Trying to Comprehend System Architecture

This thread has been created in order to discuss Inqurer's blog comment at:
https://wwws.forummotion.com/important-reading-f18/dialectics-vectors-vector-leaders-t66.htm#3499

I will repost the information below. I would really appreciate it if some of you could help me with this:

We are one step closer to a proper definition of this system. What we appear to have is a Financial/Informational Monopoly Collectivism that controls people via debt money and by the processes discussed above. I have a few questions for C1 and offthepage though:

1) How does the PISRR loop equate to the Marxist Materialism Boundary? The reason I say this is because, as you know, I recently produced a post that reflected the first time I gained any sort of real comprehension of the subject.

2) My insight into vectoring is that it works via exclusion of data. I have not yet watched your film, but I will shortly. Nonetheless, here's what I wrote at another forum:

"So many people focus on one aspect in a multi-layered system, and apply it to the entire system. This is true whether their focus is exclusively on the “American Empire”, “Zionism”, the “Military Industrial Complex”, “Round Table Groups”, the “Finance Oligarchy” (a crucial part of this system, but one which if addressed to the exclusion of psychopathy and the ideology of elitism is nevertheless inadequate (NOTE: some will find as “racist” because there is ostensible “Jewish” monopoly in this business (which is not entirely accurate since there is also non-Jewish power here, and also those oligarchs who are “Jewish” are entirely content to finance regimes that decimate their religious brethren (who are also viewed as cattle)), but ignores the point that these oligarchs wield tremendous power through the process of banker parasitism)), “Corporations” (which leftists confuse with capitalism, but which are in reality behemoth-like syntheses of Capital and State power that exercise control through lobbying and in turn are subsidized, with regulations written with language in their favor and with the public being forced to act as their support, thus “privatizing profits and socializing losses”, leading to the anti-Capitalistic system of Corporate socialism - it should also be mentioned that the Class A shares of the largest corporations, the largest shares that really matter, are mostly owned by the same oligarchy), “Religion” (indeed a system of control, but also one which historically has solidified communities and so is being attacked right now in favor of hedonistic and psychopathic substitutes, since communities act as a buffer between the individual an full spectrum elitist dominance), etc.

The problem is, when these approved messengers give people what they need to know, they don’t see the full picture, and then they come to the wrong conclusions.

The point these people are missing is that all these various systems of control cohere. What people who focus on only one aspect of the system (while omitting and distorting other aspects, and ignoring the fundamentals) do, is vector information. These people can provide false systemic solutions, (socialism, Austrian “economics”, etc.) which are merely another veil for control. They can also confuse the parasitic roles some people occupy (“finance oligarch”), with races, genders, classes, etc (Naziism and Communism are examples of this), thus obscuring the issues and often offering genocidal programs, furthering the violence in this system."

3) Can you assist me with a definition of political/economic controls that I am trying to come up with here: https://wwws.forummotion.com/social-systems-f7/new-global-governance-structure-t5.htm#3498

4) Can you assist me in incorporating this into an explanation of system dynamics as provided below: (this thread shows how the observe aspect of the OODA loop is controlled)

inquirer wrote:

This is my understanding of all of this. Please criticize it if I am wrong:


In order to understand what is going on today, first read the Set of Main Articles from Knowledge Driven Revolution

Then read Between Two Ages by Zbigniew Brzezinski and The Technological Society by Jaques Ellul.

Then watch "Das Netz":



Then read Revolution in Military Affairs - 1990 up to the present.

Oddly, many RMA Concepts are present in modern video games, like "Metal Gear Solid 2". Please see this analysis.

Then, read the military document Joint Vision 2020, which lays out the agenda of Full Spectrum Dominance.

Then, read Control Warfare: Inside the OODA Loop.





Which discusses the OODA loop, one of the battlefields on which the RMA operates (this is discussed in NetCentricTruther’s RMA document). OODA stands for Observe-Orient-Decide-Act. The traditional usage of the term refers to the military exercising their OODA loop in a manner more efficient than the enemy. Another usage of the term (such as in Control Warfare) refers to anticipating the enemy’s (our) actions based on knowledge of the environment from which they (we) absorb inputs, and knowledge of their (our) genetic, cultural, and informational makeup, from which decisions and actions can be inferred.

Here is a military PR video that breaks this down, giving us the context that the goal is for the military’s OODA loop to be quicker and more efficient than the enemy’s, integrating Sensors (O), situational awareness (O), dynamic command and control (D), and effects delivery (A):



What Military PR omits, however, is that in the context of Full Spectrum Dominance, all battlefields must be completely controlled. Therefore, all inputs informing the OODA loop of the enemy must be manufactured and not leave the acceptable domain of information. Therefore, alternative media, even though it is superior to mainstream media, is immediately suspect, since it would be instantly marginalized if it were not approved. Thus, we can say that much of the alternative media is designed to create a controlled anti-thesis to this system, leading to a new synthesis that leaves the fundamentals of this Global Beehive undisturbed. Indeed, the military anticipated this antithesis, calling it the “Eagle Movement” in their future history.

