Is this REALLY confessions of a CIA agent???????

[DeadheadForPaul]

The Alex Jonesites strike again.

 

[liberteebell]

Bump

 

[wizardwatson]

Can you recommend any DOD training manuals in PsyOps that some of the people here can search for online or request via FOIA?

I think many could benefit from the understanding, as listening to media, no matter its source, can confuse the heck out of someone who has no ability to decipher, interpret of filter. We need people with a clear understanding and clear minds.

Thanks.

P.S. This forum, like so many, is infiltrated. Sometimes it seems as if the psywar teams outnumber the public here. It's a constant battle. But I think the public is becoming more selective and less accepting of information. It's a start.

Can you identify who is on the psywar team in this forum? Is it me?

In the internet age, everything is compromised. Privacy is an illusion. Any system that requires secrecy to maintain itself is doomed to failure.

The more of your posts I read, the more it seems that you're trying to make conspiracy theory into conspiracy science.

Alex Jones has this same problem. He sees the intracies of evil and is in 'awe' of the beast. So he draws the conclusion that the solution is to get everyone to see how awesome and widespread it is. That's not the solution, that's just negative feedback propagating via communication.

 

[eOs]

All there is to say about psy ops is:

1)There's less of it than you think.

2)Don't waste too much time thinking/talking about it.

3)Continue the revolution

Also, please note that when some event A happens that is convenient or pleasant for the opposition does not always mean that the opposition brought or conjured up that event themselves. Events happen.

 

[wizardwatson]

All there is to say about psy ops is:

1)There's less of it than you think.

2)Don't waste too much time thinking/talking about it.

3)Continue the revolution

I agree. If we try to center the culture of the revolution around thinking in terms of psy ops, we're going to get lost down the rabbit hole of conspiracies within conspiracies within conspiracies. It will increase infighting and everyone will be paranoid that everyone else is an agent of the enemy. We need to stick with facts, and promote transparency.

This is why I keep hammering and hammering and hammering on these forums. Liberty is of such a nature that it can't be compromised, that is why it is so hard to network it. People who follow it see through control systems in a flash and they break out of it.

How do we cooperate without compromising liberty? That is the million dollar question.

 

[Lucille]

Celente talked about the 200 detention camps around the US. He made a point of saying this is not some sort of conspiracy talk, rather it info was coming in over the wires.

 

[itsthepathocrats]

I still don't see how analyzing the apparatus of the enemy is anything more than a piece of our strategic arsenal.

Our methods should be fluid and adaptive so that any methods used by the enemy can be reacted to organically. We achieve this through simplicity not by making everything complex as the understanding of "pathocracy" seems to require.

If you function from your root, it is not necessary to understand the organization of the enemies methods. His methods are made known through his actions.

They control your root. You never controlled your root. You never did. And you never will unless you can see this for yourself.

How can one possible expect to achieve anything meaningful if one expects to keep things simple when there are others who wish to control you that use extremely sophisticated techniques, much of it based in science. What sort of logic is this?

How can one identify an enemy if one is unwilling to understand their goals, their strategies, and their patterns of activity? And if one can't identify an enemy or their tactics, how does one even know whether they are in the enemy's grasp?

It is our side that lacks a superior networking apparatus. Right now we're surviving on the negative feedback through their networking apparatus. It's not our ability to defeat or understand the enemy that is lacking. It is our inability to form layered and distributed cooperative entities.

It's both our ability to understand those who wish to control us and to form appropriate countermeasures, whether they are distributed cooperative entities or some other tactic.

See Truthwarrior post of Rozeff's "Why I am a Panarchist" article:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=176453

He makes clear this lack of a means to get from here to there. Evil is not winning, its forcing us to evolve or die. But what all the info points to as a solution is a theoretical dilemma concerning cooperative networks, not a theoretical lacking about the nature of evil.

You realize that Darwin's "theory" of evolution is a scam, right? You also realize that one falls into the Hegelian dialectical trap when one frames everything as "good vs. evil," right? This entire frame of discussion here is inappropriate and off-base.

But I do find it intriguing that you pushing the cooperative network approach, as this falls into the global brain trap that is currently being set....they always infiltrate our networks and quickly control them, but in this case, it won't even be our network to start off with. Bernays touches-on the global mind in his book, Propaganda.

