rigorousintuition.ca

Do you think, especially now in that we know the NSA is listening even to presidents and senators, congressmen/women, judges, so you seriously think when a president is elected he is taken in to some room and basically let in all all major state secrets, UFOS possibly contact etc etc, blackmail leverages etc and pretty much told how it is going to be and what is going to be expected of him and what policies he will push and reject ey.


IMO Obama has clearly changed since that Demo Convention speech something has happened to him and this seems to be a pattern among all our elected leaders who seemingly at one point mean well and then later seem to do a complete reversal, just out of curiosity, do you think it happens this way or is this just how the conspiracy minded people see things?

AND if this is true that the president is sort of blackmiled and controlled what is to stop him from just coming out and telling them American people just how badly corrupt things are, is it jusy basically a matter of self preservation and a fear for what could happen to his famoly/children, if he were to expose it OR do you think it is more of a matter that he or she just likes it and the power that comes with knowing all these things only a select few are ever privy to, hell even on their death beds they dont expose it, well at least as far as we know, maybe they do and we just never hear of it.


IS IT REALLY POSSIBLE THAT THE NSA/INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IS ACTUALLY RUNNING THIS COUNTRY WITH NO CONGRESSIONAL OR CONSTITUTIONAL OVERSIGHT? ARE WE REALLY AT THAT POINT YET?



What do you think?

IS IT REALLY POSSIBLE THAT THE NSA/INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IS ACTUALLY RUNNING THIS COUNTRY WITH NO CONGRESSIONAL OR CONSTITUTIONAL OVERSIGHT? ARE WE REALLY AT THAT POINT YET?


yes

and if you live in a community with a university you are living in a community with a Homeland Security Police Force

My theory is that the idea of a "president" comes from what we might call a more quaint time. It was both "quaint" for president and citizen alike. Now with essentially thoughts and inclinations automated at the speed of light there is no room to be a "character" or firebrand. You play a role. Those who don't play a role will have one imposed upon them in eventuality. It all just perpetuates itself. Nobody notices what this perpetuation is because they live it rather than observe it with a true heart. You cannot admit to having your feelings hurt and must always project yourself into the hierarchy. Doing the right thing is doing what you are told, believe what you are told to believe. Whereas, in truth, it is being kind, helpful, trusting and gregarious that is the trick. This cannot be allowed to stand because we are all under surveillance and must be. This too will be looked at as a more quaint time.

Which sucks.

Think, back in 1920 say, the only thing you knew about a president was what was on the printed page or word of mouth. We incorrectly as a society, view this access as a good thing.

seemslikeadream » Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:52 am wrote:IS IT REALLY POSSIBLE THAT THE NSA/INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IS ACTUALLY RUNNING THIS COUNTRY WITH NO CONGRESSIONAL OR CONSTITUTIONAL OVERSIGHT? ARE WE REALLY AT THAT POINT YET?


yes

and if you live in a community with a university you are living in a community with a Homeland Security Police Force

Agreed. Could you expound on the Homeland Security angle (or link me to further analysis)?

Well that was a bit overstated... maybe..... I was going on personal experience with a college I am very familiar with and who does the work on their new cop vehicles, who paid for them and who pays for the work being done on them....Homeland Security

Some conspiracy dude who shall remain anonymous argued ,

'I am writing this in the last days of 2008 as I watch with dismay as vast numbers of people across the world, including many who should know better, have been duped by the mind-game called Operation Obama.

Even people with some understanding of the conspiracy have said things like: 'Well, at least he's not Bush' and 'Well, at least it's great to see such a new spirit of hope'. No, he's not Bush - he's potentially far more dangerous; and what is the use of a spirit of 'hope' if it's based on a lie? ...

... Obama isn't against war at all and, if his controllers have their way, he will engage the US in even more foreign conflicts with the troops sent to their deaths, and the deaths of their targets ...

... It could take two years, maybe much more, before cognitive dissonance (lying to yourself) loses it current grip on the minds of the Obama faithful. Until then they will make endless excuses for him (lie to themselves) to keep the 'dream' alive.

But one day they will have to admit, by the power of the evidence before them, that they bought a dream and got a nightmare. What a pity they can't see the obvious now and save themselves such painful disappointment.'

Its pretty clear that these people are carefully groomed and selected. Major figures such as Tony Blair, Barrack Obama, Princess Diana.

I reckon they all get what I call their "omen" moment ( taken from the film, where Damien is told who he really is )which is a point in their lives when they are either told straight out in a "Bill Hicks" type of scenario, or come to realise of their own volition how things work on this planet. What happens beyond that point is really up to them.

Obama and Blair had that talk/ realisation a long time prior to their rise to prominence, otherwise they simply wouldn't have become what they did.

In the case of Princess Diana (who once said of her new in-laws that "they arent human you know"). it was a kinda different scenario, and I suspect she woke up one morning and suddenly realised rather like myself, along with most in this community on RI, and increasing numbers of people that her understanding of how reality actually works was far different from how it actually is.

So yes ,the NSA in terms of congress and all that democracy Schticke are a law unto themselves. But of course we shouldnt be fooled into believing that the buck ends with them.

In the case of Princess Diana (who once said of her new in-laws that "they arent human you know").


Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.
Sun Tzu

seemslikeadream » 13 Jul 2013 17:56 wrote:In the case of Princess Diana (who once said of her new in-laws that "they arent human you know").

Well of course they arent , theyre just these lame figureheads arent they ?

