Perfect Psychopathic System (Holy Grail)

C1 wrote:

So, in the following segment of a presentation regarding Conceptual Spiral Presentation by famous USAF pilot John Boyd, we learn about the methods that are being used against the public, and the end game.


In short, John says that one can attack their adversaries by folding these adversaries back inside themselves so that they can't consult their external environment, driving the adversary into confusion and disorder, bringing about total paralysis of, confusion by, and chaos across the attacked. In our case, the public is the attacked.


This means that the outputs of their system that are being targeted at the public will become more numerous, accelerated to a faster and faster pace, and more discontinuous, logical and confusing. Essentially, driving the public crazy and to total despair. It's the ultimate in societal breakdown, and will bring about Full Spectrum Dominance in a way that I can't really imagine.


And this presentation is being delivered by a member of the United States Military. The only fact that I don't know is if John understood that this would be deployed against the American public.





Now, John discusses some of the domains that have been presented in this forum over time. Namely, he presents the following key domains as necessary justification for this approach:


1. Kurt Godel, mathematician (1931)
Using the arithmetic of whole numbers, he proved that one cannot demonstrate the consistency of such a system within itself, in other words, it is undecide-able. Hence, one can't use a systems own workings to determine if it is consistent or not. Even if the system is consistent, one must reach outside the system to prove it.


2. Heisenberg Principle (1927)

One cannot simultaneously determine position and moment of a particle. Because the phenomena of observation is no different than the phenomena observed (ie its a system examining itself). One can not determine the character and nature of a system from within itself.


3. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: All observed natural processes generate Entropy (ie disorder).

Imagine a closed system, where we have the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is operating, and we want to observe what is going on inside the system. Anything task we perform inside the system will increase the system's Entropy, therefore, we will have less information about the system at the end of the observation that at the beginning of the observation. This is true because the observer is part of the close system, and therefore this concept is in alignment with Godel's theorem and Heisenberg's principle.


Combining all of the above, one can say that one can not determine the character and nature of a system from within itself. Moreover, attempting to do so will only lead to greater confusion and disorder.


Hence, I can attack my adversaries by folding these adversaries back inside themselves so they can't consult their external environment, driving the adversary into confusion and disorder, bringing about paralysis. To properly affect this, the attacker must act against the attacked at a tempo that is faster than the attacked can respond to the attacker. Currently, the public is the attacked.

-----------------------------

Wow! This is really *spot-on,* IMHO..!

Yes, I would say this is definitely being used against the public; a glaring example of it I think, occurred when the MSM began to purposefully discredit itself!. I think the reason for this was to send the message that our information, which we'd thought was reliable, was actually tainted and full of propaganda. Thus they were undermining our perception of our world **at the most basic level** -- perhaps Boyd was thinking of his Ooda loop stages, and throwing a monkey wrench in to those very first stages:
i.e."Observe., Orient"...

And furthering the increasing uncertainty, for me, has been the (fairly recent) revelation that many of the videos we've believed, are really NOT to be believed because they are faked through the use of Green/Blue Screen technologies -- so that too was a great blow to our power to understand current events. I have personally been more and more upset when I realize that I **cannot trust** anything I hear, see or read -- unless I am speaking to someone I know, and have reason to trust. I've felt as though a noose has been slowly wrapping itself around my mind.......and my world.:-(

And also: they made sure to announce their placement of shills and agents, in all of our Forums and in the Comments sections of publications. And asked the taunting question: Are you sure your best friend isn't a BOT? ... Very nasty stuff.

Obviously it is one of their greatest pastimes and pleasures: coming up with new and gruesome ways to kill us and/ or drive us all crazy. And John Boyd sure did his share, using all that intelligence in the service of these evil ... NON-humans. Really sad. Nor do I see that we can do anything about it, sorry to say.

It's pretty evil stuff, and who is going to read it, let along try to understand it. People have become so vectored and so very lazy... it's really disheartening. Bottom line, people got to get this, because they must turn off from the objects of the simulacra, otherwise there is no hope for them. We must rely on each other exclusively, and cut out their influences.


