Don't You Miss When This Was Just CT Paranoia?

[compared2what?]

Wombaticux Rex wrote...

The way I've always dealt with that is by harvesting data points and ignoring the author's conclusions altogether.

I mean, if I took the conclusions of Jeff Wells seriously, I would be depressed as fuck, you know?

Data matters, conclusions are just monkey opinions. Bollyn to Ruppert to Vallee to me. We're all wrong.

I am as suspicious of conclusions as the next person (except for my own, on a good day, or is that a bad day?), but man oh man, am I the only one that is tired of trading 'facts' like as if they are base ball cards?

Oh but isn't that what "truth" and deep political research is ultimately reduced too? A collectible trading card game. "My Steven Jones melting point beats your Poppy Magog wizard card and your Sibel Edmonds
Turkish drug connection card. I win!"

No. No, it's not. In fact, what you're describing is so fundamentally conceptually inimical to both truth and depth that in and of itself it totally precludes the possibility of any serious quest for either.

It's sort of like a Kryptonite/Superman kind of a deal.

[exojuridik]

8bitagent wrote:
Sounder wrote:
Wombaticux Rex wrote...

Quote:
The way I've always dealt with that is by harvesting data points and ignoring the author's conclusions altogether.

I mean, if I took the conclusions of Jeff Wells seriously, I would be depressed as fuck, you know?

Data matters, conclusions are just monkey opinions. Bollyn to Ruppert to Vallee to me. We're all wrong.

I am as suspicious of conclusions as the next person (except for my own, on a good day, or is that a bad day?), but man oh man, am I the only one that is tired of trading 'facts' like as if they are base ball cards?


Oh but isn't that what "truth" and deep political research is ultimately reduced too? A collectible trading card game. "My Steven Jones melting point beats your Poppy Magog wizard card and your Sibel Edmonds
Turkish drug connection card. I win!"

No. No, it's not. In fact, what you're describing is so fundamentally conceptually inimical to both truth and depth that in and of itself it totally precludes the possibility of any serious quest for either.

It's sort of like a Kryptonite/Superman kind of a deal.

My question is what kind of methodology should one use for deep state analysis. How do we determine the significance of any set of facts? IOW - why does it matter and where is it getting us? Are we just telling scary stories around the fire or are we further/refining the quest for truth in some way?

[Sounder]

8bitagent wrote...

Oh but isn't that what "truth" and deep political research is ultimately reduced too?

So far, yes, and I do not like being 'reduced' to this. I did the deep politics thing in the eighties and it made me depressed. I decided that nothing would change until humans changed the basic drivers of consciousness. I thought that others would come to the same conclusion and together we would shift toward examining the nature of our condition rather than continuing to attempt to re-write history. It's still a no go, and I'll admit to feeling a bit lonely, but this may change at any moment. Till then it's a great practice in patience.

Also 8bit, you have been clear and I think, quite accurate with your ideas in this thread.

This is a race between the developments of technology that control vs. development of the human psyche that reveals, what being human is really about.

[Searcher08]

Oh, for pete's sake! I don't usually respond to "fuck-yous", but I do take exception to being called a racist. It's depressing to see how even someone as intelligent as you has been bamboozled into identifying with some of the world's most cold-blooded, vicious criminal elements, based on some spurious "ethnic" identity. It's especially ironic given the context: look at 8bit's original post, with its list of Arab/Muslim names and the terrible, terrible crimes they've committed or been accused of, which point inexorably to their guilt in the attacks of 9/11.

In response to which, I posted the very interesting questions Bollyn has raised about Goff, his connection to Mossad-linked firms, his abrupt and oddly-timed career-change and his true role in Ptech, a company that was inexplicably successful in garnering important and sensitive Pentagon contracts. If these don't prompt you to want to know more about this man and his connections, goody for you. Just don't start throwing stink bombs at those who would like to know more. Talk about mystifying and stupefying!

And I most certainly wasn't hiding the link, I always embed them when they're too long. It's people like you who seem to see ethnic and religious agendas when there is none whatsoever, something that has served and continues to serve the zionist agenda very, very well (unwittingly or otherwise).

