THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
ragtime4
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2020 7:16 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ragtime4 » Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:31 am

Simon, both of my initial posts are up. With regard to Sandy Hook there was also an interaction between yourself and Brianv that I commented on.

kickstones
Member
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by kickstones » Mon Jun 06, 2022 8:54 am

simonshack wrote:
Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:55 pm




I'd be only too happy to see other members helping out exposing the countless mass deceptions that keep being relentlessly sold to the general public. After all, that's what Cluesforum is all about!
If the Queen was dead would they fake the Platinum Jubilee celebrations?

https://twitter.com/i/status/1533451042070876161

So a hologram of the queen drove through London in a golden carriage . And people waved at it. They waved at a hologram.

Image

Mansur
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Mansur » Wed Jun 08, 2022 7:13 pm

kickstones wrote:
Mon Jun 06, 2022 8:54 am
simonshack wrote:
Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:55 pm
I'd be only too happy to see other members helping out exposing the countless mass deceptions that keep being relentlessly sold to the general public. After all, that's what Cluesforum is all about!
If the Queen was dead would they fake the Platinum Jubilee celebrations?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1533451042070876161
So a hologram of the queen drove through London in a golden carriage . And people waved at it. They waved at a hologram.
If the waving figure in the car were real, things wouldn't be much different. (In other words, there is not much new about it. Maybe the whole scene is just a fabrication.) Some people might wave even in front of the tv-screen. This is inherent, even the purpose, of any mass meeting, political or otherwise. Participation. The ’you too.’
________________

Maybe not an airy association, but it's an old fad of mine that the reaction of the masses has been just as deceptive as the show they are being deceived by.

… that the propaganda is not designed to make the public believe all the bullshit that is put before them. I think this is a serious mistake. And I really don't know what could possibly justify that assumption. The main purpose is to provoke action; which in my opinion for most people is a pretense. Then, once you get into the habit of pretending, then maybe you can talk about 'believing'.

I think, a lot of people do this, almost out of mere self-defence, and not entirely unconsciously. Here we all know very well how much energy 'scepticism' consumes. Now, the ’average’ John and Mary have a million things to do day by day; and as long as they have them, and mostly want to keep them, this instinct (and there is intelligence in every instinct) will work.

But the word 'belief' is very inappropriate and can be very misleading in adequately addressing such a central issue in this forum.
_______________________________

So I believe that their aim is principally not to deceive the masses, but to create and sustain them. And as outlandish as it may sound, what we need is not ’to inform the masses correctly’ and the likes, but simply to eliminate the masses. To liquidate, in the original meaning of the word.

This may have something to do with the 'depopulation agenda' that has been on the table in the conspiracy market for decades and which can attach itself to any topic today. The masses to whom these theories are addressed seem to be unable to imagine the abolition of a social order as anything but killing and fire and zombie warfare and the like; and the authors of these theories also seem to have a vested interest in maintaining this numbness of imagination.

kickstones
Member
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by kickstones » Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:30 am

Here's more of the show, in my opinion the bear looks more realistic than the Queen in the YouTube clip, maybe that's why they disabled the comments section.

Even 70 years into her reign, Queen Elizabeth still has a few surprises up her sleeve.

Although the Queen, 96, didn't attend the Platinum Party at the Palace on Saturday night, she did open up the event with a fun pre-recorded sketch featuring another British icon: Paddington Bear. The hilarious skit featured the monarch hosting the beloved character for tea...and revealing what she keeps in her trusty handbag — a marmalade sandwich!

Buckingham Palace isn't commenting on the clip as they don't "want to de-mystify it," one royal source says, "and take away the magic."

But PEOPLE has learned that the video was filmed in March at Windsor Castle, with Paddington added later by CGI techniques.

https://people.com/royals/queen-elizabe ... al-family/




full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UfiCa244XE

Mansur
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Mansur » Sat Jun 11, 2022 9:39 pm

kickstones wrote:
Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:30 am
But PEOPLE has learned that the video was filmed in March at Windsor Castle, with Paddington added later by CGI techniques.
https://people.com/royals/queen-elizabe ... al-family/
Though it is a few seconds only in the video, the crowd outside the window, the fake enthusiastic crowd (more evidently CGI) seems to be the really important feature.