Liberty is of such a nature that it can't be compromised,

Well it has always been "compromised." It's so compromised now that any remaining attributes are nothing but a facade. Ever read the Reese Commission reports and the work of Norman Dodd?

How do we cooperate without compromising liberty? That is the million dollar question.

First, why assume that we need to cooperate? Liberty is about individuality. Why do you frame your questions in this way?

Second, if you can't recognize the techniques of those who wish to control you, then how can you expect to form cooperative systems that are not infiltrated and ultimately usurped by those who wish to control you? This is exactly what has happened, and the public doesn't even realize it. They believe and only see the facade.

 

[misterx]

I wish they would take what's left of our freedom by force. We would stand a better chance of withstanding that type of assault than we do against social engineering.

 

[wizardwatson]

They control your root. You never controlled your root. You never did. And you never will unless you can see this for yourself.

No one controls the root. One can only function from it. I never said I 'controlled' my root. I only try to function from it.

How can one possible expect to achieve anything meaningful if one expects to keep things simple when there are others who wish to control you that use extremely sophisticated techniques, much of it based in science. What sort of logic is this?

We obviously have very divergent views on many issues. Sophisticated and complex techniques only dazzle weak minds. It is similar to the magician's method of misdirection. But they are innefective against those who see the situation clearly. And complexity as a method is inferior to simplicity as a method.

How can one identify an enemy if one is unwilling to understand their goals, their strategies, and their patterns of activity? And if one can't identify an enemy or their tactics, how does one even know whether they are in the enemy's grasp?

We should seek truth and liberty and define our goals along those lines. Enemies are defined by those who violate the non-aggression axiom. Enemies are responded to by application of the law. What other tool is needed besides the proper application of justice?

It's both our ability to understand those who wish to control us and to form appropriate countermeasures, whether they are distributed cooperative entities or some other tactic.

We can only base our countermeasures on actors who are acting counter to our own goals and systems. Priority needs to be on defining our goals and our system. How else will we know the enemy? Yes we can 'learn of the enemy' by studying the enemy. Just as we learn of the tree from the tree. But we only 'know' that they are the enemy by studying ourselves. What makes them the enemy is how they relate to ourselves. The enemy is defined in relation to liberty, not in relation to itself.

You realize that Darwin's "theory" of evolution is a scam, right? You also realize that one falls into the Hegelian dialectical trap when one frames everything as "good vs. evil," right? This entire frame of discussion here is inappropriate and off-base.

I realize Darwin's "theory" is a theory that natural selection is a mechanism for the origin of species. It's not really that useful to me as a mind tool to help solve problems and many people try to spring board off his theory falsely assuming its a theory on the origin of life. I haven't read his book though only taught it in school. From what I've read of it though, it begs more questions than it answers, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm trying to frame the discussion as "What do you want to do". You are trying to frame the discussion in the context that "evil is great and powerful and if we don't wake up we're all doomed." Granted you are painting evil in a 'scientific' light, but that doesn't change the substance.

But I do find it intriguing that you pushing the cooperative network approach, as this falls into the global brain trap that is currently being set....they always infiltrate our networks and quickly control them, but in this case, it won't even be our network to start off with. Bernays touches-on the global mind in his book, Propaganda.

Again, what method can I use, what possible "thing" or "act" can I do that isn't a "trap". I can't go through life thinking every step I take is controlled and every method I employ to better myself is a trap. It seems like you are trying to encase paranoia inside a logical maze of riddles and traps.

The economy is a cooperative network. The free market? My jargon is probably overly charged with computer-speak as I'm a programmer by trade.

Well it has always been "compromised." It's so compromised now that any remaining attributes are nothing but a facade. Ever read the Reese Commission reports and the work of Norman Dodd?

Everything is a trap. Everything is a facade. So where do I start from?

First, why assume that we need to cooperate? Liberty is about individuality. Why do you frame your questions in this way?

Liberty is an act of cooperation. It is individuality within the limits of the individuality of others. The latter is just as important as the former. We don't have to 'cooperate' in the limited sense, but you must always cooperate in liberty. The moment you show your lack of cooperation in liberty via aggressive or coercive actions, you make known that you are the enemy of liberty.

I don't know, seems pretty simple to me.

Second, if you can't recognize the techniques of those who wish to control you, then how can you expect to form cooperative systems that are not infiltrated and ultimately usurped by those who wish to control you?