Excellent post, by the way. I hope people make an effort to read this thread and to try to understand it. It really boils down everything.

Found this commenter's quote while perusing a book on John Boyd's work and felt it appropriate sums-up the the technique:

"If you can get inside your competitor's OODA loop - whether you're a fighter pilot, a member of a sports team, or a business person - you will win every time. The key factors which enable this higher organizational tempo are focus and direction, mission responsibilities, intuitive competence, and mutual trust."

Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business
Chet Richard
http://www.amazon.com/Certain-Win-Strategy-Applied-Business/dp/1413453767

FYI, here's the full write-up by this commenter:

Quote :

Getting inside your competitor's decision cycle, August 10, 2004
By
Lane Desborough (Scottsdale, AZ USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business (Paperback)
"Certain to Win" is an interpretation of how to apply John Boyd's warfighting principles to business, written by someone who worked with Boyd. If you are a member of a group or team in competition for something, this book is a must-read.

I learned of John Boyd after his death in 1997. At that time all I knew was that as a fighter pilot, Boyd had developed an Observe-Orient-Decide-Act (OODA) theory to explain how some pilots and aircraft were more successful than others. I also learned that very little of Boyd's work was captured in written form - he preferred to deliver his message via marathon briefings.

When Robert Coram's biography "Boyd, the Fighter Pilot who Changed the Art of War" was published in 2002, I immediately snapped it up. Little did I know this would set me on a path which has helped me immeasurably as I grapple with life in corporate America.

Boyd is the modern day analog of Percy Scott and William Sims, two men who revolutionized gunfire at sea in the early part of the twentieth century. Many parallels exist in the methods these three men used to effect change in large bureaucracies - insights which are immediately applicable today in large corporations which struggle with innovation and growth amid the presence of lithe, agile, often unforeseen threats to their very existence.

In Coram's biography of Boyd, he spends a great deal of time describing Boyd's acolytes: Chet Richards, Raymond Leopold, Chuck Spinney, Jim Burton, and Pierre Sprey. These men worked with Boyd. They inspired and drew inspiration from him. Many continue to evangelize and expand on Boyd's ideas. One of the most prolific of Boyd's acolytes is Chet Richards. Chet has extended and reinterpreted Boyd's work in a business rather than military setting. His most recent book, "Certain to Win", demonstrates how organizations can achieve their goals through application of Boyd's concepts.

Coram's book and Richards' book are two important signposts on a journey of exploration which reveals connections amongst contemporary and historical thought leaders as diverse as Clayton Christensen, Sun Tsu, Brian Goodwin, Werner Heisenberg, Eli Goldratt, Mohan Sawhney, Niccolo Machiavelli, Michael Porter, Jaclyn Kostner, Gary Klein, Alistair Cockburn, John Kotter, and Tom Peters. Coram sets the stage, and Richards delivers the prescription for success in achieving fast OODA loops in organizations. "Certain to Win" shows how time can be exploited as a weapon for competitive advantage. Richards debunks the myth that "size matters" when it comes to modern competition. He makes it clear that business strategy is not a "super plan" to be plotted our far in the future and then executed with unfaltering mechanical precision. He shows that bureaucracies are inflexible and rigid at the top, while organisms are agile and adaptive.

Central to the value of "Certain to Win" is a detailed description of how to institute Boyd's organizational climate, a climate exhibited in elite organizations such as the US Marine Corps, Southwest Airlines, and Toyota. Consider the following:
1) Focus and direction
2) Mission responsibilities
3) Intuitive competence
4) Mutual trust
Like most of Boyd's concepts - OODA loops, energy maneuverability theory, destruction and creation - the simplicity of these four concepts belies the complexity and profound insight in creating them and the challenges in instituting them. Easily shrugged off as platitudes, they cry out for the detailed insight on how to apply them within a complex organization. With these four elements in place, organizations are able to operate at higher tempo than their competitors in the face of a rapidly changing set of environmental and competitive circumstances.