Now, it seems you Brits have a fake monarch (or a one playing herself as an actor, which would be still nastier I think) with her being faked to be dead 'or who knows', probably in a faked palace with an actor butler and fake enthusiastic subjects outside – but a real Paddington Bear.

A recurring thought: propaganda in general tends to focus mainly on women. They are the consumers who are most important.

Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1166
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Fri Jun 17, 2022 2:00 pm

Mansur wrote:
Thu May 26, 2022 9:04 pm
The 'anti-talmud attitude' is indeed so childish that it could really be called with right 'animal' [...] this 'anti-Talmudism' is quite obviously, or rather quite consciously, part of the 'anti-Semitic' propaganda, of which it is very well known whose interests it serves...
Perhaps you didn´t get the point in my answer to Simon´s question. Rabbis are masterminds of deceptive denial. Over time, they have inserted escape clauses and decoy texts into the Talmud and other "sacred texts" for the consumption of non-Judaics, disguised references to specific persons or peoples by changing proper names, and censored/deleted problematic passages or explained them away in convoluted ways. The decoy texts are used to prove how egalitarian and unprejudiced rabbinical Judaism is.

The Talmud and the Midrash and their countless rabbinical interpretations and commentaries make up an extremely tortuous labyrinth, with many layers of deception for both internal and external audiences, and very few people have the training required to unravel it. I am certainly not one of them, and neither are you, Mansur, whether you regard yourself as a Jew or not.

But since you are so keen on clarifying the language of the Talmud, here is a little collection of statements that sound a bit dissonant to my priggish ears. If you think Hoffman (whom you label a propagandist) has misunderstood or distorted passages from the Talmud despite decades of scholarship in the field, I suggest you take it up with him by e-mail.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnWu3Y ... sp=sharing

Mansur
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Mansur » Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:13 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 2:00 pm
...But since you are so keen on clarifying the language of the Talmud, here is a little collection of statements that sound a bit dissonant to my priggish ears. If you think Hoffman (whom you label a propagandist) has misunderstood or distorted passages from the Talmud despite decades of scholarship in the field, I suggest you take it up with him by e-mail.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DnWu3Y ... sp=sharing
I 'defend' the Talmud, not because I am Jewish or because I find it very useful reading (as I am neither Jewish nor do I read the Talmud), but because to attack the Talmud means 'anti-Semitism', and that is precisely the reason why it is attacked. So I'm just saying or repeating that it's all propaganda, just like all the other 'anti-Semitic' stuff. Why is this not clear to you? Why should this be an exception? What other reason would there be for attacking? What practical or even theoretical use would 'exposing the Talmudic Jewish mentality' be? Nothing on earth. (And there is a more serious aspect of the matter, which cannot really be explained in this place, namely who has the right to do such a thing in the first place. After all, from a certain perspective, it is quite ridiculous how he jumps from one debunking to another, while he himself, with his arguments, is doing the same thing he is criticising.)

As for the 'despite decades of scholarship' thing, I say not 'despite' but precisely 'because of.'

I provided a link (there are certainly several such places on the net) where one can occasionally check, at least to some extent (though without knowledge of the old Hebrew, it seems a rather hopeless enterprise), whether or not the venerable gentleman's interpretive art includes those distortions. And there were a concrete example linked.

As for your link (who on earth throughout the conspiracy world wouldn't acquainted with that compendium!): have you checked these places? A few of them? Or: what one scholar has already checked, another no longer has to?

Prescient
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:45 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Prescient » Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:28 pm

Mansur wrote:
Sat Jun 11, 2022 9:39 pm

A recurring thought: propaganda in general tends to focus mainly on women. They are the consumers who are most important.
This - absolutely - has been my lifetime experience. Also often the "men' who partner these women may not argue otherwise. In other words "The women wear the trousers" - and the parasites that be know this.

Mansur
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Mansur » Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:55 am

Prescient wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:28 pm
"The women wear the trousers"
Ah, and that's literally true, - - -
The phrase was originally used for specific cases, - is it now used in a general sense?

