It is currently Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:13 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1055
Location: Hope, BC
I wouldn’t normally be paying attention to this news story because I don’t normally pay attention to the news. Paying attention to this story has underlined why I don’t normally pay attention to the news. Blatant lies and the smug disregard for our intelligence and discernment or our ability or willingness to stop and question the official narrative, that's like watching a really bad movie that knows it's going to make loads of money anyway so doesn't give a shit about what anyone thinks. Insulting but nothing really new there.

The part that hurts me is when the piece of crap gets critical raves and I get to watch people go along with the sham docilely and obediently, like lambs to the epistemological slaughter. But even that wouldn’t bother me if I didn’t have a personal stake in it, which is: I’m supposed to be doing a podcast with someone who joined the “Je Suis Charlie” solidarity movement or whatever-TF it was, and now I feel like the difference in our worldviews has turned into a fault-line rapidly extending in both directions between us—a great divide.

It struck me, while wrestling with this situation and catching up on “world events”—i.e. the dominant narrative—that what I feel above all now is: powerlessness. The idea that this is what “They” want you to feel popped up, of course; but what felt more real to me was that this is how I need to feel. No, I'm not a masochist; it's just that powerlessness is the primal experience of all living beings and it’s also the one we end up staring in the face, one way or another (at least if we see the bullet/truck/terminal disease coming). So why kid ourselves it’s ever any different in between, right?

So feeling powerless is like a State-given opportunity to re-experience and integrate the primary formative experience of (my) life? Yay, thanks Power Elite! All right, whatever; that’s the obligatory philosophical lead-in to what led me to RI after a long hiatus, to see what was up here, seek a little community perhaps, and inhale a breath of relative sanity… ##@~) [I posted this at rig intuition before posting it here]

Skimming the thread on Charlie Hebdo, the image of all the white rich folk holding up their JSC banners and wearing their buttons gave me an idea about what’s going on here and why I experience this sort of hypocritical human solidarity (huddling) as so oppressive. It’s mimesis.

Recently I’ve been looking into Liminality; it started as a literary interest but I quickly found out how closely it pertains to other areas of personal interest, include socio-political.

Wiki:

Quote:
During liminal periods of all kinds, social hierarchies may be reversed or temporarily dissolved, continuity of tradition may become uncertain, and future outcomes once taken for granted may be thrown into doubt.

Liminality in large-scale societies differs significantly from liminality found in ritual passages in small-scale societies. One primary characteristic of liminality (as defined van Gennep and Turner) is that there is a way in as well as a way out. In ritual passages, “members of the society are themselves aware of the liminal state: they know that they will leave it sooner or later, and have ‘ceremony masters’ to guide them through the rituals”. However, in those liminal periods that affect society as a whole, the future (what comes after the liminal period) is completely unknown, and there is no "ceremony master" who has gone through the process before and that can lead people out of it.

In such cases, liminal situations can become dangerous. They allow for the emergence of “self-proclaimed ceremony masters”, that assume leadership positions and attempt to “[perpetuate] liminality and by emptying the liminal moment of real creativity, [turn] it into a scene of mimetic rivalry”

Mimesis, or the imitative aspect of human behavior, is an important aspect of liminality. Individuals who are trapped in a liminal situation are not able to act rationally for two reasons: “first, because the structure on which ‘objective’ rationality was-- based has disappeared; and second, because the stressful, emotive character of a liminal crisis prevents clear thinking”. This can lead to “mimetic” behavior on the part of the trapped individuals: “a central characteristic of liminal situations is that, by eliminating the stable boundary lines, they contribute to the proliferation of imitative processes and thus to the continuous reproduction of dominant messages about what to copy”. Without stable institutions (which are effectively broken down in a liminal period), “people will look at concrete individuals for guidance.”

Mimesis brings us to Rene Girard, whose work I recommend to anyone interested in reaching a better meta-understanding of current events. Here’s a summation for dummies (by a dummy, so grit your teeth if you are already well-versed in Girardism): Mimetic rivalry is when/how mimesis leads inevitably to violence, because when imitation spreads, two things happen: people desire what other people have and end up using violence to get it; and, as violence spreads in an already heightened environment of mimesis, the violence itself is imitated and escalates to the point that it becomes irrational, undirected, primal, an uncontained frenzy of killing, like a forest fire.

