George Floyd's Death, Protests and Riots across the US

psychegram

Dagobah Resident
Although at first, I really wanted to dislike this woman and her message because some of the things she said at the start sounded too similar to the "love and light will conquer all" messages out there, BUT just when I started to feel she was too woo woo, bang she'd say something that sounded and felt right on--right on if you are aware of the existence of 4 D STS, how they are empowered, and what their goals are for this planet.

OK, I'll give it a watch. I started watching it last night, but turned it off when she said "light worker" ... it was a bit too New Agey for my taste. But maybe I was too hasty.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Well, first: everyone isn't an individual. OPs for instance, don't have souls. Then there are those who voluntarily give up their internal autonomy to external control; they are no longer individuals in any meaningful sense.

This smells like nitpicking and missing the point in order to win an argument to me. The fact is, you don't know who is an OP and who isn't. In order to make these kinds of determinations, you have to treat each person as an individual. I can't imagine you disagree with this, so why do you feel the need to argue against it in this context?

But more broadly, social policy cannot be based on individuals. It is not practical for anyone to get to know the detailed particulars of every single person they interact with. Therefore they fall back on heuristics, inferred from patterns they broadly observe different groups falling into, and probalistically infer how a given individual is likely to behave based upon their observable characteristics. Similarly, social policies must be based on behavioral averages, not exceptions.

I don't think anyone would disagree - including the people you're arguing with. But maybe you'd have to be specific about what form exactly you see 'basing social policies on behavioral averages' taking.

To take an example: we have certain ideas about how psychopaths behave. It is possible, I suppose, that there are psychopaths who depart from these patterns. Would you then suggest that every psychopath be treated as an individual case, and be given the benefit of the doubt until their malign intent is demonstrated? The foolishness of such a policy need not, I think, be emphasized.

Of course each should be treated individually. If psychopath X commits a murder, it isn't just to convict someone else, whether they're a psychopath or not. Plus, all psychopaths have a criminal mentality, so it makes sense to 'pre-judge' them in such a manner. But in order to determine whether any given individual is a psychopath, you have to treat them individually. It's not like psychopaths walk around with a sign on their foreheads. You have to determine IF they're a psychopath.

To go back to the question of black crime: obviously, not all, or even a majority, of blacks are violent criminals. Yet, the fact remains that they are overrepresented in crime statistics. The consequences of behaving as though this is not true can be dire, up to and including death. Therefore people behave with extra caution around groups of, for instance, young black men. But they are simultaneously required to pretend that this is not so, thus establishing cognitive dissonance, heightened anxiety, and emotional stress.

Again, I get the impression you're arguing against some leftist placeholder and not anyone on this forum. But even though I agree with your main points, I wonder why you're so focused on race. To use your example, if I'm walking down the street and I encounter a group of young men, I will be cautious, regardless of race. If they are dressed like gangsters, I will be even more cautious, regardless of race. I wouldn't be surprised if just taking into account those three things (age, sex, and physical presentation) provides a much better heuristic than just skin color for avoiding violent encounters. (I.e., using such a heuristic may be very effective in identifying the source of a significant number - though certainly not all - of violent criminals of all races.) But to make my point visually, I would be less cautious around these guys:


than these guys:
 
Last edited:

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
This smells like nitpicking and missing the point in order to win an argument to me. The fact is, you don't know who is an OP and who isn't. In order to make these kinds of determinations, you have to treat each person as an individual. I can't imagine you disagree with this, so why do you feel the need to argue against it in this context?

Of course each should be treated individually. If psychopath X commits a murder, it isn't just to convict someone else, whether they're a psychopath or not. Plus, all psychopaths have a criminal mentality, so it makes sense to 'pre-judge' them in such a manner. But in order to determine whether any given individual is a psychopath, you have to treat them individually. It's not like psychopaths walk around with a sign on their foreheads. You have to determine IF they're a psychopath.