Prescient
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:45 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Prescient » Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:41 pm

Mansur wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:55 am
Prescient wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:28 pm
"The women wear the trousers"
Ah, and that's literally true, - - -
The phrase was originally used for specific cases, - is it now used in a general sense?
Not sure on the cultural linguistics of the phrase, but my experience has shown that men who are partnered with women, She has the power. I've met men who are complete bastards and bullies at work but are completely pussy whipped at home. Some men I have met have said they have two bosses - one at work and one at home. Other instances include where men have said to me they come to work for a break! I use the word "men" - but in reality they rarely display the original qualities of a classical man. Thanks Tavistock et al. Oh and never forget: "The most expensive sex is when you don't pay for it" Oscar Wilde.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by sharpstuff » Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:22 am

I discovered this essay amongst my other books the other day and thought it might be useful to post it on Clues. I did not know if it deserved a separate thread as it was not a 'deceit' so I have posted it here. I would be interested to have any comments upon it.

***************************************

THE INDIVIDUAL AND GROUPS.

By Peter K. Sharpen

This study was written in 1974 as part of my Course work for my teaching degree.

**********************************************

THE INDIVIDUAL

An individual is a person who has certain basic traits, all relating to each other and based on:

Inherited (but not genetic) factors
Environmental factors
Education and
Health.
This makes up his personality. Regarding the inherited factors, we can have no control over these in the sociological sense. Environmental and educational factors are determined by the society in which the individual lives, whatever that may be. Health is intrinsic (according to natural norms of health) and its continuance is also determined by social structure.

An individual has certain needs, attitudes and desires which will or will not be fulfilled. He is creative (in both a positive and negative sense, that is, he sometimes destroys to create). An individual is rational and prefers order to chaos, both consciously and subconsciously (in much the same way that dreams, which are random bits of information or stimuli, are produced into dreams and are therefore not always open to analysis. (Sharpen 1968). An individual is motivated by his needs, attitudes and desires to do something which will be rational at the time. Hindsight may alter this, but it stresses the relativity of the act.

It is essential to note that-the importance is not in the positive method of rationalisation, but in both the positive and the negative. It is usual to talk in positive terms in normal discourse, but this does not, of course, preclude the use of the negative. Each positive has a corresponding negative. and therefore the use of the word rational, for instance, is not necessarily the positive one; a person can act in a negative rational way and the argument is still valid.

Although parts of the preceding discourse may seem idealistic, it must be appreciated that this is a basic structure not containing the sociological overtones of norms and values.

In society as a whole, the individual functions within a group (however this is defined--see later). An individual can also maintain his individuality in a group and providing there is communication, a group may be necessary for the person to maintain his individuality. He can use the terms of reference of the group to maintain this.
The need for communication to be the centre of group-making may be seen in the example of a deaf child, who will not find it easy to become a member of a group of normally-speaking individuals. Yet he might communicate to that group by his painting (through non-verbal communication, (see below). He will, of course, in one sense at least, fit into another group of deaf children because a special means of communication will develop. A normally speaking individual would, on the other hand, find difficulty in a reverse way. The individual is, therefore, the basic unit of the group and constitutes its structure. He is single and on his own; his predicament is the communicating of his Self to others.

WHAT IS A GROUP?

A group is a multiplicity of individuals from a dyad (two persons) to a hierarchal structure such as constitutes a society, held together by certain elements common to all groups. In a small group, individuality is high, whilst correspondingly, the larger the group the less the-individuality. The importance in the large group is the importance of sub-groups, as we shall see later.

TYPES OF GROUP

The word group is an abstract term and can be defined in as broad terms as necessary, for any purpose. Basically there are two types of group. The first is a classification of types. That is, Boy Scouts, Laundramat customers, skin-divers (in a general -sense). However, a Boy Scout living in Penzance is not aware of a Boy Scout living in Edinburgh, although they are classified in the group Boy Scouts.
The second type of group and the one that will concern us here, is the Functional Group. Such groups as families, or churchgoers or work groups. The individuals within it are aware of their group membership (Lindgren, An Introduction to Social Psychology 1973)

THE BEGINNINGS OF A GROUP

Groups start mainly by accident, but they can be formed by common consent (the idea of starting a camera club for example) or by external means (when you start a new job and you are introduced to your workmates).
In the first instance, to cite Lindgren's example, the college student in the refectory, with his cup of coffee has a choice of seats but sits down at a table previously occupied by another (there is the basic need for companionship initially). However, unless the two communicate, we could not in the functionalist sense, call them a group (in the non-functionalist sense they would constitute a group of College Students).