Girard sees this as probably the primary threat to all communities and civilization in general. Community can’t work together without mimesis, yet mimesis leads to mimetic rivalry which leads to violence which leads to the destruction of community. How to square this frikkin circle?

The solution Girard traces through civilization is that of the scapegoat: an individual or individuals whom the community on the edge of chaos first agrees is guilty, and then gets to participate in some way in his destruction. The Greeks acted this ritual out via cathartic theater, Oedipus being the main scapegoat-figure, and it was crucial in Greek theater that the killing of the scapegoat was enacted off-stage, because to see the violence would risk enflaming the crowd with blood lust. It’s interesting to note in relation to this how the recent Charlie killers were caught and killed off-camera, even though everything else got filmed. It was similar with Adam Lanza/Sandy Hook, and even Osama bin Laden, if memory serves.

After the scapegoat sacrifice has been made, the community is bound together by the ritual killing and experiences a new degree of solidarity. Whatever differences were threatening to tear the community apart have been projected onto the guilty party—whose difference is so marked that it reduces the community’s internal conflicts to nothing—redirecting the fear and hostility outward while unifying the desire by focusing it on an external element: something that the whole community can share in together, rather than fight over.

“Je Suis Charlie” is the unified voice of the community expressing its solidarity, agreement, over this “wrong” committed and the corresponding “rightness” of recognizing the “wrongness”: basically: “Them bad—us good!”

The funny thing is that the designated Other that threatens the community only does so because it desires the same things but goes about getting them in a different way.

In the current global narrative, the two opposing communities are Islam (meaning surrender!) and Western/Christian “freedom.” “Je Suis Charlie,” if I grok correctly what people are huddling together about, is an expression of the sanctity of “free speech,” in contrast to the evil intolerance of fanatical Islam. Yet, as has been pointed out, France has plenty of laws against free speech when they are considered “hate crimes,” only these laws are generally not extended to Moslems. Even more revealingly, the reaction to this latest (seemingly staged, pls note!) event has been to further reduce freedom of expression within the Western world under the guise of defending freedom of expression!

I am just groping my way through this material now, but this seems to relate to something called “the double bind”:

Quote:
The double bind is often misunderstood to be a simple contradictory situation, where the subject is trapped by two conflicting demands. While it's true that the core of the double bind is two conflicting demands, the difference lies in how they are imposed upon the subject, what the subject's understanding of the situation is, and who (or what) imposes these demands upon the subject. Unlike the usual no-win situation, the subject has difficulty in defining the exact nature of the paradoxical situation in which he or she is caught.


Quote:
Girard's mimetic double bind
… According to Girard, the “internal mediation” of this mimetic dynamic “operates along the same lines as what Gregory Bateson called the ‘double bind’.” Girard found in Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theory, a precursor to mimetic desire. “The individual who 'adjusts' has managed to relegate the two contradictory injunctions of the double bind—to imitate and not to imitate—to two different domains of application. This is, he divides reality in such a way as to neutralize the double bind.” While critical of Freud's doctrine of the unconscious mind, Girard sees the ancient Greek tragedy, Oedipus the King, and key elements of Freud's Oedipus complex, patricidal and incestuous desire, to serve as prototypes for his own analysis of the mimetic double bind.

Far from being restricted to a limited number of pathological cases, as American theoreticians suggest, the double bind—a contradictory double imperative, or rather a whole network of contradictory imperatives—is an extremely common phenomenon. In fact, it is so common that it might be said to form the basis of all human relationships.

Bateson is undoubtedly correct in believing that the effects of the double bind on the child are particularly devastating. All the grown-up voices around him, beginning with those of the father and mother (voices which, in our society at least, speak for the culture with the force of established authority) exclaim in a variety of accents, “Imitate us!” “Imitate me!” “I bear the secret of life, of true being!” The more attentive the child is to these seductive words, and the more earnestly he responds to the suggestions emanating from all sides, the more devastating will be the eventual conflicts. The child possesses no perspective that will allow him to see things as they are. He has no basis for reasoned judgments, no means of foreseeing the metamorphosis of his model into a rival. This model's opposition reverberates in his mind like a terrible condemnation; he can only regard it as an act of excommunication. The future orientation of his desires—that is, the choice of his future models—will be significantly affected by the dichotomies of his childhood. In fact, these models will determine the shape of his personality.

