21-03-2010, 05:15 AM
CONSIDER THE APPLICATION OF THESE PRINCIPLES TO THIS THREAD
Observations of my psy ops expert about "targeted individuals" from #154:
It works like this: Go over the targeted individual's story with a fine tooth comb and then do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again ad nauseum, maybe as a team, until you find some contradictions (and there always will be some because TI's are human). Then using these apparent inconsistencies and contradictions, take some very hard specific shots at the TI's story at its most vulnerable points and do it in a passive aggressive but still insulting, discrediting manner which makes them feel attacked and demeaned as a person, while ignoring any suffering they have gone through while they have been a TI.
Then keep it up for years, and years, regurgitating and recycling the same old stuff, even if it was undone before once or twice until two three goals are attained:
Goal #1: Wear the TI out (individuals who are long term TI's typically are survivors and long ago made the commitment to survive and defend their story at all costs. (That's why they never gave up their story in the first place for for so many years, they are strong willed and cannot be cowered or shut up no matter what.)
Goal #2: Distract and shift the attention of the TI and others as far away from what secret you are attempting to keep covered up as possible in order to prevent a certain thread from being pulled, a thread which could unravel a current op which is an extension of a past op and is also very, very important.
GOAL #3: Keep this game plan going by creating "conflict points" and recycling these over and over until goals #1 & #2 are well attained and the TI is distracted from getting her story out (in this case completing her book which will probably sell fairly well since the author has some very interesting base facts already well established which set an interesting plausibility for her story).
I understand that Judyth has a very interesting story to tell about Oswald and her relationship with him which is important history, even if it is told from her own personal perspective based on her contacts and knowledge of him. I for one am not really interested in the personal aspects of it, but much more interested in the basic background facts of her medical research, and why and how she was selected for help with a very interesting medical research program. But I am going to buy her book as soon as ity is out because I want to support her efforts to survive as a TI.
IN RESPONSE TO ADRIAN MACK:
Jim, sorry I referred to the statement by Mullins. I never read any of his works and only heard that he made this statement suggesting a conspiracy between medicine, big pharma and the cancer society to keep cancer a profitable business. I never argued that his statement was correct or that he was a good person or anything else about him.
But this idea of possible collusion to keep cancer a big business should be considered when evaluating how Judyth was treated by her professor when told to stay away from medicine. And even beyond that, some researchers (including a few M.D.s) have suggested that a certain government faction obtained funding and eugenics and biotech/bioweapons research to stimulate cancer in the populace over time in order to expand the cancer business and limit lifespans (e.g. inclusion of the simian SV-40 viral fragments in various vaccinations).
As crackpot an idea as this seems at first glance, it must not be discarded so easily, since there is some supporting evidence available, such as discovery of sv-40 fragment/contaminants presence in several visruses even to this day.
This Mullins statement turned out to be a hook, a sort of Rorschach plate, and it hooked one of the posters pretty well. He showed his true colors and laid bare his actual way of thinking IMO. Some folks do have a hidden agenda or an irrational orientation to incredulous matters, and some of these folks when presented with such a hook act provoked. Then they retaliate with sophistry and casuistry, in this case the person hooked used both very poorly. This argument of his about Mullins is "much ado about nothing" and does not relate to the post. Neither I nor you or anyone else argued that Mullins was a good man or even right in his assertion. I presented his statement as merely a hypothesis to consider, that is all.
I have heard some very creative ideas and hypotheses expressed by high school students who discussed government corruption that far surpassed many seasoned researchers because they had a fresh outlook. I wouldn't discount anyone's hypothesis because I didn't like them if the hypothesis seemed worth considering. This could be like throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater.
But Jim, it is too bad that most high school and college educations do not include enough work on the science of logic and its perverted forms such as casuistry and sophistry, so that folks know what to be aware of. I am sure there is a reason for this since too much knowledge of this and Bernays work could perhaps reduce the major mass media's receipts for advertising. And of course one should also ask the question of why colleges and universities do not teach courses on fiat money and other debt based instruments ie how money is created and dispensed, the private federal reserve banking cartel, elite deviance in government, military, intel and corporations, drug trafficking, money laundering, political assassinations, business fraud, etc., etc. Why aren't there courses, majors, and graduate degrees in these very important subject areas. We need specialists available to help build a better society. When folks dig deep enough and become able to answer this question, then they will understand who really runs things and why.
It does seem however, that there is too much casuistry, sophistry and speciousness used on this forum from what I have seen, especially those who are using this forum as mouthpieces for intel or have some other issue, perhaps an oppositional orientation or just petty jealousy. That's why I have always appreciated your books so much Jim, because they are written by someone whose logic is impeccable. And if you do make a mistake you have no problem saying so once you discover that. You are much more concerned with truth seeking than anything else.