The other student may be reading a paper, which contains on the back page the story of a teacher at the college to be dismissed for some reason. If the intruder makes a comment about this and receives a favourable reply, then a group will have been formed. If an unfavourable reply is made, the communication between these two has broken down and a group would not be seen to take place, unless it is followed up by a discussion. This type of group is very common and is terminated as quickly as-it is begun. (There also seems to be some ethnic principle involved in group formation).

When a third person joins the group he will normally wait some time to gather what the conversation is about before speaking and will be the subordinate member of the group. Unless he has a particular contribution to make, he will always remain thus. If he becomes accepted by the group a fourth person joining will be the sub-ordinate member and so on. Thus, if the group becomes a sextet, even in a short while, some structure will appear in the group. Each member will be accepted on his merit and contribution to the whole and leads to initiation. Initiation is defined as the means by which a new member joins a group and may have to undergo certain rites. For example, in secret societies and even college groups and so forth.

PERSISTENCE OF THE GROUP

The main factors, to be discussed separately, leading to the persistence of the group are: cohesion, communication, the influence of the group on members perceptions, group morale and leadership.

COHESION

Cohesion is seen by Zindgren as "the extent to which a group is found attractive by its members". Groups that have a high cohesive factor have as members those who attain most satisfaction (correspondingly a breakdown would occur when one or more members did `not find continued satisfaction in the group). For-example, if a teacher were taking a group of individuals for violin lessons and the students got tired of continually playing scales, they would have lost the attraction of the group and their satisfaction-factor would be low, therefore the, group would break down.

The type of group such as the family (the Primary Group of C. H. Cooley) would have. a high degree of cohesiveness (but only providing the members continued to find it attractive). The types of group with a low degree of cohesiveness are groups such as a combat group (Lindgren's example). The combat group is formed by an external authority and therefore, unless a common ground (bond) is found by the individuals in that group, it will have a low cohesive factor. Other groups, such as the deep-sea fishermen, studied by Tunstall, would also fall into this category, since to some extent they are formed by an external authority, but the nature of the work is dangerous and therefore usually a bond is set up providing the later basis for cohesiveness.

In other words, a group formed by external sources (for example, the combat group or a work party) would have a lesser cohesive quality that the Primary Group such as the family, but common ground (for example, chance might determine that they are all camera fanatics) might later produce a cohesive quality. However, even this cohesive quality would not be permanent, since when the job is finished (for example the exercise is finished and the group split up, or the fishermen come home (to be signed on another ship probably not with the same fellows)) the bond is broken. However, supposing a work party were formed of six men. These men might have been picked from twenty individuals. An external agency (the foreman) has created a group, which, we shall say, has a specific job to do. When this job is finished, the men will split up again.

If the job is dangerous, the men will have to work together so that each is responsible to the other. The factor which will produce the cohesiveness will be danger. However, these six men may have another common ground which will come about perhaps during the lunch-breaks. They may have an interest in photography. After work, they may decide to start a camera club. So one bond can lead to another and even if the group eventually split up when their. specific task. is finished, the common bond of their club, also with its specific goal, will continue.
What else is important, especially in this example is that these men, having completed this one task, will be chosen again, if such a task is to be repeated. The fact that a cohesive bond of some description (i.e. it is found that the men work well together) is formed, especially in such a group is an important factor in management of such groups. Lindgren also points out that the more groups to which one belongs, the less cohesive are likely to be the bonds. Presumably, there is some sort of 'group conflict' where contributions to several groups may be mutually opposing. That is to say, a conflict may arise between the responsibility to the primary group (e.g. family) and responsibility to the group where one works.