Easy, you build a system where the negative feedback from trying to game the system outweighs the payoff. If such a system can be thought of and the rules defined, then it can be programmed, because the internet is Turing complete.

If everyone is the power-center then no one is the power center, and there is no controlling it. Not only is it possible, it could happen relatively fast and without the 'pathocrats' being able to do a thing about it.

There are many possibilities.

And I still don't see why you think it is so difficult to figure out who is controlling me? If I say, "I think I'll do this" or "I want to do this" and something is in the way, then obstacle identified. What's the problem here?

You seem to have this vision that we're all in the Matrix and we need to follow some set of 'scientific theories' in order to jar our minds into reality and then we'd realize we're all batteries in the machine city.

This is exactly what has happened, and the public doesn't even realize it. They believe and only see the facade.

Maybe the public does get it. Maybe they're all frustrated and sick of all the bs. They hate the truth and feel apathetic and medicate themselves on fast food and crappy television. Maybe they're tired of people thinking there's a silver bullet. Maybe they're tired of this group thinking they have the ultimate truth, and that group thinking they've 'found the secret'.

Maybe they're waiting for someone to come along with a practical solution that makes sense to them that doesn't require they read 50 books.

Regular people are smarter than smart people give them credit for and smart people are dumber than smart people give them credit for.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” -- Feynman

 

[itsthepathocrats]

Everything is a trap. Everything is a facade. So where do I start from?

You're trying to address an incredibly complex issue and appear to be unwilling to do any heavy lifting. As a computer programmer, certainly you can relate to how difficult it would be to develop an appropriate solution set with a limited or inaccurate set of functional requirements. Right now, you're winging it, and its obvious. You're obviously a bright person, and you think that you can somehow compensate with brain power, or that you can just bluff your way through this process. Well, you can't. While you are right when you say that not everyone has to read 50 books to gain some level of understanding, those that wish to develop strategy and solutions sets sure as heck better have a thorough and accurate understanding of the problem set that is to be addressed. This understanding comes through education of, and direct experience with the problem. If you don't have either, then you need to get at least one of these. Hence, start reading source material, not material from some Web blogger who is interpreting someone else's material.

There are lots of places to start. May I suggest that you first begin with Propaganda by Edward Bernays, it is available for free online. Then perhaps you can migrate to Millennium by Jaques Attali. After you get through that, you may want to try to jump-up to The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul, but this is very tough reading, yet is essential for understanding the concept of technique. These works will help you start to understand the issues in some context, and enable you to start you thinking about possible contributions that are meaningful. Lastly, given that you are a programmer, you may also want to check out the very controversial work called The Manifesto.

In short, you're going to have to re-evaluate all of your existing frames, assumptions and memes. If you're not willing to do this, then you might as well give up now and accept your role as a permanent child in society.

 

[wizardwatson]

You're trying to address an incredibly complex issue and appear to be unwilling to do any heavy lifting. As a computer programmer, certainly you can relate to how difficult it would be to develop an appropriate solution set with a limited or inaccurate set of functional requirements. Right now, you're winging it, and its obvious. You're obviously a bright person, and you think that you can somehow compensate with brain power, or that you can just bluff your way through this process. Well, you can't. While you are right when you say that not everyone has to read 50 books to gain some level of understanding, those that wish to develop strategy and solutions sets sure as heck better have a thorough and accurate understanding of the problem set that is to be addressed. This understanding comes through education of, and direct experience with the problem. If you don't have either, then you need to get at least one of these. Hence, start reading source material, not material from some Web blogger who is interpreting someone else's material.

There are lots of places to start. May I suggest that you first begin with Propaganda by Edward Bernays, it is available for free online. Then perhaps you can migrate to Millennium by Jaques Attali. After you get through that, you may want to try to jump-up to The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul, but this is very tough reading, yet is essential for understanding the concept of technique. These works will help you start to understand the issues in some context, and enable you to start you thinking about possible contributions that are meaningful. Lastly, given that you are a programmer, you may also want to check out the very controversial work called The Manifesto.

In short, you're going to have to re-evaluate all of your existing frames, assumptions and memes. If you're not willing to do this, then you might as well give up now and accept your role as a permanent child in society.

The sum of what you are saying is that I do not understand what is wrong with the world and that I need to re-evaluate myself because all my mental tools are the result of 100's of years of brainwashing.