If desire is allowed its own bent, its mimetic nature will almost always lead it into a double bind. The unchanneled mimetic impulse hurls itself blindly against the obstacle of a conflicting desire. It invites its own rebuffs and these rebuffs will in turn strengthen the mimetic inclination. We have, then, a self-perpetuating process, constantly increasing in simplicity and fervor. Whenever the disciple borrows from his model what he believes to be the “true” object, he tries to possess that truth by desiring precisely what this model desires. Whenever he sees himself closest to the supreme goal, he comes into violent conflict with a rival. By a mental shortcut that is both eminently logical and self-defeating, he convinces himself that the violence itself is the most distinctive attribute of this supreme goal! Ever afterward, violence will invariably awaken desire...

—René Girard, Violence and the Sacred “From Mimetic Desire to the Monstrous Double”, pp.156–157


So double-bind = powerlessness??

After that the next passage was this one:

Quote:
Neuro-linguistic programming
The field of neuro-linguistic programming also makes use of the expression "double bind". Grinder and Bandler (both of whom had personal contact with Bateson) asserted that a message could be constructed with multiple messages, whereby the recipient of the message is given the impression of choice—although both options have the same outcome at a higher level of intention. This is called a "double bind" in NLP terminology, and has applications in both sales and therapy. In therapy, the practitioner may seek to challenge destructive double binds that limit the client in some way and may also construct double binds in which both options have therapeutic consequences. In a sales context, the speaker may give the respondent the illusion of choice between two possibilities. For example, a salesperson might ask: "Would you like to pay cash or by credit card?", with both outcomes presupposing that the person will make the purchase; whereas the third option (that of not buying) is intentionally excluded from the spoken choices.

Note that in the NLP context, the use of the phrase "double bind" does not carry the primary definition of two conflicting messages; it is about creating a false sense of choice which ultimately binds to the intended outcome. In the "cash or credit card?" example, this is not a "Bateson double bind" since there is no contradiction, although it still is an "NLP double bind". Similarly if a salesman were selling a book about the evils of commerce, it could perhaps be a "Bateson double bind" if the buyer happened to believe that commerce was evil, yet felt compelled or obliged to buy the book.

Or, the afore-mentioned paradox in which standing up for free speech means imposing ever-more draconian laws against free speech.

Step away from the theater. This ain’t rock n’ roll. This is suicide. X<?/

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:50 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1055
Location: Hope, BC
My response at RI thread:

Yes, it may be a great contributor to a disinclination to resolve cognitive dissonance. Like, why bother, either answer sucks.

My understanding of cognitive dissonance isn't that it's being faced with two options which are equally sucky but that neither option actually answers the problem/explains the situation, and/because they both contradict one another. Cognitive dissonance is effective for creating memes, collectively, and generating obsession, in individuals, because the brain is hardwired to keep returning to a problem which it can't find the solution to, such as any element of its environment which it cannot identify (hence may pose a threat).

I know this is how it affects me; if the Moon landing footage was proven to be a hoax, or proven to be real, then it wouldn't much interest me; but the not-knowing makes it endlessly tantalizing and I end up caring disproportionately about something. Ditto now with Charlie Hebno, having seen the footage of the cop not being shot, the fact that people (I know one of them) don't consider this conclusive means that the problem I am dealing with, the cog. dissonance, is now in my own environment. I don't have to worry about false flag ops in France or lying media (I am sure enough that I have identified that problem), but I do end up worrying about having an increasingly tense relationship with someone I respect who seems unable to see something that is blindingly obvious to me.

So suddenly I care about something (the CH shooting) that really doesn't matter to me that much. Now it's personal, etc.