If you can get inside your competitor's OODA loop - whether you're a fighter pilot, a member of a sports team, or a business person - you will win every time. The key factors which enable this higher organizational tempo are focus and direction, mission responsibilities, intuitive competence, and mutual trust.

Boyd will one day be remembered as a man who not only changed the art of war, but through extension of his acolytes such as Chet Richards, the art of business and even the art of team sports. If you haven't read Coram's book, do so. Next, pick up "Certain to Win", which describes the steps individuals and organizations can take to move closer to their goal.

Basically, "Certain to Win" demonstrates how Boyd's principles can be applied wherever humans band together to improve their capacity for independent action. Highly recommended.

Here's what they are doing to the public, and why there is so much contradictory noise in the public domain. It's slows down the enemy (ie public) and creates a greater processing-of-information-speed-gap between the attacked and the attackers. Here's Gen Tommy Franks talking about the methodology as it applied to the Iraq war, just replace "iraq" with "public"


"Maneuver warfare"

And that is the business of decision cycles, or inside the decision loop, as people say if, in fact, you can deceive him with respect to what you are going to do, to cause him further confusion and make him keep his force in place one day too long, then, in fact, you find yourself all the way to Baghdad.

Gen Tommy Franks,
Commander, USCENTCOM
in Peter Boyer, The New War Machine,
The New Yorker, June 30, 2003

Comment: Here we have the "Pinocchio" Press, i.e. MSM, discrediting physicians, revealing them to be unethical and immoral. This FITS IN with the premise of "folding persons in on themselves" and creating a shifting, uncertain and frightening reality; i.e. more psychological warfare against the public.


October 22, 2011
Mega-bucks flow from drug cos. to doctors
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500188_162-20124165/mega-bucks-flow-from-drug-cos-to-doctors/


(CBS News) A dozen pharmaceutical companies have given doctors and other healthcare providers more than $760 million over the past two years - and those companies' sales comprise 40 percent of the U.S. market. The numbers come from the non-profit journalism organization Pro Publica, which assembled and continues to update a database on the payments.

The payments, says Pro Publica, are for consulting, speaking, research and expenses on the part of the providers.

Drug companies have traditionally been very tight-lipped about those payments, Pro Publica notes, but, "Over the past two years, companies have begun posting this information on their websites, some as the result of legal settlements with the federal government."

What's more, Pro Publica points out, "Federal law requires that all companies publicly report this data beginning in 2013. That information will be posted on a government website."

With bucks that big flying around, is the quality of care offered by providers accepting them compromised? "Absolutely," said Dr. John Santa, head of the Consumer Reports Health Ratings Center.

"Money works," Santa told "Early Show on Saturday Morning" co-anchor Russ Mitchell. "Doctors are human. Doctors who take money from drug companies are more likely to give you an expensive drug or more likely to give you a drug you may not need."

A recent Consumer Reports survey had 72 percent of respondents saying they believe pharmaceutical companies have too much influence on the drugs that doctors prescribe; 85 percent saying they were concerned about drug companies rewarding doctors who write a lot of prescriptions for their drugs; and 76 percent saying they were concerned about doctors providing testimonials or serving as a spokesperson for a drug.

Santa says he'd be reluctant to advise someone to go to a doctor who has that sort of relationship: "The issue is, who are you working for? Me, as the patient? Or the drug company you're taking money from?"

Do the payments result in doctors not giving patients the least expensive drugs in some cases?

"Absolutely," Santa replied. "We know from our studies and others that there are still many opportunities for doctors to prescribe generic drugs and they're not doing it, and one of the reasons is these financial relationships."

Santa pointed to three signs that could tip off patients that their doctor is getting drug company money.

First off - seeing drug company salespeople in a doctor's office. "The last time I was in a medical office," Santa says, "there were three drug representatives in the waiting room. I haven't been back."

Another sign? Free drug samples. "People think a free sample is a good thing," Santa observes. "Well, the expensive prescription that follows it, if it works, is not a good thing. It can be, again, a much more expensive drug than you may need."

