have lost remorse or the ability to feel empathy? The many people who write to him or tell him face to face to 'keep up the good work', 'someone needs to be a leader, thanks for doing it', 'I wish I had the guts to do what you do', 'if more people had your drive and passion this country might be saved' and so on reinforce and increase this ego program.

Lost Christianity pg 191 said:
Therefore, it is necessary to withdraw from the body that which does not properly belong to it - a certain initiative energy which, when it blends unnaturally with the impulses of the body becomes what is called passion or emotion. This passion becomes rooted in human nature through the system of egoism. Ego is the systematic affirmation of emotional reaction. This system is fulled by the energy of attention. Therefore as long as man has no control over his attention his possibilities remain imprisoned in the ego no matter what ideals he espouses and no matter what efforts he expends.

Second he has the activation of the program of being a savior, a martyr willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good of people because they don't know what he knows, that the PTB are ruthless, worldwide and bent on total control, enslavement, if not eventual destruction of the majority of people on the planet through war (he probably doesn't even consider Cosmic Catastrophe, New Ice Age possibilities and that the PTB are really preparing for these and that 4D STS are arranging it for one big feast of energy to lock earth into an STS reality). The people that crowd around him that he sees and believes are waking up are telling him not to stop, but they are just as asleep as he is but different because they aren't running the full martyr program yet. These people are just waking up to and getting ready to form/run the full program, which we could call the Jones program. In this program he believes that some innocents dying and others dying in what will most definitely be called a war for revolution, but is really just a war in the continuation of slavery to the PTB and hyperdimensional control system in tandem, is acceptable. The others dying besides the innocents will be those that are just as asleep as he is, but have the don't question and support the government and other programs running. He may even see the innocents as guilty because they are asleep to the current situation, but a different sleep than his that involves less awareness or caring for what is happening in the world.

He is in the process of throwing his humanity and soul away one action at a time by the creation of a powerful positive feedback loop of his programs feeding other peoples programs that then reverberate back and reinforce and create more programs in him and self-justification to the point where he won't be able to question himself. Where he won't be leader toward freedom, but a leader toward death and slavery. Where killing others is justified and necessary. If the PTB have it in the cards for him (or a psychopath or other person running either the Jones program or one nearly identical doesn't take him out) and he reaches the point where he can't question himself because of this positive feedback loop even when some point out the way he is acting like a psychopath then he might even become a fascist leader to rival Stalin and Hitler. OSIT

Positvie Feedback Loop said:
The mechanism where inputs or catalysts enhance past stimulus in a system and where the systems condition changes, accelerates and increases to a more entrenched path with every input that reinenforces the direction of the system.

Edit Added: Also if he is trying to be creative and 'shock' (in reference to the way it is done in he work, even though he may not do it individually or even think of it in terms how it is done in the work) he only turns out looking and acting like a maniac, becoming an ego-maniac and translating this to all those that follow him because he really doesn't know what he is doing, which can only end disaster if his movement increases and strengthens.

Also the PTB incite people like Jones with the slow release of showing partial truth to lies. They know psychology and the reactions of people to stimulus and it is one of the greatest weapons they use for mind control.

Transmarginal Inhibition

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/136090-Transmarginal-Inhibition
Pavlov demonstrated that when Transmarginal Inhibition began to take over a dog, a condition similar to hysteria in a human manifested. The applications of these findings to human psychology suggest that for a "conversion" to be effective, it is necessary to work on the subject's emotions until s/he reaches an abnormal condition of fear, anger or exaltation. If such a state is maintained or intensified by any of various means, hysteria is the result. In a state of hysteria, a human being is abnormally suggestible and influences in the environment can cause one set of behavior patterns to be replaced by another without any need for persuasive indoctrination. In states of fear and excitement, normally sensible human beings will accept the most wildly improbably suggestions.

Social Implications

The means by which TMI operates on the individual is rather clear; what is less clear is how hysteria affects larger groups even moving to the macro-scale. Nevertheless, scientific observers of U.S. society since September 11, 2001, often point out that the events of that day were a classic example of inducing Transmarginal Inhibition in masses of people in order to condition them to accept the destruction of the U.S. Democratic government.

Added Edit: fixed some wording and added a couple thoughts what I forgot when writing.
 
Again, thank you all so much for expending your time and effort to explain this issue so thoroughly. It's exactly the same issue I've had from the beginning - first it was Moveon.org, then Freeman, and now Alex Jones. I kept trying to see some redeeming value in what these people are doing because of all the unmasking of lies involved. But as it has been so clearly explained, their work cannot have any value no matter how many "facts" are revealed. No amount of revelation will work if the basic truth of psychopathic control is concealed. That issue has now been completely settled in my mind.

Please note that I said in the Freeman thread that he must be aware of Laura and her work and yet he was choosing to identify with Jay Weidner. And although he may be doing some very good work, he ultimately is going down the wrong path. Laura's work is just too exceptional to be given any kind of short shrift and anyone who cannot see that is blind in ways that cannot be remedied.

