Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - LuciferX

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 138
Beyond the wall / Re: Quotes of the Moment II
« on: November 29, 2016, 10:08:46 pm »
"Planning is not just guessing, it's harmful guessing."

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Misinfo Wars
« on: November 28, 2016, 09:38:13 pm »
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Thanks for the list!  Okay, so, generally, at the time I read it, The Celestine Prophecy was all right.  Now, the fact that it was not written by Castaneda is inconsequential to why I hesitate to bring it up in conversation.  I think some may consider it "hokey", that's all.  Funny thing, round a campfire a few weeks ago I may have brought it up myself...  We were running out of wood.

Beyond the wall / Re: Space dogs
« on: November 26, 2016, 07:29:47 am »
My condition on discussing the ethics of space exploration is that we take care of this planet, in the first place, in order to ensure that any subsequent venture be autonomous.  It should be a matter of choice that may result in obligation, instead of a last ditch effort to save the human race.

Beyond the wall / Re: Space dogs
« on: November 25, 2016, 11:08:14 pm »
I dunno, on that last point, I'd assume the notion of a right is what happened to our even more misplaced sense of duty:  our particular brand of intelligence clearly being the light of reason, ethically bound to disseminate itself into any and all "hearts of darkness".

This does not mean that I am absolutely opposed to space exploration, because it may inadvertently make the world a better place.  There must also be some more direct ways of going about it.  For example, would it be possible to focus those resources, now, to postpose ever having to dispose of this planet in the future?  I do not like projecting my own finitude on Mother Earth, actually, it feels like designing a "baby-sized" kitchen-sink drain & disposal unit.

Beyond the wall / Re: Quotes of the Moment II
« on: November 21, 2016, 05:05:07 pm »
Today at the grocery store, I grab a box of "Hibiscus Cleanse" tea, it's new. It's hibiscus, yerba mate, and mint. I got it because it sounded tasty. And then...

Her: "Does that stuff work?"
Me: "Hmm?"
Her: "Does that tea actually work as a detox?"
Me: "No, that's what my liver is for, I just like the taste of hibiscus, and it sounds good with mint."
Her: *confused face*

Hibiscus is a diuretic, but seriously, I just think it tastes good.  :kingmeh:

How the hell would you even tell? Sending all of your urine to a lab every day to test for "toxins"?
It's good stuff, but I can't forgive wasting my toxins like that.

Beyond the wall / Re: Introductions, part V: Don't Say We Never Warned You.
« on: November 15, 2016, 08:29:51 am »
Hi Finally, is, not, both, and neither there to meet you!

From the Battle of the Swamps to the Battle of Anzio.


I can't get "you can't always get what you want" out of my mind.

Silly me.  I always thought QED was a Feynman thing.  So I looked it up and I found this under "entanglement":

I should probably just stick to chemistry.

Aneristic Illusions / Re: Apple and Haugheys legacy
« on: October 23, 2016, 09:35:55 pm »
Q) what is a thinker?
A)  a thinker of transformative thoughts

Market forces are the worst forces. Most things just perturb mass and energy, but the marketers and financiers manipulate the possible configurations. That is to say human passions, the very least scientific of the things on the planet. It's a superstition engine, no better than an "alchemy" scam in any way but sophistication, upon which the rest of the science was widely founded.

That was all well and good at first, I think. Everyone else doing Science was still mired in various superstition for a long, long time. As those stripped away, and as The Enlightenment got under way in earnest we discovered nothing but HORRORS under the superstition that had been so well accepted. Shit got hard to sell to "the masses" as a good thing, True or not, and the Opposition happy to capitalize, as ever they have. It seems to me somewhere along the line Science conceded to a very reasonable, but still ultimately irrational, sort of "pragmatism" about dissemination of the truth. Certain myths became acceptable, and today that's most evident in the way we economy because those myths have barely changed while most other fields have had to take their medicine, and like it!
Superstitious is to deny superstition.

Clearly they should continue being kept far from even considering such ballistic tech., and also most things with moving parts.

Last time I went in for routine de-scaling, according to the Infernal Act of Universal Suffering, the on site dermatologist said they also had to test my galvanic skin response.  I figured this was per the continuation clause of IAUS, to ensure that the efficacy of their methods persist.  No, it's that the act only covers a fraction of their cost, so they have to make up additional procedures.  Meanwhile, premiums keep on going up and brokerage firms are enlisted to massively undersell policies backed by the central infernal comity.  Then we watch that Trump candidate on your screen TV  debate for president, and then maybe hell not look so bad, eh.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 138