My guess (actually I know) is that this happens because the experience triggers body memories of growing up in an environment in which obvious truths were being covered up and I was coerced, or terrorized, into going along with the false narrative. My guess (I don't know for sure) is that the Powers-That-Be arrange their little terrorist theater pieces in such a way that these basic formative psychological (family-based) tensions will be re-triggered in people's psyches, the double-bind experience relived, and the collective psyche split deepened, maybe between those who escape the cog diss of the DB by going deeper still into doublethink, vs those who experience increased cog diss, not so much between what the media is telling them is happening and what they see with their own eyes (since this second, smaller group now know that it's all fake), but between needing to feel safe and secure in the social group while becoming more and more alienated from it (because no one else sees what they see).

I'm sure there's been lots of talk about how the staging of these events seems, far from becoming more sophisticated and persuasive, to be getting sloppier and more obvious each time.

Also, in the way it is becoming impossible to even point out the fakeness or inaccuracy of the reporting without being labeled a conspiracy theorist ~ an experience quite similar to that of a child told to shut up and stop being silly if it wants to sit with the adults.

ok/k

My opinion is that there is institutional memory of the value of imposing double binds on the general population. We become fools if we ‘believe’ and social outcasts when we choose not to believe.

Zegactly!

This also provides the sensation of lots of leading, with very little vision as most folks imagination is used up in reacting rather than in creating.

It may be worse than this, that folk's imagination is being siphoned off into the fake/dominant narrative to keep it coherent, so people don't notice that the cop isn't killed because they themselves generate the necessary imagery ~ or at least, imbue the imagery with the required psychic content, horror, outrage, etc?

This is familiar idea to me coz it relates to what I've been deducing/intuiting about Kubrick's films

With a VADS the position rather than what one does, confers ones authority. So there are bound to be many examples of non-authentic expressions of authority leading to epidemics of eye-gouging.

Quote:
Without stable institutions (which are effectively broken down in a liminal period), “people will look at concrete individuals for guidance”.

This notion of imitation is closely tied to that of the trickster figure. The trickster is a universal figure that can be found in folktales and myths of nearly all cultures. These tricksters can be characterized as follows:
[they] are always marginal characters: outsiders, as they cannot trust or be trusted, cannot give or share, they are incapable of living in a community; they are repulsive, as – being insatiable – they are characterized by excessive eating, drinking, and sexual behavior, having no sense of shame; they are not taken seriously, given their affinity with jokes, storytelling, and fantasizing.

In the context of liminality, the trickster is a very dangerous figure: “in a liminal situation where certainties are lost, imitative behavior escalates, and tricksters can be mistaken for charismatic leaders”
...
When a trickster enters into a position of leadership, “liminality will not be restricted to a temporary crisis, followed by a return to normality, but can be perpetuated endlessly”

Oh, and look who shows up just down the page:

Quote:
The term schismogenesis, developed by British anthropologist Gregory Bateson, can be used to describe situations of permanent liminality. Through this concept, Bateson suggested “that societies can be stuck for a long time in a state where the previous unity was broken, and yet the schismatic components are forced to stay together, producing an unpleasant, violent, harrowing, truly miserable existence”.[72] Bateson further suggested that “entire cultures might systematically produce schizoid personalities” and, by combining such an idea with the work of Turner and anthropologist René Girard, one could say that the trickster is capable of founding such a culture. Girard’s concept of mimetic desire (and, more importantly, the phenomenon he called the “mimetic crisis”) can be linked to the trickster and to absence of masters of ceremonies in large-scale instances of liminality:

When a mimetic crisis is artificially staged in the ritual process, it always happens in the presence of a “master of ceremonies” who maintains order once the stabilities of everyday life are dissolved in the rites of separation. When the schism takes place in real life, however, it is not certain that charismatic heroes emerge that are up to solving the situation through eidetic perception, in the Platonic sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liminality

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 6:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 5:43 pm
Posts: 112
Someone on the Sync Forum remembered this simulation-of-a-movie-star art project, wherein a complete persona was created .I wrote about it in 2010.. The location referenced in the vid, which goes with it, is a mile or so from the Charles 7 location in Paris; in the 11th Arrondissement.
"
The created French Pop star "Gigi Gaston" "was in a movie" called

"Je Suis Perdu" "A Song" i.e.
("I Am Lost.")

"by Jean luc Godard" where "she" sang a song of the same name. and it shows "her" going through doors [liminal spaces] and looking in mirrors.