Observations of my psy ops expert about "targeted individuals" from #154:
It works like this: Go over the targeted individual's story with a fine tooth comb and then do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again ad nauseum, maybe as a team, until you find some contradictions (and there always will be some because TI's are human). Then using these apparent inconsistencies and contradictions, take some very hard specific shots at the TI's story at its most vulnerable points and do it in a passive aggressive but still insulting, discrediting manner which makes them feel attacked and demeaned as a person, while ignoring any suffering they have gone through while they have been a TI.
Then keep it up for years, and years, regurgitating and recycling the same old stuff, even if it was undone before once or twice until two three goals are attained:
Goal #1: Wear the TI out (individuals who are long term TI's typically are survivors and long ago made the commitment to survive and defend their story at all costs. (That's why they never gave up their story in the first place for for so many years, they are strong willed and cannot be cowered or shut up no matter what.)
Goal #2: Distract and shift the attention of the TI and others as far away from what secret you are attempting to keep covered up as possible in order to prevent a certain thread from being pulled, a thread which could unravel a current op which is an extension of a past op and is also very, very important.
GOAL #3: Keep this game plan going by creating "conflict points" and recycling these over and over until goals #1 & #2 are well attained and the TI is distracted from getting her story out (in this case completing her book which will probably sell fairly well since the author has some very interesting base facts already well established which set an interesting plausibility for her story).
I understand that Judyth has a very interesting story to tell about Oswald and her relationship with him which is important history, even if it is told from her own personal perspective based on her contacts and knowledge of him. I for one am not really interested in the personal aspects of it, but much more interested in the basic background facts of her medical research, and why and how she was selected for help with a very interesting medical research program. But I am going to buy her book as soon as ity is out because I want to support her efforts to survive as a TI.
IN RESPONSE TO ADRIAN MACK:
Jim, sorry I referred to the statement by Mullins. I never read any of his works and only heard that he made this statement suggesting a conspiracy between medicine, big pharma and the cancer society to keep cancer a profitable business. I never argued that his statement was correct or that he was a good person or anything else about him.
But this idea of possible collusion to keep cancer a big business should be considered when evaluating how Judyth was treated by her professor when told to stay away from medicine. And even beyond that, some researchers (including a few M.D.s) have suggested that a certain government faction obtained funding and eugenics and biotech/bioweapons research to stimulate cancer in the populace over time in order to expand the cancer business and limit lifespans (e.g. inclusion of the simian SV-40 viral fragments in various vaccinations).
As crackpot an idea as this seems at first glance, it must not be discarded so easily, since there is some supporting evidence available, such as discovery of sv-40 fragment/contaminants presence in several visruses even to this day.
This Mullins statement turned out to be a hook, a sort of Rorschach plate, and it hooked one of the posters pretty well. He showed his true colors and laid bare his actual way of thinking IMO. Some folks do have a hidden agenda or an irrational orientation to incredulous matters, and some of these folks when presented with such a hook act provoked. Then they retaliate with sophistry and casuistry, in this case the person hooked used both very poorly. This argument of his about Mullins is "much ado about nothing" and does not relate to the post. Neither I nor you or anyone else argued that Mullins was a good man or even right in his assertion. I presented his statement as merely a hypothesis to consider, that is all.
I have heard some very creative ideas and hypotheses expressed by high school students who discussed government corruption that far surpassed many seasoned researchers because they had a fresh outlook. I wouldn't discount anyone's hypothesis because I didn't like them if the hypothesis seemed worth considering. This could be like throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater.
But Jim, it is too bad that most high school and college educations do not include enough work on the science of logic and its perverted forms such as casuistry and sophistry, so that folks know what to be aware of. I am sure there is a reason for this since too much knowledge of this and Bernays work could perhaps reduce the major mass media's receipts for advertising. And of course one should also ask the question of why colleges and universities do not teach courses on fiat money and other debt based instruments ie how money is created and dispensed, the private federal reserve banking cartel, elite deviance in government, military, intel and corporations, drug trafficking, money laundering, political assassinations, business fraud, etc., etc. Why aren't there courses, majors, and graduate degrees in these very important subject areas. We need specialists available to help build a better society. When folks dig deep enough and become able to answer this question, then they will understand who really runs things and why.
It does seem however, that there is too much casuistry, sophistry and speciousness used on this forum from what I have seen, especially those who are using this forum as mouthpieces for intel or have some other issue, perhaps an oppositional orientation or just petty jealousy. That's why I have always appreciated your books so much Jim, because they are written by someone whose logic is impeccable. And if you do make a mistake you have no problem saying so once you discover that. You are much more concerned with truth seeking than anything else.