In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/1 ... veto-bills

If there is one subject that is likely to boost hit rates on this forum, doesnt anyone else find it strange that this kind of link does?

Wheres John Cleary when you need him? Miss you, John.

As for the rest of us, including and beyond all of this "conspiracy nonsense"



I would suggest that its non-violent, non compliance time.

To Hunter's original query...Bill Hicks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswMr65GIfU

Nixon might have been the last US president to exert any real independent executive action in things that really matter to the Pentagon.

Nixon had the Joint Chiefs so worried about his (and Kissinger's) secret diplomacy, they sent a spy (Yeoman Radford) into the White House to find out what they hell they were doing. After Nixon, I think the brass probably decided that that in the future they were not going to let a president leave them in the dark again. They had the tools, inasmuch as NSA is under the DoD umbrella.

stoneonstone » 13 Jul 2013 19:14 wrote:To Hunter's original query...Bill Hicks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XswMr65GIfU

Yes, apologies for suggesting that these two things might somehow be connected.

US executive history is almost nothing but crappy presidents beholden to money and blackmail, apathetic about their office, and/or adopting compromises and outright about-faces to the stances they campaigned on. Warren Harding, anyone? These scumbags don't require much in the way of motivation to sell out their phony paper principles. The cost of elections in contemporary times has exacerbated the situation. The requirements that follow a half-billion dollar buy-in to the crap shoot make them all suspect at best, and at worst obviously unfit to trust with that much money without a sturdy cord of complicity to tie them to the worst elements of society.

I don't grant the Bill Hicks moment much currency - post-Eisenhower presidents generally place their hand on the bible without a shred of credibility or integrity in the first place. They don't even begin the electoral process without the understanding that they can be taken down at any moment, and they submit accordingly for the most part. Even Kennedy was a rich crook to begin with, and felt he could call his own shots. Eisenhower had the army behind him until he didn't. FDR was rich enough to do largely as he felt, and he felt like getting us into WW2. Most all of them betrayed the country in one way or another without exception.

Fuck presidents. As a group you'd be hard-pressed to identify a more consistently traitorous bunch, imho.

Yeah, I'd think Nixon and Carter were the last ones, and highly conditional given what happened to Kennedy. Really, FDR was the last one, all the postwar presidents are necessarily going to be technocrats of the MIC and modern corporate order, or DOA. You've always had the two parties as "two right wings of the same party," as Vidal put it, but individual leadership and vision (good or bad) played some role until Reagan. From that forward you've got nothing but produced frontmen. The two Bushes more as the frontmen of a specific gang originating in the post-Church Committee reaction and October surprise, which demanded its share of power and used it to radically upturn things; Clinton and Obama more as pure products pitched to zeitgeist and designed to consolidate. Obama's 2004 DNC appearance was an obvious product rollout. There is much to indicate he like others was groomed for a potential leadership role from youth and got to hit the jackpot. Look up the RI thread! ("Was Obama groomed...", and ignore the usual quotient of mystifying bullshit injected there as in the present thread.) There was never any rational doubt which way he'd go after election, and this was dispelled clearly prior to the 2008 election with the reversal to vote yes on FISA "reform," full backing of the bankster bailout, the very clear announcements of intent with respect to the wars (no on Iran, escalation in Afpak), etc. Not to mention the presence of his old Columbia professor Brzezinski among his kitchen advisers; the latter possibly the one who recruited the young Barack into the higher track when he was at Columbia in the early 1980s. Brzezinski's role probably can't be underestimated - he did the recruitment for the Trilateral Commission on D.Rockefeller's request and they essentially put together the Carter admin as a kind of last attempt to handle crisis with a real White House. I don't think anyone allowed a serious chance at a major party nom is not going to have been vetted and received a consensus as acceptable by the major power centers, far in advance. DrVolin will want to extend this far into the past with his theory of Dynasts and Drifters, and he's probably right.

Presidents hardly have control these days.

The major people that tried to shake the major power bases was JFK and RFK and they paid the price. You don't challenge a fascist web like the CIA and Banks that want their little war schemes and assassination squads and not come out unscathed. Think about the kind of message that sends to someone becoming a politician or president that wants to go against the status quo.

"I don't want that happening to me, so I'm going to play along and not dissent."

Another point to make. Assassination became an instrument of U.S. National Policy as early as the 50s. The odds against "strange deaths" happening by accident are astronomical in the political world, like Paul Wellstone and others.

They may "know" privileged things, but they also play dumb and start to believe bullshit that is fed to them. I mean seriously look at Obama, his lips were moving, but its always a lie. Have they always been purposeful lies or was he threatened realizing he couldn't undo a runaway corrupt apparatus or perhaps both? I knew it was all lies the moment I even heard of Obama. And that's why the world we live in has become like this, because good people stand by and do nothing when they might have had the influence to do so. They lie, play along, and act blissfully ignorant. Its how corruption becomes endemic to the human condition.

Over 40% of the entire population of the U.S. alone do not turn out for voting citing reasons of "Nothing ever gets done; it's a bunch of empty promises" "It is so corrupt" "There's not a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans" "It doesn't make much difference in my life." There’s a lot of lack of trust in our leaders, a lack of positive feelings about political institutions more than any time in modern history and its occurring world-wide.

"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think." - Adolf Hitler. Just take it from Hitler, they knew how to play the biggest lie of all to their people and the German people only suffered in the end, while big-time Nazi's ended up with payrolls funded by U.S. citizen tax dollars. Nice.

Considering they don't even write their own speeches, they are nothing but actors.