Alice, you are missing out the whole side of the Islamist connection of ptech. This has been exhaustively documented by Indira Singh. There are FBI warrants out for former ptech execs. Singh talked about Intel sources telling her ptech was a CIA cut-out.

Bollyn also provides some very interesting information about links he has found between the 'American Free Press' he used to write for and Waco. I have not checked these, but they were fascinating. I dont think Bollyn is an anti-Semite, I believe he lived in Israel for a while.

Similarly, on the Arab side, I think there are innocent people being really screwed over by anti-Arab FBI/CIA factions (Sami Al-Arian perhaps) and some people fighting Islamist funders / operatives been killed by Saudi friendly FBI/CIA factions (the Louisiana dentist - Sander Hicks did the story)

This requires more nuance than black or white.

[JackRiddler]

Fuck it. I'm here after all.

My question is what kind of methodology should one use for deep state analysis. How do we determine the significance of any set of facts? IOW - why does it matter and where is it getting us? Are we just telling scary stories around the fire or are we further/refining the quest for truth in some way?

The same methodologies as in the social sciences, psychology and criminology. Deep politics is not (entirely) immune to empirical triangulation. (Not as a system, although given acts might be successfully covered up forever.)

[JackRiddler]

.

I dont think Bollyn is an anti-Semite, I believe he lived in Israel for a while.

What difference would that make? Pretty sure he married a Jewish woman. In his case, "anti-Semite" (more accurately: the game of "Find/Blame the Jew") is not a feeling, it's a profession. A method. A business. That's based on what he writes, not his (unknowable) essential being.

[Searcher08]

8bitagent wrote:
Sounder wrote:
Wombaticux Rex wrote...

Quote:
The way I've always dealt with that is by harvesting data points and ignoring the author's conclusions altogether.

I mean, if I took the conclusions of Jeff Wells seriously, I would be depressed as fuck, you know?

Data matters, conclusions are just monkey opinions. Bollyn to Ruppert to Vallee to me. We're all wrong.

I am as suspicious of conclusions as the next person (except for my own, on a good day, or is that a bad day?), but man oh man, am I the only one that is tired of trading 'facts' like as if they are base ball cards?


Oh but isn't that what "truth" and deep political research is ultimately reduced too? A collectible trading card game. "My Steven Jones melting point beats your Poppy Magog wizard card and your Sibel Edmonds
Turkish drug connection card. I win!"

No. No, it's not. In fact, what you're describing is so fundamentally conceptually inimical to both truth and depth that in and of itself it totally precludes the possibility of any serious quest for either.

It's sort of like a Kryptonite/Superman kind of a deal.

My question is what kind of methodology should one use for deep state analysis. How do we determine the significance of any set of facts? IOW - why does it matter and where is it getting us? Are we just telling scary stories around the fire or are we further/refining the quest for truth in some way?

I think we need to go back even before that.

A methodology is 'one approach to fit all situations'
Analysis breaks things down into parts.

Both of things are necessary, but not sufficient in deep politics research IMHO s they tend to re-inforce the idea that there is the One True Way to look at things.

I think a meta-methodology is required. Something which says
"For these sorts of situations, this methodology may be more useful, for others - this other one"

Something like Total Systems Intervention, developed at Hull University.

Here is an example of project done with it.
http://isce.edu/ISCE_Group_Site/web-con ... aslett.pdf

Instead of looking JUST with analytical, reductionist thinking, maybe we also need OTHER types of thinking - systemic thinking - concepts such as looking at where feedback, feedforward, modelling, loops occur

These , interestingly enough, tend to be more easily expressed in visual language...

I remember the response of people to Mark Lombardi's work when exhibited. They often spent a long time at each picture. They were seen making connections and forming patterns and breaking patterns and forming new ones.

These tools are very powerful when applied to complex sitautions - here is an example from the NHS in the UK

http://www.bjhcim.co.uk/features/2007/705006.htm

[8bitagent]

Wombaticux Rex wrote...

The way I've always dealt with that is by harvesting data points and ignoring the author's conclusions altogether.

I mean, if I took the conclusions of Jeff Wells seriously, I would be depressed as fuck, you know?

