The #QAnon Conciousness Phenomena

Discussion in 'Extended Consciousness & Spirituality' started by Charlie Primero, Jan 6, 2018.

  1. There is nothing earth shaking in this video but I found it interesting to hear president Trump discuss his recent trip to NATO, Britain, and Helsinki. He also clarified his remarks on the Russian interference in the 2016 elections.There was a lot of hoopla in the news about that so I wanted to see what it was all about. (It is too bad that the media lies about Trump every day and so many people who normally don't trust large corporations are fooled by the media corporations into supporting corporate interests.)

     
    Trancestate likes this.
  2. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,053
    Hilarious.
     
  3. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    774
    Your frantic desperation as this Leftist Conspiracy Theory falls apart is soooo delicious.

    Thank you. :)
     
    Trancestate and Jim_Smith like this.
  4. http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/02/12/good-example-of-our-two-movie-reality/

    I have been saying since Trump’s election that the world has split into two realities – or as I prefer to say, two movies on one screen – and most of us don’t realize it. We’re all looking at the same events and interpreting them wildly differently. That’s how cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias work. They work together to create a spontaneous hallucination that gets reinforced over time. That hallucination becomes your reality until something changes.
    ...
    But here’s the freaky part: Both of our movies are intact. In my movie, Trump took a bite out of a juicy apple. In your movie, he cocked his gun and is ready to fire. But none of these movie scenes touches either one of us, at least not yet. We are observers. I can still drink my coffee and you can still brush your teeth. At this very moment, it makes no difference to our lives that I see an apple and you see a gun – except that you live in terror and I’m having a good laugh (literally) while watching my movie.
     
  5. https://spectator.org/everyone-is-smart-except-trump/

    It really is quite simple. Everyone is smart except Donald J. Trump. That’s why they all are billionaires and all got elected President. Only Trump does not know what he is doing. Only Trump does not know how to negotiate with Vladimir Putin. Anderson Cooper knows how to stand up to Putin. The whole crowd at MSNBC does. All the journalists do.

    They could not stand up to Matt Lauer at NBC. They could not stand up to Charlie Rose at CBS. They could not stand up to Mark Halperin at NBC. Nor up to Leon Wieseltier at the New Republic, nor Jann Wenner at Rolling Stone, nor Michael Oreskes at NPR, at the New York Times, or at the Associated Press. But — oh, wow! — can they ever stand up to Putin! Only Trump is incapable of negotiating with the Russian tyrant.
    ...
    Trump’s voters get him because not only is he we, but we are he. We were not snowflaked-for-life by effete professors who themselves never had negotiated tough life-or-death serious deals. Instead we live in the real world, and we know how that works.
    ...
    NATO is our friend. They also rip off America. They have been ripping us off forever. We saved their butts — before there even was a NATO — in World War I. They messed up, and 116,456 Americans had to die to save their butts. Then they messed up again for the next two decades because West Europeans are effete and so obsessed with their class manners and their rules of savoir faire and their socialist welfare states and their early retirements that they did not have the character to stand up to Hitler in the 1930s. Peace in our time. So they messed up, and we had to save their butts again. And another 405,399 Americans died for them during World War II. And then we had to rebuild them! And we had to station our boys in Germany and all over their blood-stained continent. So, hey, we love those guys. We love NATO.

    And yet they still rip us off. We pay 4% of our gigantic gross domestic product to protect them, and they will not pay a lousy 2% of their GDP towards their own defense. Is there a culture more penny-pinching-cheap-and-stingy than the fine constituents of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? These cheap baseborn prigs will not pay their fare. They are too cheap. They expect America to send boys to die for them in one world war, then another — hundreds of thousands — and then to pay for their NATO defense even a century later.

    And then they have the temerity to cheat us further in trade. Long before Trump, they set up tariffs against us for so many things.
    ...
    Every American President has complained about the cheating and imbalance — the NATO penny-pinching-cheapness, the tariff and trade imbalances. In more recent years, the various Bushes complained about it. Even Obama complained about it. But they all did it so gently, so diplomatically.
    ...
    All they had to do was give Obama a Nobel Peace Prize his ninth month in office and let Kerry ride his bike around Paris.
    ...
    So Trump did what any effective negotiator would do: he took note of past approaches to NATO and their failures, and correctly determined that the only way to get these penny-pinching-cheap baseborn prigs to pay their freight would be to bulldoze right into their faces, stare them right in their glazed eyes with cameras rolling, and tell them point-blank the equivalent of: “You are the cheapest penny-pinching, miserly, stingy, tightwadded skinflints ever. And it is going to stop on my watch. Whatever it takes from my end, you selfish, curmudgeonly cheap prigs, you are going to pay your fair share. I am not being diplomatic.
    ...
    Putin is a bad guy. A really bad guy. He is better than Lenin. Better than Stalin, Khrushchev, Kosygin, Brezhnev, Pol Pot, Mao. But he is a really bad guy.

    Here’s the thing: Putin is a dictator. He answers to no one. He does whatever he wants.
    ...
    Trump knows this about Putin. And here is what that means:

    If you insult Putin in public, like by telling the newsmedia just before or after meeting with him that he is the Butcher of Crimea, and he messed with our elections, and is an overall jerk — then you will get nothing behind closed doors from Putin. Putin will decide “To heck with you, and to heck with the relationship we just forged.” Putin will get even, will take intense personal revenge, even if it is bad for Russia — even if it is bad for Putin. Because there are no institutional reins on him.
    ...
    But if you go in public and tell everyone that Putin is a nice guy (y’know, just like Kim Jong Un) and that Putin intensely maintains that he did not mess with elections — not sweet little Putey Wutey (even though he obviously did) — then you next can maintain the momentum established beforehand in the private room. You can proceed to remind Putin what you told him privately: that this garbage has to stop — or else. That if he messes in Syria, we will do “X.” If he messes with our Iran boycott, we will do “Y.” We will generate so much oil from hydraulic fracturing and from ANWR and from all our sources that we will glut the market — if not tomorrow, then a year from now. We will send even more lethal offensive military weapons to Ukraine. We can restore the promised shield to Eastern Europe that Obama withdrew. And even if we cannot mess with Russian elections (because they have no elections), they do have computers — and, so help us, we will mess with their technology in a way they cannot imagine. Trump knows from his advisers what we can do. If he sweet-talks Putin in public — just Putin on the Ritz — then everything that Trump has told Putin privately can be reinforced with action, and he even can wedge concessions because, against that background, Putin knows that no one will believe that he made any concessions. Everyone is set to believe that Putin is getting whatever he wants, that Trump understands nothing. So, in that setting, Putin can make concessions and still save face.

    That is why Trump talks about him that way. And that is the only possible way to do it when negotiating with a tyrant who has no checks and balances on him. If you embarrass the tyrant publicly, then the tyrant never will make concessions because he will fear that people will say he was intimidated and backed down. And that he never will do. Meanwhile, Trump has expelled 60 Russians from America, reversed Obama policy and sent lethal weapons to Ukraine, and is pressing Germany severely on its pipeline project with Russia.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
  6. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,481
    You know, this is something I have been wondering about. It is as though consensus reality might be close to splitting up. It isn't just President Trump, the whole bizarre world of medical science, that supports ideas that have been disproved years ago, and of course the disconnect between the evidence for ψ and the 'official' picture. We do live in a strange time.

    David
     
    Jim_Smith likes this.
  7. That's why I think politics should be part of skeptiko. It gets at why we believe what we believe. How we know what we know.

    What I think is interesting is studying how to bring the consensus back together. I don't think it will be facts and logic. I think it will involve techniques of persuasion. And the powers that be know this. There is a kind of psi-ops war going on at many levels and people don't know it. They just know there is polarization, fake news, etc. Sometimes reality comes down hard and wakes people up ... but not very often. The establishment's refusal to recognize psi is part of their strategy for wielding power. It keeps people from recognizing a higher moral authority. Belief in the afterlife would convince people that lying, cheating, and stealing, the moral bankruptcy of the establishment, ends justify means, is evil.

    I think part of what is delaying prosecution of the previous administration is that Trump's side are trying to deprogram as many people as possible first. Kanye West, Candace Owens and #walkaway are part of this, whether they know it or not.
     
    Charlie Primero likes this.
  8. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,053
    I wouldn't call myself Leftist, and I have admitted Trump isn't as bad as I was expecting. However, I still maintain a hope for a future where politicians can arrange words into some semblance of a sentence.

    I guess history will be the judge.
     
    Silence and Trancestate like this.
  9. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,053
    Something we can agree on at last, Jim.
     
  10. Typoz

    Typoz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    2,407
    Completely circular reasoning here. If one spends one's life deeply immersed in a particular field, then it will of course affect one's worldview.

    Surely the aim should not be to bring our baggage on board with us, but to try lo leave it behind before entering discussions on important topics.
     
    Trancestate likes this.
  11. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,481
    Well Jim was replying to my comment. I think the remarkable thing about recent times, as Jim has pointed out, is that there are two versions of current affairs reality on offer at the same time - absolutely poles apart. What we should be doing, is thinking about what particular pieces of supposed news really mean.

    I mean, in the context of both the original Mueller inquiry and the indictment of twelve Russian citizens, it is surely worth asking:

    Assuming there was no tampering with the ballot (which I think has been ruled out), what exactly does it mean to 'interfere with
    an election'? Is it a crime at all, whether you are a US citizen or a foreigner? Did I 'interfere with the BREXIT referendum by helping to campaign for it? Would it have been illegal for a foreigner (such as Obama!) to try to influence that vote?

    In order for 'collusion' to be an offence, does it have to be shown that at least one actual offence was being planned?

    Could any citizen sustain a relentless effort by law officials to find them guilty of something? Normally it is taken for granted that people in a free society are not subjected to a sustained inquiry simply to determine if they have committed an unspecified crime. Doesn't this apply if the guy happens to be president?

    Can anyone give a hypothetical example of what a Russian could have done that would be illegal? Would the illegality depend on that person being Russian, or just being a non-US citizen?

    In normal times a decent journalist would obviously laser in on these questions, but nowadays you can actually hear them deliberately avoiding tricky questions of this sort.

    These questions are very much analogous to those you might ask a die-hard materialist. The conventional view of NDE's, is to call them illusions - just avoid probing into the facts. But even when people do try to probe deeper, they are met with obfuscations of various sorts. For example, can anyone supply a materialistic explanation as to why NDE's often view the medical emergency from above? Instead they concentrate on something different - the possibility that the NDE is fabricated by the brain after the event is over.

    If you listen to a debate about some ψ phenomenon in the MSM, you see the same lack of reasoning - just skate over anything that smells of careful logic!

    I would see the same approach is generally taken to issues of climate change. For example, if someone talks about climate change, are they talking about all climate change, or only that portion attributable to rising CO2? When a drought or a flood is attributed to climate change, does that mean that nothing comparable has happened before the era when climate change was supposed to have started? Does it mean anything definite?

    I am amazed at the extent that debates seem to happen without even basic logic being applied.

    I related that to the scandals in medical science. I mean, you will get one senior medical researcher demolish the standard medical advice for diabetes (say). The response from the other side is to simply ignore this and carry on as before. Sometimes the response is of the form, "Well the important point is that guidelines haven't changed", or "Recommending Y instead of X will kill patients!" In other words the learned response doesn't even begin to address the original carefully reasoned criticism! Again in normal times, journalists would zoom in on the non-sequitur, and dig into the subject more carefully.

    When we talk about consensus reality, we usually mean the distinction between private experiences (e.g. dreams) and public ones - but maybe the current state of politics is illustrating that larger process, and showing that consensus reality is more fragile than we usually imagine.

    David
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2018
  12. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    774
  13. It is not a crime to try to win an election.

    It is not a crime to meet with Russians.

    Espionage is a crime. But there is no evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign was engaging in espionage on behalf of Russia.

    Russia was committing espionage hacking into computers. The FBI had the duty to investigate that. They also wanted to investigate Trump. But The FBI investigation into the Trump campaign was illegal because there was never any evidence that the Trump campaign was engaging in espionage on behalf of Russia.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/crossfire-hurricane-new-york-times-report-buries-lede/
    Even if Putin did want Trump to win, and even if Trump-campaign advisers did have contacts with Kremlin-tied figures, there is no evidence of participation by the Trump campaign in Russia’s espionage.

    That is the proof that would have been needed to justify investigating Americans. Under federal law, to establish that an American is acting as an agent of a foreign power, the government must show that the American is purposefully engaging in clandestine activities on behalf of a foreign power, and that it is probable that these activities violate federal criminal law.​


    Collusion has to do with economic activity. In the context of the 2016 elections there is no such crime as collusion.

    "Collusion" is a fiction used to justify an illegal surveillance.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion
    Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal–but always secretive–to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "unions, wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.[3]​
     
  14. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,053
    Actually this reminds me... America! Stop fannying around and get Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson in the White House already.
     
  15. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    774
    Most people don’t know about Mueller’s long history of leading government investigations that were diversions or cover-ups.

    http://911blogger.com/news/2018-04-08/mueller-s-history-cover-ups


    Trump for 9/11 Truth.

    Trump for de-funding ISIS.

    Trump for a Constitutionalist Supreme Court

    Trump for fixing the (deliberate) North Korea problem.

    Trump for China asymmetry.

    Trump for destroying the Mockingbird Media.
     
  16. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,481
    Charlie,

    I wish you would expand a lot about your last post! I have heard suggestions that the NK menace is and always was somehow phoney, but can you tell us more.

    Is there a good reason for thinking Trump knows the truth about 9/11 (whatever that is) and is trying to expose it?

    If Mueller is on Trump's side, isn't he risking being exposed for his part in the DS - as described in your link, or do you think Trump asked him to do this in return for not being exposed?

    I have always assumed that the US funded terrorist movements, such as those in Syria, but that gradually these went rogue and ISIS was formed. ISIS as such didn't seem to be very 'useful' to anyone. How was it funded? Trump seems to have crushed it pretty effectively - which suggests that before it was being protected for some reason.

    David
     
  17. Charlie Primero

    Charlie Primero Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    774
    I believe so. British and American Bankers funded the Soviet Union for partially this reason.

    The Hegelian "Problem - Reaction - Solution" strategic plan for social engineering is larger, longer, and deeper than most people can imagine. They have been doing it at least since the French Revolution.

    President Trump knows 9/11 was an inside job. He has made numerous statements over the last 17 years indicating this. He can't, and won't, ever just come right out and say it.

    My knowledge of Muller is only cursory. I don't really follow D.C. insider politics much.

    The CIA/Mossad/MI6 run ISIS funding through a complex system of shell companies and small countries.

    Global Research does the best, most readable work detailing it: https://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=isis

    It takes a LOT of time parse, but Dark Journalist is currently running a great series on the "X Factor". He contends President Trump knows about the Aether Free Energy technology Rockefeller Petroleum decided to withhold from the world 100 years ago, and is working to get it released.

    It's wild stuff, but very interesting. President Trump's Uncle John G. Trump was a high-level government Physicist to whom the FBI gave Nikola Tesla's work after they seized it. Trump has said his Uncle "told him things". Worth a subscription if you have time. I listen at night in bed on my iPad while drifting off...

     
    David Bailey likes this.
  18. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,053
    When Trump said he “would” make America great again, are we sure he didn’t mean “wouldn’t”.
     
    Trancestate likes this.
  19. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,481
    I am bound to say, I wasn't very impressed by this guy - way too glib. I started skipping at one point, and I came across a bit where he talked about the Mercury capsule being designed to chase UFO's. Shortly afterwards, he took a question from someone who pointed out the obvious (which had already puzzled me) - that the Mercury capsule was propelled to orbit by a rocket engine that then fell away spent, and was then in a fixed orbit with just enough rocket power to slow down a bit to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere.

    He didn't seem fazed by this correction at all, but segued into talking about an experimental aeroplane!

    David
     

Share This Page