A poster on the wall is:

Attachment:
bataclan.png
bataclan.png [ 101.88 KiB | Viewed 2381 times ]
for a dance hall / music venue down the road a short way from Charlie Hebdo offices. [Propinquity]



Nearby the Charles 7 offices is also a comedy club with a V.I.P. sheep as their logo.

Attachment:
comedie.jpg
comedie.jpg [ 39.29 KiB | Viewed 2381 times ]

Comedie Bastille



See the Charlie H. perps laugh as they meet and greet the French President.. They can't contain their laughter.


In the posting I made around the Art Show creation of a "Sim" personality, "Gigi Gaston" I included this video of Baudrillard and text.

Baudrillard "The Gulf War Never Happened"

For a relatively easily understandable introduction to Jean Baudrillard’s philosophy:

"Baudrillard: Ideas & Concepts": 'Dr. Barbara Mitra inteviews Alan How in this film which explores key concepts and ideas relating to Jean Baudrillard.': which I, myself, need - to refresh my mind on it.



From "Excess and Resistance in Feminised Bodies: David Cronenberg’s Videodrome and Jean Baudrillard’s Seduction" by Martin Ham,

Ham is an author "primarily interested in poststructuralism, and also the politics of transgression."

Baudrillard:

Quote:
“The television screen is the retina of the mind's eye. Therefore, the television screen is part of the physical structure of the brain. Therefore, whatever appears on the television screen emerges as raw experience for those who watch it… I had a brain tumour, and I had visions. I believe the visions caused the tumour and not the reverse. I could feel the visions coalesce and become flesh, uncontrollable flesh.

“ ‘Videodrome’ is a logical progression in the attempt to accurately reproduce reality on screen. In other words, if representation is experienced as if it were transparent, in the same way as reality, then, by extension, this experience should impact on the viewer's physical being, as it would in the real world.

The ‘Videodrome’ does not distinguish between the mediate and the immediate in the play of affect involved in televisual representation, and thus brings to bear a lethal transformation in the physiognomy of its viewer.

The contention that television is used in such a way as to suggest its transparency is compounded by the fact that Professor O'Blivion, by his own admission, ‘refuse[s] to appear on television, except on television’.

By agreeing to appear on television only via a video-link, O'Blivion inserts a secondary conspicuous signifier of representation to acknowledge the construction and mediation of the image and make apparent to viewers their perceptual and interpretative distance from his actual self. In fact, as the viewer later learns from his daughter, Bianca (Sonja Smits), ‘Brian O'Blivion died quietly on an operating table 11 months ago’. One must therefore assume that O'Blivion's appearance on the Rena King show did not respond to the contingency of the interview but was selected on the basis of its suitability from the archive of his recorded videocassettes. This trope of asynchronous communication is developed from the first sequence of the film where Max is woken by a video alarm, recorded the day before by his secretary and initiated by the timer of his VCR, which relays to him the morning's schedule of appointments. In addition to the episode involving Professor O'Blivion on the Rena King show, Max is introduced to Barry Convex via a recorded message played to him on a small television screen in the back seat of his chauffeured car. Later, Bianca tells Max, as he is transferred from the influence of Spectacular Optical, that Nicki's image was used to seduce him by the corporation but that ‘she was already dead’.

Each of these instances builds towards an indictment of the temporal deceptiveness of mediated images. The endeavour of the mass media to present its output as instantaneous, or commensurable with ‘real time’, is deeply problematic.

“If you wish to give a meaning to this contradictory expression (since real time abolishes every real dimension of time), it would be the possibility of making everything present in an instant. It's the time of immediate realization, of global dissemination, of action at a distance. Which abolishes any present-past-future sequence, and hence any consequentiality (Baudrillard 1998: 30).”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2015 7:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 5:43 pm
Posts: 112
Jasun wrote:
[] Bateson further suggested that “entire cultures might systematically produce schizoid personalities” and, by combining such an idea with the work of Turner and anthropologist René Girard, one could say that the trickster is capable of founding such a culture.[]


I'm thinking "no schizoid culture" ["schizoids are, at the very most, the scapegoats, the "lone gunman," the "deluded gunmen" or , at least, that is how it is deliberately portrayed.]