I'm saying that I define my world based on my understanding of reality. I base my cooperation with others on that understanding.

That's it. No magic.

If there's something you propose we do I'm all ears. If there's some information you think is important bring it to the table. But running around telling everyone they're ignorant of "THE REAL TRUTH" is evangelising and you aren't going to get very far around here.

 

[itsthepathocrats]

The sum of what you are saying is that I do not understand what is wrong with the world and that I need to re-evaluate myself because all my mental tools are the result of 100's of years of brainwashing.

I'm saying that I define my world based on my understanding of reality. I base my cooperation with others on that understanding.

That's it. No magic.

If there's something you propose we do I'm all ears. If there's some information you think is important bring it to the table. But running around telling everyone they're ignorant of "THE REAL TRUTH" is evangelising and you aren't going to get very far around here.

I gave you a rope in my previous post. It's your choice what you do with it.

And your attempts to characterize my posts as an attempt to demean other posters is false. If your goal is to attack and/or discredit my message in some way, then your motives here are questionable.

 

[wizardwatson]

I gave you a rope in my previous post. It's your choice what you do with it.

And your attempts to characterize my posts as an attempt to demean other posters is false. If your goal is to attack and/or discredit my message in some way, then your motives here are questionable.

Well, you said people are ignorant of what's going on. You also said in another thread that this forum has been co-opted.

All you are doing is spreading lack of trust around.

If I agree with your message and come under the tutelage of ponerology you will cooperate with me. If I question the message, then I have the disease.

I get it. I'm moving on now.

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Please don't fight! Both of you bring up good points, and as an observer of the discourse, I can agree with many of the points you both bring up. However, itsthepathocrats, you have warned us not to believe that "they" are that strong, yet you warn us of how dangerous the techniques of mind control that "they" employ are. Is it possible that the psy-ops are a little overblown, and the operatives aren't that smart?

Wizardwatson, personal story here, when my wife and I got married, we decided that my groom costume would have a vest--something like what was fashionable in the '20's. As hard as we looked, we could not find that style of vest or three piece suit anywhere and finally had to have one custom made by a seamstress.
Later, we found out that all of the menswear designers had cooperated with each other to completely remove vests from the public eye to drive up demand for their new styles of three piece suit which exploded onto the scene the very next year.

My opinion of my own individuality hit the floor as I realized that I had been played just like the rest of the general public. I was so sure that I had owned my own sense of style and my realm as a whole, but I was just wearing what they were trying to sell me.

So, yeah, I know psy-ops exist--at least with advertisers--and I know how powerful it can be, especially if you don't understand what is going on, but are "they" really that good?

 

[itsthepathocrats]

Well, you said people are ignorant of what's going on. You also said in another thread that this forum has been co-opted.

People are ignorant of what is going on, which is our greatest weakness (note, this is not a comment on people's intellectual capacity). If people really understood the extent of the system and its techniques, we'd shut it down overnight.

All you are doing is spreading lack of trust around.

In my posts I've consistently shared clips, quotes, and resources that I think are important and that people can use to educate themselves. If people had this knowledge, then the trust issue would become moot at people would then rely on their own judgment and not need to trust a 3rd party.

But in general, if American's had not trusted media personalities, Wall Street, Politicians and Corporations, we would all be a lot better off right now.

If I agree with your message and come under the tutelage of ponerology you will cooperate with me. If I question the message, then I have the disease.

My only suggestion has been that you read the material and reevaluate your thinking. I have given the forum my opinion and my conclusions from this research. Now it is up to you to go through the process and develop your own conclusions. I am not suggesting that your conclusions agree with mine or anyone else's.

 

[itsthepathocrats]

However, itsthepathocrats, you have warned us not to believe that "they" are that strong, yet you warn us of how dangerous the techniques of mind control that "they" employ are. Is it possible that the psy-ops are a little overblown, and the operatives aren't that smart?

No.

If you can see and understand the techniques then you can defend yourself against them and they can be marginalized. If you are unaware of the techniques and their desired impact, then you are subject to their influence without your awareness.

The movie "They Live" is the only film I've seen touch-on this. As I said earlier, Bernay's also discusses it in his book, Propaganda. Jacques Ellul also has an excellent book on the subject, also called Propaganda. Then there is the BBC documentary on Bernays (someone help me with the name, as I don't recall).