In other words, it is insufficient to form your opinions based on the opposite of the mainstream since neither the thesis nor the anti-thesis address the prime realities of this system. This brings to mind a theoretical psychology professor of mine who told me that Neitzche called a person who formed their beliefs based on the mainstream a "stupid person #1" or a "first kind of stupid person", and called a person who formed their values based on the opposite of mainstream values a "stupid person #2" or a "second kind of stupid person". I have no idea if Neitzche used those terms or not, but it illustrates the point beautifully.

Also, there are dialectics in "opposition" forces as well. The following example will elucidate this further.

Let’s look at this in terms of economic paradigms. Two of the most prominent attacks on the current system, libertarian (Austrian) and socialist (Marxist), are actually systems of control in disguise. The Marxist paradigm completely ignores the problem of central banking and fails to realize that we are under a banker parasitic and corporate socialist, and not a capitalist, system. Instead, it proposes central planners and political technocrats to introduce a new kind of tyranny. The Austrian paradigm re-instantiates feudalism by giving power to those who control the gold supply (the Rothschilds), who can expand and contract it as they wish, so as to have the world’s economies at their mercy.

The Socialist paradigm is obviously an elite project. As Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's mentor, said, "the power these energetic left wingers exercised was never their own ... but was ultimately the power of the international financial coterie. ... a congressional committee, following backward to their source the threads which led from admitted Communists like Whittaker Chambers, through Alger Hiss, and the Carnegie Endowment to Thomas Lamont and the Morgan Bank, fell into the whole complicated network of the interlocking tax-exempt foundations. The Eighty-third Congress in July 1953 set up a Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations with Representative B. Carroll Reece, of Tennessee, as chairman. It soon became clear that people of immense wealth would be unhappy if the investigation went too far and that the "most respected" newspapers in the country, closely allied with these men of wealth, would not get excited enough about any revelations to make the publicity worth while, in terms of votes or campaign contributions. An interesting report showing the Left-wing associations of the interlocking nexus of tax-exempt foundations was issued in 1954 rather quietly. Four years later, the Reece committee's general counsel, René A. Wormser, wrote a shocked, but not shocking, book on the subject called Foundations: Their Power and Influence." (Carroll Quigley, "Tragedy & Hope", pp. 954-955)

I also recommend listening to an interview with Norman Dodd, lead investigator for the Reece Commission, which is available here.

See also the Reece and Cox Committee transcripts and Dodd Report to the Reece Committee, available here.

Or, if you are a visual person, watch the following interview with Dodd:



(auxiliary information can be found in World Revolution, Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution, and Red Symphony).

As for the Austrian Paradigm, the following quote will suffice:

"Many readers may be surprised to learn the extent to which the Graduate Institute and then Mises himself in the years immediately after he came to United States were kept afloat financially through generous grants from the Rockefeller Foundation. In fact, for the first years of Mises’s life in the United States, before his appointment as a visiting professor in the Graduate School of Business Administration at New York University (NYU) in 1945, he was almost totally dependent on annual research grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.”: http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=692

In order to understand this process further, let me bring your attention to the “Peace” Symbol:



It’s obvious in light of the above what we are dealing with here. The “Peace” Symbol represents a contrived dialectic, synthesizing within a controlled boundary. The vertical line in the middle represents the intended direction which was to be created by placing thesis and antithesis against each other. It is important to realize that for this to be effective, nether thesis nor antithesis should address prime realities, thus the assertion that the circle represents the controlled boundary beyond which discussion must not reach.

In light of that, consider the following symbol from “G” Edward Griffin’s “Freedom Force International”, bastion of the libertarian (Austrian) right:



and consider the following image from City Lights Bookstore, bastion of the Socialist (Marxist) left:



Now, I'm not implying that Griffin and the owners of City lights intended for this symbol to indicate some sort of malevolent inside joke. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. That is ultimately irrelevant, however, since their messages are just more vectors in the dialectic matrix.

Remember that full spectrum dominance means dominance over all colors, whether they by libertarian, left, right, socialist, ... whatever is in the pubic consciousness. That which hurts elitist dominance structures is marginalized and distorted (see Mason Gaffney’s work on Georgism entitled The Corruption of Economics. See also the book A Writ for Martyrs, documenting how the FBI terrorized Eustace Mullins, and also documenting how the precursor to his book Secrets of the Federal Reserve, entitled A Study of the Federal Reserve, was burned in Germany).

I'd now like to bring your attention to a very preceptive comment made by Philip K. Dick:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. … So I ask, in my writing, what is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind.” Philip K. Dick, How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later, 1978.

In addition to Observation, Orientation must be controlled, so that the enemy (us) will not be able to summon our resources to properly escape domination. This disorientation has been accomplished via the chemical dumbing down discussed previously. It has been accomplished by the extreme violations of bodily/genetic integrity caused by GMO foods, by psychotronic warfare, by aerosol spraying (see also this), by DU, and so on. This has been accomplished in education by the replacement of the classic Trivium and Quadrivium methods, which developed intellectual agency, with outcome based education, which created intellectual dependency, making the population subject to externally manufactured Information Operations and other such processes.