I pretty much agree with everything AI wrote above. It seems to me psychegram that you are using strawman arguments to make your point, like the OP or psychopath cases you brought up. It's like you personally associate OPs and psychopaths with blacks. For whatever reason you seem to be triggered by something in the conversation and this has led you to attempt to conflate your views on race with other examples that aren't related.

Take your idea that people should be treated collectively. The vast majority of blacks are law abiding, just as with all other races. So by your own logic, you should treat all blacks you encounter as though they would be like the majority - not criminals but law-abiding citizens. This was the point hlat made earlier that you ignored.
 

Pashalis

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I have watched one of his press conferences recently, and thought the guy sure IS somewhat crazy! But at least he comes across as a real human being and not a lying smooth-talker like Obama and Macron and so many other empty shells in politics. I think this is one of the reasons many people love him so much.

He is a human being with flaws. And who hasn’t! I‘m actually still very impressed with how he is handling things. I tell ya, it is so refreshing to hear him say and do things in contrast to all the other political robots out there. And so funny too in a real human way! A human with a heart. I keep hearing from people and media how dishonest he is and how much he lies, even those not opposed to him. That he is the worst ever. But that collides pretty drastically with what I see and hear when he speaks and does things: an exceptionally honest person in such a position who doesn’t beat around the bush, even to his own detriment most of the time. He speaks his mind and heart unfiltered most of the time and especially via twitter. Frankly speaking, I don’t understand all this sentiment against Trump, since, as far as I’m concerned, he his probably the most honest person that was ever sitting in the white house. I think most people expect a smooth talker in such position and not a somewhat awkward looking and speaking business type person who isn’t that well versed in double talk and „nice talk“. I think most people that are against him just can handle his orange face at the end and his very disagreeable nature that social warrior types just can handle because it is too honest and upfront for their liking.
 
Last edited:

psychegram

Dagobah Resident
To use your example, if I'm walking down the street and I encounter a group of young men, I will be cautious, regardless of race. If they are dressed like gangsters, I will be even more cautious, regardless of race. I wouldn't be surprised if just taking into account those three things (age, sex, and physical presentation) provides a much better heuristic than just skin color for avoiding violent encounters. (I.e., using such a heuristic may be very effective in identifying the source of a significant number - though certainly not all - of violent criminals of all races.)

Absolutely. It's quite notable, btw, that there is no outcry over the disproportionate number of young men in the criminal justice system. Not that there should be, but that everyone understands that young men are overwhelmingly more likely to engage in violent crime than any other demographic.

Naturally presentation makes a difference. When people point out that it's only natural that people are wary of a group of young black men dressed in gang colors, they're accused of being racist, though. The implication being that it isn't their presentation, it's their race, that makes people wary, and that this is unjustified; when the truth is, it's more the latter than the former.

As to my focusing on race, well, this is a thread about the race riots, broadly speaking. It's hard to avoid the subject when it's the subject.

The broader point is that, these riots are predicated on the notion that black people are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement. Which is true only if they are targeted disproportionately to their degree of criminal activity. This proposition being unsupported by the data, it follows that the dissemination of this narrative is being done to destabilize society for nefarious ends. To me this is obvious, and of greater interest than discussing crime statistics. But, because the subject triggers very deep seated programming in some people, we keep going down into the weeds.
 

psychegram

Dagobah Resident
I pretty much agree with everything AI wrote above. It seems to me psychegram that you are using strawman arguments to make your point, like the OP or psychopath cases you brought up. It's like you personally associate OPs and psychopaths with blacks. For whatever reason you seem to be triggered by something in the conversation and this has led you to attempt to conflate your views on race with other examples that aren't related.

Take your idea that people should be treated collectively. The vast majority of blacks are law abiding, just as with all other races. So by your own logic, you should treat all blacks you encounter as though they would be like the majority - not criminals but law-abiding citizens. This was the point hlat made earlier that you ignored.

My point, obviously, was not that all blacks are psychopaths or OPs.