Data matters, conclusions are just monkey opinions. Bollyn to Ruppert to Vallee to me. We're all wrong.

I am as suspicious of conclusions as the next person (except for my own, on a good day, or is that a bad day?), but man oh man, am I the only one that is tired of trading 'facts' like as if they are base ball cards?

Oh but isn't that what "truth" and deep political research is ultimately reduced too? A collectible trading card game. "My Steven Jones melting point beats your Poppy Magog wizard card and your Sibel Edmonds
Turkish drug connection card. I win!"

No. No, it's not. In fact, what you're describing is so fundamentally conceptually inimical to both truth and depth that in and of itself it totally precludes the possibility of any serious quest for either.

It's sort of like a Kryptonite/Superman kind of a deal.

Have you been on forums for abovetopsecret, prisonplanet, godlikeproductions or any number of "deep state" discussions?

Sadly, this is one of the few places with rational people...tis no wonder even the leftists think we're all out to lunch

[8bitagent]

So far, yes, and I do not like being 'reduced' to this. I did the deep politics thing in the eighties and it made me depressed. I decided that nothing would change until humans changed the basic drivers of consciousness. I thought that others would come to the same conclusion and together we would shift toward examining the nature of our condition rather than continuing to attempt to re-write history. It's still a no go, and I'll admit to feeling a bit lonely, but this may change at any moment. Till then it's a great practice in patience.

Well, we could all be like my friend a few states away who is literally spending tens of thousands on buying remote acreage and building a huge compound with a stockpiling of weapons.

I guess we all deal and internalize the uncertainty of the future in our own way. Changing the basic thrust of consciousness, an evolution consciousness on a mass scale is something I've tried to wrap my head around with years of existential and deterministic reading...however I've come to the idea that simplicity is the best measure of living.

At the end of all the madness going on before, now and in the future...I ultimately have to say everyone should try and focus on positive goals, encouraging people, evolving oneself and never losing one's sense of humor.

This is a race between the developments of technology that control vs. development of the human psyche that reveals, what being human is really about.

Yep. Damn, you summed it all up in what took me a whole page of loosely knitted rants:)

Are we just telling scary stories around the fire or are we further/refining the quest for truth in some way?

That's the feeling I get...

I've met and shook hands with victims families and literal WTC survivors of 9/11...I've met victims of severe abuse and horrible violent crimes. I've seen the lump sum toll of corporate/government engineered horrors
at least through the prism of documentaries and research.

I see how the crap they put in our food and the media indoctrination pushed affects people.

At the end of the day, what else can one do but local grassroots things...planting a garden, or volunteering? Sometimes it does feel like spooky camp stories and ct masturbation

[8bitagent]

Fuck it. I'm here after all.

My question is what kind of methodology should one use for deep state analysis. How do we determine the significance of any set of facts? IOW - why does it matter and where is it getting us? Are we just telling scary stories around the fire or are we further/refining the quest for truth in some way?

The same methodologies as in the social sciences, psychology and criminology. Deep politics is not (entirely) immune to empirical triangulation. (Not as a system, although given acts might be successfully covered up forever.)

But...if its the pursuit of investigations and trials, as the truth movement and other deep state researchers and activists claim, is that a likely goal? 5 decades of JFK research has yielded nada in the name of justice

And while tens of thousands have protested in Georgia over School of Americas, the program simply changed its name and the Los Zetas drug armies of Mexico and other latin American militias bore out of that continue to oppress and commit horrors.

So what is an effective avenue? The goal being mass change(worker rights in developing nations, shutting down/blocking out corporate evil in countries, etc)

...or personal development?

[barracuda]

My question is what kind of methodology should one use for deep state analysis.

By Cracky, that's the question, isn't it?

I remember the response of people to Mark Lombardi's work when exhibited. They often spent a long time at each picture. They were seen making connections and forming patterns and breaking patterns and forming new ones.