Maybe this whole area has just been some big, fat program of wishful thinking that has resisted being shook off. A forum "exorcism" has occurred and that particular bugaboo has been banished! In other words, Laura's stool is the only one in the room.
 
JEEP said:
Again, thank you all so much for expending your time and effort to explain this issue so thoroughly.

This is an issue that will always take time and energy, since human beings have been trained to accept lies as truth.


j said:
It's exactly the same issue I've had from the beginning - first it was Moveon.org, then Freeman, and now Alex Jones. I kept trying to see some redeeming value in what these people are doing because of all the unmasking of lies involved.

It seems to me that the issue is more your identification with these things than your effort to find redeeming value in them.



j said:
But as it has been so clearly explained, their work cannot have any value no matter how many "facts" are revealed.

This is actually an example of 'black and white' thinking. No one said their work cannot have any value. The devil is in the details.



j said:
No amount of revelation will work if the basic truth of psychopathic control is concealed. That issue has now been completely settled in my mind.

You might want to revisit the issue to see the shades of gray. It seems you have flipped a switch here with such ease that the core lesson might have been overlooked.



j said:
Please note that I said in the Freeman thread that he must be aware of Laura and her work and yet he was choosing to identify with Jay Weidner. And although he may be doing some very good work, he ultimately is going down the wrong path.

This is very common. The point, for a person who is awakening, is to develop a level of discernment and perspicacity that allows them to gather information without identifying with the source and to See the lies used to hide or devalue the strongest truths. Once one learns to See the lies easily, they are not offended by them, they merely note them, and the source/reason for them, and continue to gather what data is available, leaving the lies with the author.



j said:
Laura's work is just too exceptional to be given any kind of short shrift and anyone who cannot see that is blind in ways that cannot be remedied.

This statement deeply concerns me. Yes, Laura's work is exceptional - no question, on any level. However, there is a sycophantic flavor here that is a concern, I think. To say that one who cannot see that is blind in ways that cannot be remedied is a lie. Esoteric development is a winding staircase and everyone is on a different point on the learning curve. There was a time in my life when I would not have seen Laura's work for what it is, I was incapable of it. That does not mean that I could not eventually do so, obviously.

Laura doesn't need or want 'fans' - she merely puts out any and all information she has tirelessly gathered for the benefit of others - always for the benefit of others. If she needs and wants anything, it is for others to be at least as discerning as she is and to come to conclusions through their own effort, though she's paved the way. There are those who can recognize the application and there are those who cannot - AND there are those who have been tasked with blurring any signal she puts forth through attacks, such as Weidner and his cohorts, who, interestingly enough, you mention above.



j said:
Maybe this whole area has just been some big, fat program of wishful thinking that has resisted being shook off. A forum "exorcism" has occurred and that particular bugaboo has been banished! In other words, Laura's stool is the only one in the room.

Again, this concerns me. It is not about 'Laura's stool being the only one in the room'. That is not what the excerpt Laura posted is about. When she says that one cannot sit on two stools, she merely means that if one is sincere about awakening, then one must put their whole self behind it - it is a monumental task that requires nothing less that super efforts. Super efforts cannot be exerted by someone with split attention or conviction. Considering the excerpt, it would be Gurdjieff's stool, not Laura's, so - again - I'm thinking the inherent point and meaning may have been lost on you?

Also, it's quite important to note that 'bugaboos' born of identification are rarely banished so easily, so - perhaps - it might be worth revisiting this entire topic. fwiw.
 
Jeep,

When anart mentioned shades of gray, it reminded me of the Statement of Principles section "On Unveilers:"

SoP said:
Because Truth is something which can only come to be known via the above described process, we recognize that Unveilers of Truth can come from any field of study, whether secular or spiritual, including physical and social scientists, psychologists, mystics, and thinkers of all types, from all eras and all nations. However, just as Truth cannot be known completely, no source can be viewed a priori as fully correct, and a source may even hold some ideas that are wholly contrary to Truth. An individual Unveiler of Truth does not necessarily need to be consciously aware that he or she is an instrument of Unveiling, if it can be shown that they revealed some portion of the greater whole in their work, which otherwise may contain erroneous data and/or false conclusions.

The black-and-white thinking is something I struggled with too regarding disinfo sources like Jones, Icke, et al. At first I was reluctant to see them as disinfo because of all the genuine info they exposed. But once I understood them as disinfo, for a while I erred in the other direction and wanted to ignore them completely. But then I realized - even though people like Jones can be dangerous, knowledge and discernment allows us to take the good and leave the rest. Note, however, that the bulk of humanity isn't able to do this, or at least not very well. So people like Jones and Icke pose a danger to the masses, yet at the same time they can provide useful info for those who are able to separate wheat from chaff.

[EDIT: I just realized that "separate wheat from chaff" wasn't the best analogy to use, considering what we know about wheat! But I'm sure you get the point. :lol:]
 
Back
Top Bottom