If you wanna really understand it, then just search on Mind War or Information Operations and start reading all the military research material on the subject, there is quite an extensive library on the Web.

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

Thank you, I now have a reason to dust off my copy of "The Technological Society". I have been putting it off for several years now.

Is it possible to learn the techniques and not only insulate ourselves from them, but use them to promote liberty? (ironic, I know, but would it even be ethical?)

 

[PlzPeopleWakeUp]

nt

 

[itsthepathocrats]

Is it possible to learn the techniques and not only insulate ourselves from them, but use them to promote liberty? (ironic, I know, but would it even be ethical?)

It's certainly possible to insulate oneself from the technique. Primarily, my method is to turn-off all of their inputs, as I now have a good handle on what they are attempting to do and prefer not to allow them entrance into my brain in the first place. I'm comfortable with this decision and I certainly don't miss their media.

As far as using these techniques, I would suppose that's an individual decision. I personally choose not to, as I have a problem with the philosophy and employment of deception.

The BBC documentary, on Edward Bernays, that I was referring to is called "The Century of Self" and information about the series can be found at the BBC website. I believe the actual documentary is on the web at Google video or similar sites. Of course, the video is presented from their perspective, so if I recall correctly they're trying to frame it as humans are naturally selfish and egocentonic. That's BS, it's what they want us to believe. But the documentary will give you some insight into how they craft their some techniques of manipulation. Just to give you a taste, here's an excerpt from Bernay's book on Propaganda:

The minority has discovered a powerful help in influencing
majorities. It has been found possible so to mold
the mind of the masses that they will throw
their newly gained strength in the desired direction.
In the present structure of society, this practice is
inevitable. Whatever of social importance is done to-day,
whether in politics, finance, manufacture, agriculture,
charity, education, or other fields, must be
done with the help of propaganda. Propaganda is
the executive arm of the invisible government
.
.
.

Universal literacy was supposed to educate the
common man to control his environment. Once
he could read and write he would have a mind fit to
rule. So ran the democratic doctrine. But instead
of a mind, universal literacy has given him rubber
stamps, rubber stamps inked with advertising slogans,
with editorials, with published scientific data, with
the trivialities of the tabloids and the platitudes of
history, but quite innocent of original thought. Each
man's rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions
of others, so that when those millions are exposed to
the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints. It
may seem an exaggeration to say that the American
public gets most of its ideas in this wholesale fashion.
The mechanism by which ideas are disseminated on a
large scale is propaganda, in the broad sense of
an organized effort to spread a particular belief or
doctrine.

I also recall the documentary called Hollywoodism, which presents early Hollywood and how the east Europeans who founded the studios used their movie making abilities to manipulate audiences. I believe this is also freely available on the Web, but I may be wrong about this.

 

[aravoth]

Well whatever. Even if, and I do stress if, I wouldn't worry about it. There are 300 million people here, thats a recent census, by comparison, there are 223 million firearms in the untied states, thats from what the ATF said in 1995, thats only the firearms they know about. This isn't Europe, no one here is going to blindly walk into an incinerator. But this is, in fact, the country that saved Europe from that stupid shit.

I can't speak for anyone, for myself I can just say this. I'm Irish, I've been piss drunk for roughly 60% of my life, before you give me shit about such a low number I would remind you that even god rested on the seventh day.

That being said ask a shrink how easy it is to convince any Irishmen to do anything they don't feel like doing, Ask the EU, What am I getting at? We're all different, if you wanna lay down and get steamrolled, have a good time with that. Others may feel that holding as plastic sign on a street corner and shouting at cars will do some good. And Obviously, there will always be the upstarts, the ones that refuse to put up with any shit, regardless of how it smells. These guys will turn a situation like the one described in the video an absolute nightmare for the dumb bastards that start it. I couldn't care less about smart bombs, or tanks, Do you really believe 300 million people can't literally steamroll over Washington if they all woke up on the wrong side of the bed one day? Do you really think that those 223 million firearms in that moment will not find a hand to fire them?

I'm not saying it will happen, because I don't believe anyone is that stupid. Since conspiracy theorists like to point out that this has to happen to usher in a world government I'll just say this, the quickest way to end world government, is to try and execute the plan that video talked about. The US Government would be gone in an hour, and the UN only a few states over, would be next.

And that is why it would never happen.