I seem to remember people considering Lombardi's work less as an analysis than a pictoral representation of the paranoia of the time, a sort of informed outsider conceptual conspiracy librarian folk art. That's one reason i never held with the idea of his "murder" by hanging. I do think that some type of social diagramming could be fruitful, but I fear the outcome would rival Borges' Map of the Empire.

tis no wonder even the leftists think we're all out to lunch

The leftists think we're weird? I guess you missed the discussions a few weeks ago when a score of "leftists" came here after their own forum disintegrated and proceeded to materialize the dialectical, piss on each other's lunches, and then left in a huff 'cause nobody loved 'em.

[compared2what?]

My question is what kind of methodology should one use for deep state analysis. How do we determine the significance of any set of facts? IOW - why does it matter and where is it getting us? Are we just telling scary stories around the fire or are we further/refining the quest for truth in some way?

I can only speak for myself. But personally, my approach to any non-casual undertaking varies according to goal and circumstance. And that's such a feeble and inadequate response, I feel like a total loser for giving it. But I really don't know how else to respond. It's kind of like I can vaguely apprehend that those are questions that are capable of a better answer than this one. But I have absolutely no idea what that might be, and no clue as to how to start figuring it out. So that's pretty much all I got.

Please don't hate me just because I'm pathetic, okay?

[8bitagent]

The leftists think we're weird? I guess you missed the discussions a few weeks ago when a score of "leftists" came here after their own forum disintegrated and proceeded to materialize the dialectical, piss on each other's lunches, and then left in a huff 'cause nobody loved 'em.

Aw, sorry I missed that. Im surprised more political forum refugees haven't found their way here.

I just find it interesting that on and offline, it's been dyed in the wool leftists, anarchists and college youth liberals who have seemed to have the most scorn for my questioning of 9/11 and talking of conspiracies and cabals...a sentiment I seem them vehemently spread like gatekeepers gone wild.
(Huffington Post, DailyKos, etc leads the charge of ultra hate for "CT"ers)

[Searcher08]

The leftists think we're weird? I guess you missed the discussions a few weeks ago when a score of "leftists" came here after their own forum disintegrated and proceeded to materialize the dialectical, piss on each other's lunches, and then left in a huff 'cause nobody loved 'em.

That is such a brilliant summary, cuda

My experience was: like eating a sandwich in a cafe where suddenly, everywhere, really whiney Emos started having had a 'gurly' hair-pulling catfight over some guy called Karl

[exojuridik]

Quote:
My question is what kind of methodology should one use for deep state analysis. How do we determine the significance of any set of facts? IOW - why does it matter and where is it getting us? Are we just telling scary stories around the fire or are we further/refining the quest for truth in some way?

I can only speak for myself. But personally, my approach to any non-casual undertaking varies according to goal and circumstance. And that's such a feeble and inadequate response, I feel like a total loser for giving it. But I really don't know how else to respond. It's kind of like I can vaguely apprehend that those are questions that are capable of a better answer than this one. But I have absolutely no idea what that might be, and no clue as to how to start figuring it out. So that's pretty much all I got.

Please don't hate me just because I'm pathetic, okay?

Well, if that's a pathetic answer you got me beat. My question came from one of those unsettling moments when all is WOOzy and nothing in the world makes sense anymore. I was like "why am I sitting here like a fool and not earning a decent living running games through the deep state?" Then I recalled this was because a)i'm not evil and b) at those professional parties where you are supposed to stake your existence on impressing the swells, I would always get drunk and standoffish with my face usually smeared by the free food. After reliving those memories, life started to make even less sense so I decided to ask a question about methodology which normallly makes me feel smart again.

With these parapolitical deep state issues I call myself an Occasionalist - as in the shit that happens is contigent on all the other shit that's happening around the same time.

The leftists think we're weird? I guess you missed the discussions a few weeks ago when a score of "leftists" came here after their own forum disintegrated and proceeded to materialize the dialectical, piss on each other's lunches, and then left in a huff 'cause nobody loved 'em.

yeah, I'm with you on that one. wtf is up with the left? You won't see that kind of juvenile sect-schism wackiness on the right with their guns and god and flag. In terms of the politically active, I would rather hang with a bunch of conservatives over lefties almost any day if for no other reason that the right won't harangue me for being my smoking, drinking carnivorous self. The ever fragmenting left almost seems ineffectual by design.