It was that it is not possible to treat every individual one interacts with as a unique snowflake. It is instead necessary to evaluate them based on observables, and on heuristics derived from pattern recognition.

Another analogy, perhaps more apt. Most drivers are decent, reasonably good drivers, and as desirous of avoiding an accident as you. However, it only takes one accident to kill you. You notice that red Ferraris are somewhat more likely to be reckless than grey Volkswagens. You therefore exercise more caution when you see a red Ferrari approaching on the highway. Now, odds are, the Ferrari is perfectly safe. But nevertheless, the downside risk being exceptionally high, your level of caution is somewhat higher than it would be otherwise.

That was the point I was trying to make. Hope it's more clear now.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Naturally presentation makes a difference. When people point out that it's only natural that people are wary of a group of young black men dressed in gang colors, they're accused of being racist, though. The implication being that it isn't their presentation, it's their race, that makes people wary, and that this is unjustified; when the truth is, it's more the latter than the former.

And my point is that this is obvious, and I don't think anyone here disagrees with it. So who are you arguing with? Or, more to the point, what specific point were you disagreeing with in your latest posts?

As to my focusing on race, well, this is a thread about the race riots, broadly speaking. It's hard to avoid the subject when it's the subject.

That's not exactly what I meant. Your posts have a certain 'energy' in them when focusing on the racial aspect that others do not. (I have in mind Gurdjieff on misuse of sexual energy.) A specific example: your example of being cautious around a group of young black men. Taken at face value, what you wrote implies that someone should be more cautious around the guys in the video I provided than a group of white gang members. That's obviously nonsense, so what gives? Even in your car example, I get your point. It makes sense that people do that, and there's a reason it happens. But it's also true that most people are idiots. And if presented with a person who is afraid of a young black man SOLELY because he is a young black man, I'd say that person is an idiot - despite the value of heuristics in relation to crime statistics. Heuristics are mechanical. We're trying not to be mechanical. So we can be aware of how these kinds of things work, but also when they go wrong - especially in our own minds.

The broader point is that, these riots are predicated on the notion that black people are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement. Which is true only if they are targeted disproportionately to their degree of criminal activity. This proposition being unsupported by the data, it follows that the dissemination of this narrative is being done to destabilize society for nefarious ends. To me this is obvious, and of greater interest than discussing crime statistics.

Again, the point has been made and unless I've missed it, I don't think people here have been arguing against it.

But, because the subject triggers very deep seated programming in some people, we keep going down into the weeds.

Naturally. I'd just add that it seems to me that you're not immune from that. If you were, I don't think you'd be making the arguments you have been, in the contexts in which you've been making them.
 

psychegram

Dagobah Resident
And my point is that this is obvious, and I don't think anyone here disagrees with it. So who are you arguing with? Or, more to the point, what specific point were you disagreeing with in your latest posts?



That's not exactly what I meant. Your posts have a certain 'energy' in them when focusing on the racial aspect that others do not. (I have in mind Gurdjieff on misuse of sexual energy.) A specific example: your example of being cautious around a group of young black men. Taken at face value, what you wrote implies that someone should be more cautious around the guys in the video I provided than a group of white gang members. That's obviously nonsense, so what gives? Even in your car example, I get your point. It makes sense that people do that, and there's a reason it happens. But it's also true that most people are idiots. And if presented with a person who is afraid of a young black man SOLELY because he is a young black man, I'd say that person is an idiot - despite the value of heuristics in relation to crime statistics. Heuristics are mechanical. We're trying not to be mechanical. So we can be aware of how these kinds of things work, but also when they go wrong - especially in our own minds.



Again, the point has been made and unless I've missed it, I don't think people here have been arguing against it.



Naturally. I'd just add that it seems to me that you're not immune from that. If you were, I don't think you'd be making the arguments you have been, in the contexts in which you've been making them.