Also: Marketing materials in the physician's office. "Doctors who have relationships with drug companies will often have promotional materials, will have information that they give patients that come from the drug company. You should be wary of that," Santa cautioned.

And what if you spot any of those signs?

"First of all," Santa suggested, "you shouldn't hesitate to ask, 'Do you have a relationship with a drug company? Is it your policy and your practice to take money from drug companies?' More and more, I think, it's good for consumers to ask those kinds of questions.

"What you should especially ask, though, is, 'What are my other options?'"

ScoutsHonor wrote:

Comment: Here we have the "Pinocchio" Press, i.e. MSM, discrediting physicians, revealing them to be unethical and immoral. This FITS IN with the premise of "folding persons in on themselves" and creating a shifting, uncertain and frightening reality; i.e. more psychological warfare against the public.

Do you think this piece is being circulated to discredit physicians, and to make the public fearful of going to a physician? Is that it's purpose?

I must admit, I've seen pharma sales literature and sales people in my doc's office. Also, I've gotten free samples. I mean, isn't that everywhere now? But I don't trust my Doc any less.... I've been seeing him for quite a while and he's a trusted resource. But I can see how this article would make a lot of people leery.

It's pretty disgusting propaganda, and really shows how finely tuned the system can be adjusted. It's an all out attack on our health.

C1 wrote:

ScoutsHonor wrote:

Comment: Here we have the "Pinocchio" Press, i.e. MSM, discrediting physicians, revealing them to be unethical and immoral. This FITS IN with the premise of "folding persons in on themselves" and creating a shifting, uncertain and frightening reality; i.e. more psychological warfare against the public.

Do you think this piece is being circulated to discredit physicians, and to make the public fearful of going to a physician? Is that it's purpose?

I must admit, I've seen pharma sales literature and sales people in my doc's office. Also, I've gotten free samples. I mean, isn't that everywhere now? But I don't trust my Doc any less.... I've been seeing him for quite a while and he's a trusted resource. But I can see how this article would make a lot of people leery.

It's pretty disgusting propaganda, and really shows how finely tuned the system can be adjusted. It's an all out attack on our health.

It is subtle.

From the article:

Quote :

And what if you spot any of those signs?

"First of all," Santa suggested, "you shouldn't hesitate to ask, 'Do you have a relationship with a drug company? Is it your policy and your practice to take money from drug companies?' More and more, I think, it's good for consumers to ask those kinds of questions.

I think if one did as is suggested here, it would completely destroy any relationship one ever had with one's doctor....how could he/she possibly feel about being questioned in that way!?? Viz.:

"Err.. Are you a slimy, unethical crook, Doc??...C'mon, ya can tell me the truth..." Oh sure, that's just the right thing to say to one's doctor--Sheesh, Unbelievable.

So imo this cannot possibly be well-intentioned- it's too obviously really bad advice, designed to deeply offend the recipient, and I just hope that no-one is stupid enough to actually follow it, but even if not, it will still do its damage, stirring suspicion and uncertainty, which I believe to be its purpose.

The question to ask is: How did such highly-illegal and damaging information -- the amount of money spent by a drug company on Bribes - always a closely-guarded secret - suddenly became publicly available. Just highly suspicious, IMHO.

ScoutsHonor wrote:

The question to ask is: How did such highly-illegal and damaging information -- the amount of money spent by a drug company on Bribes - always a closely-guarded secret - suddenly became publicly available. Just highly suspicious, IMHO.

really good analysis

Thinking about tihs a little more, they're trying to destroy ties between humans, as that's what keeps the public from fucking each other. Their ponerized system only will really work when we stop caring about each other. Then, we'll gladly destroy humanity for some unessential short term gain that their system of objects has convinced us is more imporant than our fellow human.

C1 wrote:

Thinking about tihs a little more, they're trying to destroy ties between humans, as that's what keeps the public from fucking each other. Their ponerized system only will really work when we stop caring about each other. Then, we'll gladly destroy humanity for some unessential short term gain that their system of objects has convinced us is more imporant than our fellow human.

+1000
I think you've hit the nail *precisely* on the head - YES indeed!!