Check out H.W. here: also [as with French Cartoonists] choking back the laughs, you can hear on the audio - and the visuals show it too, especially on the phrase "deluded gunman"

The sheeps most definitely stay "sane" And the wolves assuredly are.

Anyway, what has been sown, and is being being reaped, is psychopath culture. Or , in any case, a culture amenable, hospitable and understandable, to and for, the "wolves" themselves.. They created their own environment - wherein they can thrive and propagate their own.

Attachment:
wolf740.jpg
wolf740.jpg [ 215.76 KiB | Viewed 2379 times ]
The engineered culture is: Also suitable for those sheeps, who fancy themselves wolves.

"Schizoid" and "Psychopath" are always, seemingly, conflated.. A Psychopath is not Schizophrenic.. The history of these terms is very fascinating..

So it is said? When Psychopathology was first identified, in the 19t. c. , it was not understood at all. Originally called "moral insanity" - it has nothing to do with the other condition, which is distinct.

"Psycho" , the term, can be used for both conditions... But they are not the same! Sane is perfectly congruent with psychopath! In fact psychopaths are often quite expert in convincing others, their sheepies, that they, the sheepies, are insane.

Called "Gaslighting"
(Another example of creating a "mirroring" / imitation , at which , of course, psychopaths are expert?)
One can watch the whole movie now, on-line! :hattip: $rf <?>12



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 11:01 am
Posts: 1055
Location: Hope, BC
From 2001 thread, as it belongs here:

liberty wrote:
Of course most people will not agree that that is what the President said .. even though it was right in their face.. That's not my fault. I believe what the whole episode illustrates is "revelation of the method."

Such a method drives people deeper and deeper into their trance state.

Attachment:
carsdontmatch.jpg


I really don't like to get into these kind of arguments .. It's very tedious.. And people see what they want to see.. And believe what they want to believe, regardless of the reality and / or logic / of the situation.

That "debunking" site is really ridiculous.. They also "debunk" chemtrails - saying they are airplane exhaust.. "Give Me A Break" I can't take it seriously.. But I took your question about it seriously enough to answer you. The President said it straight out, to my ear.. Especially because the part about "was not Muslims" is precisely true, by anyone's count.

You are conflating too separate points; one, that the President said it was not Moslems, the other that he said it was "the Illuminati."

Interpreting "illumines" as Illuminati strikes me as a good way to get the attention away from the other part of the statement, the one worth looking at, by stirring up all the usual silly nonsense about "the Illuminati," the mere mention of which guarantees that any mainstream journalist (or even non-mainstream but more rigorous researcher) will stay away from as surely as he (or she) would avoid a naked drunkard on the street waving his hard-on.

And your reaction ~ which was a reaction, not a response ~ smacks of fanaticism, even tho I understand how truly wearing it is to be treated as crazy even for the smallest whisper of a question when it comes to the dominant narrative. The answer isn't shouting, however, Alex Jones style; that is precisely what these sorts of disinfo campaigns are designed to drive people to.

It's essential to learn to distinguish between a troll and someone is also genuinely exploring the same areas as you who simply points towards possible flaws in your argument; if you treat someone like this as if they were a troll, guess what? The troll is you.

_________________
The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 5:43 pm
Posts: 112
No problem.

I actually think there is such a thing as "ces illumine" And I'm not trying to make friends nor win votes..

I appreciate your feedback , Jasun.. And do not feel you are a troll. I'm just talking generality.. Since, as you an imagine, I get the "debunking" regularly.. Part of the strategy is just to wear out people like me, as you suggested.

I really feel the President said that deliberately.. And not just for the reasons you mentioned..

Notice it's the President, in the hugging spree, who witnesses all the laughter.. So he wasn't saying that line trying to wake-up the populace!

No kidding.. Glad your question is giving a chance to clarify.

Also, the name "Illumanati" "ces Illuminè" is a euphemism. The real name isn't known - that I know of. Obviously they are not making their name known, as far as I know.. And I don't blame them.

Attachment:
ifyouseesomething12524.jpg
ifyouseesomething12524.jpg [ 113.03 KiB | Viewed 2333 times ]


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group Color scheme by ColorizeIt!