The point I was making, regarding caution - perhaps clumsily - is that this natural caution grown from collective and personal experience being pathologized is an example, hardly exhaustive, of the way in which people are deliberately gaslit by TPTB as a means of getting them to disable their cognitive faculties.

Knowledge protects, as the Cs say. But TPTB say, no, knowledge is evil, and you're evil for having it, evil for mentioning it, and evil for acting on it.

As to being immune to emotional thinking: no, of course I'm not, and no one is. I'd be lying if I said that I don't have emotional reactions to this issue, and that it isn't a struggle for me to control those reactions and proceed on a purely rational basis.

But the white guilt/ethnomasochism program is deeply embedded in our culture, and seems to be one of the primary vectors currently being used to ponerize society (even more deeply than it already was, which is really saying something). Some posters here seem to still have this program, or elements of it.
 

psychegram

Dagobah Resident
Thank you WIN 52 I was also going to bring it here. Below is my reply on the Covid thread and the same here:
I agree. Although at first, I really wanted to dislike this woman and her message because some of the things she said at the start sounded too similar to the "love and light will conquer all" messages out there, BUT just when I started to feel she was too woo woo, bang she'd say something that sounded and felt right on--right on if you are aware of the existence of 4 D STS, how they are empowered, and what their goals are for this planet. She speaks of how the Lockdown has primed us for takeover, and that the murder of George Floyd--that happened in broad daylight, surrounded by many witnesses, filmed with high quality cameras, that went on for over eight minutes with no interruption, and was shown on all media, globally, and incessantly--was actually a ritual killing, enacted by the PTB's 4D handlers, to traumatize humanity as a major mind control device --she "gave me chills."

It is worth watching by Forum members who are aware of the Cassiopaean teachings and Laura's work over the years. In other words, it is worth watching by CASS followers, but will not be appreciated by people who believe humans are the highest order on the planet. It is a good reminder to not get drawn in emotionally and feel compelled to "take sides" in a war that is an illusion created to control our hearts and minds and, irony of ironies, ENSLAVE US ALL!

OK so I watched it, and agree that it's actually quite good. The tone was a bit new-agey for me, but I suspect I'm not the target demographic. She seems to be introducing ideas very similar to those on the forum to her audience, which is great.

Anyhow yeah, she nailed several aspects of what's going on. The suggestion that the black square was an occult psyop seemed particularly apt. My hackles definitely went up when that happened - something seemed very off about it.

And she was definitely correct about the kneeling/submission ritual. At a subconscious level, they are submitting to the new system being rolled out. This is very dark.
 

psychegram

Dagobah Resident
That's not exactly what I meant. Your posts have a certain 'energy' in them when focusing on the racial aspect that others do not.

Ooooof. Okay, just got back from my daily walk (anyone else here, in regions still under lockdown, starting to feel like a dog looking forward to your daily walkies?) Thought about what you said. Quite possible I've been letting this get to me more than I should, and letting my emotional reactions get the best of me.

So. I've decided to take a news break for a couple of days. Try and recentre myself.

Thanks for the mirror :)
 

genero81

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Somehow I missed the black square thing but I liked how she addressed the truly bizarre kneeling thing. I know we had a lot of discussion over that but I think that was because many of us felt something really off about that and we were kind of coming up with reasons in an attempt to explain it. It seems pretty clear that the higher ups of TPTB are going for a full on reset. Those advertisements from the World Economic Forum or whatever that Bjorn posted makes it pretty clear that this is what all this craziness is about. (Or so it seems to me.) So we have these various enforcers of the old system kneeling in subservience to whom really? Supposedly to Black people, but that's just seems to be a little too obviously not the real reason. Now I'm not saying they're all consciously kneeling to 4D STS and their push for total control of the planet now that the change is upon us. But subconsciously? Maybe. Really strange times as the C's predicted. And this next eclipse (was it?) with the summer solstice is just s few days away now.

Anyway, I was also one who listened to about 30 seconds of her the first time and thought, fruit cake! Yes, I can be a little judgey...
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom