Steven Snider, Creating the Super Soldier |569|

How can you say it's the exact opposite?

Here's what I actually wrote:
'the globalists seem to think they can get their desired order out of chaos. But out of chaos are plenty of opportunities for idealists opposed to globalism to make headway, and also for purely selfish players to cut out their own territories.

This can become a self-fulfilling spiral, as when the players run their cost-benefit calculations for carving out their own territories, the more chaos there is, the more potential for gains by the players to break ranks with the globalists and stake out their own claims, free from globalists' control.'
 
It's time for the Daily Intellectual Challenge on the theme of Super Soldier Creations
((Major Devil's Advocate trigger warning))

The phrase is : "If they could, they would."

Your challenge: Can you identify any of the following a tier-1 world military wouldn't need/be-responsible-to prove itself capable of faking if they could???
-Moon Landing / Live Film of Activity in Space
-Alien Invasion
-Outbreak of a Virus
-World Leader Assassination
-Climate Catastrophe
-Human Cloning (not technically in the fake category)
-Artificial Intelligence
etc

Bonus question (10x points for answering correctly)..
Could any tier-1 military adequately care/defend their country if they we're potentially capable of the above list but failed master them, instead just waiting for a competing nation to come along and whip their ass with it??
 
(Pulled this from an email I sent to @Alex . Figured it should be up for discussion if anyone's interested)

Specifically regarding “psyop infection”.
I see a distinction between these two concepts:
Type-1)
Party A says: “Party B is infected by a psyop, so there’s no way for me to reach them in regard to (subject) until they find their way out of the hole where they’re stuck.”
-Versus-
Type-2)
Party C says: “Party A and B are infected by a psyop and unable to communicate effectively due to their differences associated with (subject).”

Type-2 Analogical Examples:
  • Football teams A & B too entrenched in animosity and effectively unable to work together to fight against pink uniforms (aka southpark sarcastiball)
  • Religious Sects A & B are unable to collaborate effectively against any particular outside discrimination because neither believes the other sect to be “the real sect”, therefore no “together” is possible.
  • Otherwise Patriotic Parties A & B unable to collaborate against communist social credit system implementation, because yada yadayada
In 2020-2021 we watched the industrial complexes make successful use of every opportunity to turn ‘vaccine acceptance’ into a right v left political issue.
After 2020-2021, I won’t be surprised at all to see some form of Bluebeam-Fake-Alien-Invasion, for which the industrial complexes will be very happy to capitalize on all the above mentioned Type-1 and/or Type-2 psyop infection they can nurture and/or co-opt.
And while perhaps NASA is fully compartmentalized and would have ostensibly no involvement/concern for any Bluebeam Fake Invasion. (personally I would bet that NASA employees are crystal clear on being expected not to provide any help/efforts in eliminating psyop infection.)
That’s where I think there exists a very fuzzy but functionally distinct difference between my above described Types 1&2…. And I don’t think we can conclude that Party B needs to find their way out of their hole before Party A should be able to work with them against larger industrial complex psyops.
 
(Pulled this from an email I sent to @Alex . Figured it should be up for discussion if anyone's interested)

Specifically regarding “psyop infection”.
I see a distinction between these two concepts:
Type-1)
Party A says: “Party B is infected by a psyop, so there’s no way for me to reach them in regard to (subject) until they find their way out of the hole where they’re stuck.”
-Versus-
Type-2)
Party C says: “Party A and B are infected by a psyop and unable to communicate effectively due to their differences associated with (subject).”

Type-2 Analogical Examples:
  • Football teams A & B too entrenched in animosity and effectively unable to work together to fight against pink uniforms (aka southpark sarcastiball)
  • Religious Sects A & B are unable to collaborate effectively against any particular outside discrimination because neither believes the other sect to be “the real sect”, therefore no “together” is possible.
  • Otherwise Patriotic Parties A & B unable to collaborate against communist social credit system implementation, because yada yadayada
In 2020-2021 we watched the industrial complexes make successful use of every opportunity to turn ‘vaccine acceptance’ into a right v left political issue.
After 2020-2021, I won’t be surprised at all to see some form of Bluebeam-Fake-Alien-Invasion, for which the industrial complexes will be very happy to capitalize on all the above mentioned Type-1 and/or Type-2 psyop infection they can nurture and/or co-opt.
And while perhaps NASA is fully compartmentalized and would have ostensibly no involvement/concern for any Bluebeam Fake Invasion. (personally I would bet that NASA employees are crystal clear on being expected not to provide any help/efforts in eliminating psyop infection.)
That’s where I think there exists a very fuzzy but functionally distinct difference between my above described Types 1&2…. And I don’t think we can conclude that Party B needs to find their way out of their hole before Party A should be able to work with them against larger industrial complex psyops.

I'm glad you posted this. I think the concept of "psyop infected" has a lot of legs.

I think the idea about collaborating against the psyop is problematic. first off in cases where we're talkin about a big important issue there's multiple psyops atplay... and they target different sides.

If we were going to really dive into this I think it would be best to turn to an example where we can clearly see / document how these psyops operate. UFO might be the best example since so much as come public. consider this as a starting point... it's mind-numbing but it gives you an idea of how deep we would have to dive:

 
If we were going to really dive into this I think it would be best to turn to an example where we can clearly see / document how these psyops operate. UFO might be the best example since so much as come public. consider this as a starting point... it's mind-numbing but it gives you an idea of how deep we would have to dive
That's sounds like a great starting place! I'll give that video a listen.
I also listened to the one you recently suggested with the guy from Space Force. I made a few notes, and without digging in I will to bring to the table the idea that "compartmentalization" may prove to be a hugely involved component in psyop stuff, and specifically in regard to the type compartmentalization which (I would argue probably) is just naturally defaulted-to, as opposed to planned-out. I think that will be a key exploration to weed out the argument we always hear about "So you mean to tell me 1 million people can keep a secret that big??", to which I suspect the answer might be that some compartmentalization doesn't require the organization we would assume from an outside view.
 
Last edited:
That's sounds like a great starting place! I'll give that video a listen.
I also listened to the one you recently suggested with the guy from Space Force. I made a few notes, and without digging in I will to bring to the table the idea that "compartmentalization" may prove to be a hugely involved component in psyop stuff, and specifically in regard to the type compartmentalization which (I would argue probably) is just naturally defaulted-to, as opposed to planned-out. I think that will be a key exploration to weed out the argument we always hear about "So you mean to tell me 1 million people can keep a secret that big??", to which I suspect the answer might be that some compartmentalization doesn't require the organization we would assume from an outside view.

Ok great, this video is really really deep... but that's kind of the point. it provides evidence of a multi-decade psyop involving thousands of people all the way up to the u.s. Presidential level... and it's all provable.

so in this case there are hundreds of psyops within the psyops... agendas within the agendas. I don't think this could be handled by the model you've offered because it's impossible to imagine untangling this web of deception.

I think where we wind up is "follow the data." I mean, look at Flat Earth, You could argue that the pspop infection has become part of the psyop :)

all anyone has to do is follow the data " basic science" and you can figure out that the Earth isn't flat. at this point the psyop collapses. but following the data is a lot harder in other instances that we talked about here on the show.
 


Finished listening to the video. First time I'd heard of the show or heard his voice.
At 4 minutes into the video I paused and wrote the following notes:
-I can hear "self-convincing tone" (big idea) typically noticeable / seems to come when someone feels they've invested significant enough time or effort without being disproven to allow self-permission to suspend their own disbelief.
-Distinctively different tone than "conviction"
-Sounds kind of smug because includes a hint of "I crossed the finish line and I'll help guide you to get here."
-Steve Snyder (coincidentally) uses a neighboring tone, but Steve's has a challenge-you-to-dispute-it-tone aka fair play aka legitimately humble.


After that at about 1.5 hour in I almost posted that this guy reminds me of David Wilcock, but I listened to the rest of the show.. Then funnily enough one of the later questions he addressed was about whether Wilcock could be reincarn of Casey, and he leaned in real heavy against Wilcock with ridicule (Makes me think I'm on the mark perceptively).

No other notes during episode but one final thought:
He sounds to me like someone who is auditioning for the roll of "Project Bluebeam Tour guide" in the same way that David Wilcock tried to make himself The Qanon Tour guide.
Also similar to how I felt Diana Pasulka was unwittingly being tried out for the roll of Disclosure Tour guide
Also similar to how I felt in 2008 that Barak Obama was auditioning for the roll of "World President".

Ok great, this video is really really deep... but that's kind of the point. it provides evidence of a multi-decade psyop involving thousands of people all the way up to the u.s. Presidential level... and it's all provable.

so in this case there are hundreds of psyops within the psyops... agendas within the agendas. I don't think this could be handled by the model you've offered because it's impossible to imagine untangling this web of deception.

I think where we wind up is "follow the data." I mean, look at Flat Earth, You could argue that the pspop infection has become part of the psyop :)

all anyone has to do is follow the data " basic science" and you can figure out that the Earth isn't flat. at this point the psyop collapses. but following the data is a lot harder in other instances that we talked about here on the show.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the overarching precursor to all psyop is basic age-old Divide and Conquer.
I don't think we protect ourselves from the upcoming Bluebeam Rollout by running down all the rabbit holes until we have found all the correct answers and then after that building a team out of the 100-1000 people on the planet who have time review it all in order to come to agreement upon it, and then if that succeeds finally attempting to mount a defense against the psyop... No, I think we gotta learn to work together amongst/inspite-of insurmountable differences.

I think this topic and my current excitement around it has turned up my sensitivity a bit around the Divide and Conquer tonality. I find myself listening for it and hearing it distinctly, and it find a valid point of hard stop turn-off. Or at least a highly significant indicator.
 
Last edited:
Finished listening to the video. First time I'd heard of the show or heard his voice.
At 4 minutes into the video I paused and wrote the following notes:
-I can hear "self-convincing tone" (big idea) typically noticeable / seems to come when someone feels they've invested significant enough time or effort without being disproven to allow self-permission to suspend their own disbelief.
-Distinctively different tone than "conviction"
-Sounds kind of smug because includes a hint of "I crossed the finish line and I'll help guide you to get here."
-Steve Snyder (coincidentally) uses a neighboring tone, but Steve's has a challenge-you-to-dispute-it-tone aka fair play aka legitimately humble.


After that at about 1.5 hour in I almost posted that this guy reminds me of David Wilcock, but I listened to the rest of the show.. Then funnily enough one of the later questions he addressed was about whether Wilcock could be reincarn of Casey, and he leaned in real heavy against Wilcock with ridicule (Makes me think I'm on the mark perceptively).

No other notes during episode but one final thought:
He sounds to me like someone who is auditioning for the roll of "Project Bluebeam Tour guide" in the same way that David Wilcock tried to make himself The Qanon Tour guide.
Also similar to how I felt Diana Pasulka was unwittingly being tried out for the roll of Disclosure Tour guide
Also similar to how I felt in 2008 that Barak Obama was auditioning for the roll of "World President".



I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the overarching precursor to all psyop is basic age-old Divide and Conquer.
I don't think we protect ourselves from the upcoming Bluebeam Rollout by running down all the rabbit holes until we have found all the correct answers and then after that building a team out of the 100-1000 people on the planet who have time review it all in order to come to agreement upon it, and then if that succeeds finally attempting to mount a defense against the psyop... No, I think we gotta learn to work together amongst/inspite-of insurmountable differences.

I think this topic and my current excitement around it has turned up my sensitivity a bit around the Divide and Conquer tonality. I find myself listening for it and hearing it distinctly, and it find a valid point of hard stop turn-off. Or at least a highly significant indicator.

Are you talking about that Dark Journalist guy?
I don't want to go too far out there, but imo he doesn't have a trustworthy face or vibe

Grant Cameron seems more like an OCD type of personality that seems to get stuck on just one thing and doesn't see the forest for the trees, then compensates for this by making blanket statements such as "it's all spiritual", "it doesn't matter... we are all one"

The interview with Alex was cringe. Like a broken record. Then contradicting himself when he did make differentiating statements.
 
The upshot of the multiple psyops is not to trust any one source so much. Rather, I think the best strategy is to look at the overall patterns across time and across the world.
That's what Marty from the Brothers of the Serpent podcast has done. Imo, that's first class research.
 
PS: re Brothers of the Serpent podcast, they have some important things wrong, such as their discounting of mainstream academia on ancient civilisations, which they compulsively strawman...

They (including Marty) see things rather from a modern engineer's type of perspective, which is profoundly misleading, because the ancient patrons of the grandiose monuments had the exact opposite mentality than a modern engineer of doing the minimum of what's 'required'.

Instead, it was the magnificent abundance that reflected on the patron's power

Nevertheless, if one is aware of that caveat, that Marty and the BOTS podcast has significant blindspots re ancient civilisations, the ufosodes with Marty are on the whole a wonderful contribution
 
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the overarching precursor to all psyop is basic age-old Divide and Conquer.
.

Agreed. By the way I used to always use the phrase divide and conquer until someone pointed out that a better translation may be divide and Rule which is a subtle change that any social engineer would love.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. By the way I used to always use the phrase divide and conquer until someone pointed out that a better translation may be divide and Rule which is a subtle change that any social engineer would love.

That's true. The original latin is "divide et impera", which literally means divide and rule.
German and French get their translations correct
But in practice the Romans did both divide and conquer, and divide and rule
Even though it was horrifying what they did, they were such masters at it. E.g. Julius Caesar moving his army into Gaul in order (ostensibly) to protect one tribe against another (like a humanitarian mission). Or the system within Roman society itself, where there were hierarchies among the slaves, so the slaves would be squabbling with each other for position
 
... they were such masters at it.
The funny thing about that is that is how the Romans are referred to as "they were", like "they" are some other long lost culture, when in fact, much of modern Western civilization is an evolution of Roman culture. We even still use Roman numerals.

The Romans also institutionalized monogamy because it helped to create more predictable and controllable armies. That is perhaps the biggest "divide and rule" psyop strategy of all. The very foundation of intimate human relationships was co-opted by the the state. Through generations of mononormative programming, it has become so ingrained that most people in the West actually think it's normal — and even vehemently defend it.
 
The funny thing about that is that is how the Romans are referred to as "they were", like "they" are some other long lost culture, when in fact, much of modern Western civilization is an evolution of Roman culture. We even still use Roman numerals.

The Romans also institutionalized monogamy because it helped to create more predictable and controllable armies. That is perhaps the biggest "divide and rule" psyop strategy of all. The very foundation of intimate human relationships was co-opted by the the state. Through generations of mononormative programming, it has become so ingrained that most people in the West actually think it's normal — and even vehemently defend it.
Great points Randall! Actually it's a rare individual who can zoom out so much and make such controversial insights!

I've given this topic a lot of thought over the last few years. The points you made are essentially spot on, but some of the historical details need correcting.
 
The funny thing about that is that is how the Romans are referred to as "they were", like "they" are some other long lost culture, when in fact, much of modern Western civilization is an evolution of Roman culture. We even still use Roman numerals.

This is a huge topic. While it's true that we did inherit a lot from Rome, much is overestimated among the intellectual, historically-thinking strata of our societies. The example you gave, for instance: while it's of course true that we use Roman numerals occasionally, it's still rather peripheral. Likewise in many fields: e.g.:

- we rejected Greco-Roman biology/medicine, yet we still use Greek and Roman words in these fields

- the religion of many in the West is from a Hebrew root with Roman influence

- the legal systems in most Western countries are apparently not based on Roman law, as has traditionally been told (I guess because especially during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, the Romans were looked up to, or at least the imagination of how the Romans were...)

The list could be expanded, but suffice it to say that Roman influence tends to be peripheral rather than the foundation of Western civilisation
 
Great points Randall ... but some of the historical details need correcting.
Can you be more specific.? I suspect that it's not so much a matter of needing correcting as it is a case of there's more to consider, but due to time and space on the forum, it was left out. I also don't want to be in error about things, so knowing where you think there are errors is important ( to me ). So here's where we can start:

The ancient Greco-Roman and medieval European leaders who embraced anti-polygyny laws were heavily invested in the business of war, and their own social status and indeed survival often depended on their ability to maintain large, well-funded armies. And the imposition of monogamy produced bigger, better armies. - Psychology Today

Unless my history needs revising, the Romans moved north into Europe where they absorbed or displaced the pagan religions and installed some version or another of Christianity, including Roman Catholicism, which continued to spread west across the ocean and today consist of over 1.3 billion members.

The issue of the legal system is something I don't know much about, but your claim is contradicted by Wikipedia:

"Roman law is the legal system of ancient Rome, including the legal developments spanning over a thousand years of jurisprudence, from the Twelve Tables (c. 449 BC), to the Corpus Juris Civilis (AD 529) ordered by Eastern Roman emperor Justinian I. Roman law forms the basic framework for civil law, the most widely used legal system today" - Wikipedia

Reminder: My claim is that much of modern Western civilization is an evolution of Roman culture. I'm not claiming that everything is currently the same as it was then.
 
Last edited:
The Romans also institutionalized monogamy because it helped to create more predictable and controllable armies.

Do you have explicit evidence for this?
I only remember this being a speculation by evolutionary psychologists, that a society with official monogamy would have proportionately more males who felt enfranchised, who would thus fight more courageously for the collective

Other ethnicities in ancient Europe also had official monogamy: Greeks, Germanics, etc.

I stress the word official, because in practice there was concubinage in all these societies

It was Christianity that attacked concubinage. It was Saint Augustine who explicitly did this. He even had a concubine before he became Christian

Similarly in the Middle Ages, to whatever degree purposefully, the Christian priests tried to weaken the masculine, warrior spirit by brainwashing the troubadours into a sickly, unattractive oneitis... Thus a formerly independent man would become dependent on a woman. One can see this dynamic in Wagner's Tannhäuser too
 
That is perhaps the biggest "divide and rule" psyop strategy of all. The very foundation of intimate human relationships was co-opted by the the state. Through generations of mononormative programming, it has become so ingrained that most people in the West actually think it's normal — and even vehemently defend it.

I do think it's one of the biggest psyops... From "Saint" Augustine, to the priest-controlled troubadours, to the Romanticism movement in the 19th century, to the 20th century "nuclear family", and in recent decades with so-called "traditional" political movements...

But actually if we go back before Christianity, all across Europe there was concubinage; whereas in Asia there were multiple wives

I'd give the example of Homeric society. The Greek elite men had concubines, whereas the Trojan elite men (e.g. Priam) could have multiple wives

And interestingly, the offspring of concubines had the same legal status as offspring from wives
 
Back
Top