Those who somehow manage to escape the control over O-O will be recognized as outliers via “sense and respond” systems in the sensor/information/engagement grid informing the Elite’s OODA loop, which utilizes Network Centric Warfare. They may be disoriented via informational/chemical/biological attack, or they may be eliminated entirely.

So, to recap, the above definition shows that in the system at present and coming into view, the Elite executes their OODA loop more efficiently than the rest of the population, and the Action that they take is to try and dominate the O-O aspects of OUR OODA loop. Those immune to this action will be dealt with in the ways discussed in the above paragraph.

This is how they have achieved, and will achieve total control. The New World Order that is coming into view is going to be far more terrible than 1984, if we allow it to happen.

Bad as that sounds, this post is fortunately incredibly good news. Here’s why: We can be as speculative as we want about systems of control throughout history, but with what I have described, the military laid out the entire police state for us. No speculation is necessary. When you combine all the information I have given, you have the elite completely admitting, "We are committing treason. We are waging war against you. We are seeking to achieve complete control". In speaking of information warfare, those items constitute our hydrogen bomb, since they fully explain the police state. By publicizing this information, we will show people the science of how they have been controlled. With this laid out, if it ever became a part of the public consciousness, such a massive wave of revulsion would ensue and people would reject this contrived system. Then, hopefully, we might be able to construct a more humanitarian society.

inquirer wrote:

We are one step closer to a proper definition of this system. What we appear to have is a Financial/Informational Monopoly Collectivism that controls people via debt money and by the processes discussed above.

Well, we're defining 2 systems.

The system that we are leaving and the system that we are transitioning to. What you describe is more pertinent to the system that we are leaving.

inquirer wrote:

1) How does the PISRR loop equate to the Marxist Materialism Boundary? The reason I say this is because, as you know, I recently produced a post that reflected the first time I gained any sort of real comprehension of the subject.

Okay, let's take question 1 first. Once that is answered we can see if we can address the other questions, otherwise I think we'll end up with a mess of a thread.

The Marxist Materialism Boundary employs a world of materialism to exert forces on individuals who live in that world. In this case, materialism is not simply money or a car, but all objects in our world. So, this would include movies, TV media, billboards, brand names, symbols, words, political images, religious images, etc (anything that can be consumed). All of these 'objects' are part of our world of materialism and are used to control our orientation to the world. Hence, all of these 'objects' are part of the Marxist Materialism system.

PISSR is simply another way, a more specific and scientific way, of describing how our orientation to the world is systematically manipulated in order to modify our beliefs, changes our decisions, and therefore change our actions. Employing PISSR keeps the public within a boundary of thinking and perception, and therefore contains our world view within a boundary.

I think the best way to describe this is that PISSR is describing the techniques from a military industrial complex point of view. As I've research more, and get a better understanding of our systems, I'm finding that there are various frames of reference for describing the methods, and these frames come from philosophical, scientific, economic, religious, etc. points of view.

That's fine, than you very much. If some of you could help me with the other questions I posted, that would be very much appreciated.

Offthepage, you said:

Quote :

Well, we're defining 2 systems.

The
system that we are leaving and the system that we are transitioning to.
What you describe is more pertinent to the system that we are leaving.

This is what I don't understand. You referred to "Marx 2.0" as a descriptor for what is emerging. What I see is the old system achieving full spectrum dominance. This brings me to what I wrote here:

Quote :

Can you assist me with a definition of political/economic controls that
I am trying to come up with here: https://wwws.forummotion.com/social-systems-f7/new-global-governance-structure-t5.htm#3498

Is the new system Global Fascism or Global Technocracy, or something radically different? What do those terms really mean? That is some of the material I am trying to address and comprehend in the link I just supplied.

inquirer wrote:

That's fine, than you very much. If some of you could help me with the other questions I posted, that would be very much appreciated.

Will do. But I agree that we should try to tackle these one at a time in this thread, then move-on to the next question.

inquirer wrote:

This is what I don't understand. You referred to "Marx 2.0" as a descriptor for what is emerging. What I see is the old system achieving full spectrum dominance. This brings me to what I wrote here:

Quote :

Can you assist me with a definition of political/economic controls that
I am trying to come up with here: https://wwws.forummotion.com/social-systems-f7/new-global-governance-structure-t5.htm#3498

Is the new system Global Fascism or Global Technocracy, or something radically different? What do those terms really mean? That is some of the material I am trying to address and comprehend in the link I just supplied.

I started a blog post that I think is going to go a long way toward providing you with the information that you seek.

https://wwws.forummotion.com/important-reading-f18/transitioning-from-marxist-to-network-controls-t622.htm

Just give me some time to finish it, as I think it will clear up the transition we're in, and help define the new systems that we're entering. It's kind of like the Marx meets Computer Networks thread that I started - that should give you an idea.

https://wwws.forummotion.com/social-systems-f7/marx-meets-a-networked-society-t402.htm

Pay particular attention to Yochai Benkler and his discussion of commons-based peer production