COMMUNICATION

It is a major group requirement that some sort of communication be set up. For without communication no group can form. There would be no cohesive bond. The longevity of the group would depend on the extent to which communication is maintained. Two college students may discuss a teacher's dismissal from the college, but when this common ground is exhausted,. the group may cease to function unless another conversation is entered into. The formation of a specific group, for example, a camera club, would be a long-term idea and unless members left for one reason or another and were not replaced. the group would continue.

PERCEPTIONS

The influence of the group on other member's perceptions involves the maintenance and creation of norms within the group. When a group has been formed certain rights, values, and norms of behaviour become evident. A member is chastised when he ‘steps out of line'. This may be seen in union groups. It can also be seen as the reason for group disintegration and the creation of sub-groups depending on the original size of the group.
For example if two more students join our original dyad, we might find that the four split into two factions, two for and two against. In a broad sociological sense, deviants present a problem, although unless the group is very large, they are tolerated within democratic government. In Russia, for example, deviants are not tolerated and are treated harshly.

The institution of rules and accepted behaviour, therefore affects the perceptions of other members' because a certain conformity must be observed. Lodges in Masonry are an example of this.

MORALE

A feeling of confidence and optimism is important in a group and constitutes the morale of the group. A group must feel attractive to its members and a common goal must be seen or felt to be occurring. This adds to the cohesiveness of the group. The members must therefore feel commitment and responsibility towards the group and themselves as individuals within it. If there is mutual satisfaction within the group then it is possible for the group to endure. The morale thus produced, will be maintained as long as the individuals feel their part in it.

SOCIAL CLIMATE

A certain Social Climate is set up when a group is functioning positively.- This is determined by congeniality. Ralph V. Aline (1957) studied this aspect by placing two groups (previously given personality tests) in a situation where they were to discuss a counselee's case. One group was told that they belonged to a high congeniality group and the other group were told that they rated low on congeniality. After the discussion of the counselee the members of the groups were asked how they rated their fellows' behaviour in relation to the task. Those who came from the high congeniality group saw others from the same group as concerned with the counselee's case, whilst those form the low congeniality group saw their fellow's behaviour as more concerned with personal relationships within the group. The evidence shows that in a less congenial group, the task is made less interesting.

LEADERSHIP

"There are no born leaders, only born followers." (Sharpen, 1968). This statement always seems true to me and I have yet to determine its falsity.

We try and create leaders in society by careful selection or by the natural selection from the so-called (or self-called) blood-lines (traditional authority). This mainly concerns leaders in the broad sociological sense, and does not really concern us at this stage.

Leaders are created in the sense that in a dyadic group, it appears that one of the two will take the lead in a conversation. This may be a very subtle type of leadership and determined only by the fact that for example, one knows more about the story than the other. The leadership in this sense may fluctuate between one and the other.
A leader may be chosen in a specific manner. For example, a group of camera fanatics may enlist the aid of the local chemist, who not only has a knowledge of chemistry and photography, but has access to materials and equipment. He might be elected to lead them. This would not make him a good leader necessarily but these are factors which do not concern us at the present. A leader in other groups is 'chosen' by unconscious and mutual-agreement. Such a person may have a natural ability to voice the opinion of others. His charisma (personality) may be such that he commands authority. This concept is very important; and almost impossible to define.
"Everyone loves a winner" is almost a cliche. The winner is the leader, the best. Followers will therefore want to wear the same type of shirt he is wearing or use the same deodorant. Advertisers use this aspect to sell goods. Leaders in this field become fashionable and in a capitalist society exploited for every penny they can earn producers.

In society, broadly, the word leader has a singular definition and is based on traditional. authority, they are not really 'chosen’ by common consent (the basis of democracy since there are few alternatives). Again, in broad terms, leaders are therefore chosen by small groups within society because they are attractive to the members of the group. For example, a football hero, a painter, even, perhaps, a local politician.

Having chosen a leader by whatever method is used, leaders can be trained to act in certain ways to gain an idea into their effect on a group. Ralph K. White trained three boys (in a youth group) in the ways of leading by three different methods. Autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. He found that the first group had high work-orientated behaviour but low degree of personal involvement. The second, democratic group, had higher degrees of personal involvement but their work-orientation was lower. When the leader left the room, they continued to work on their own. The third group produced little work, were badly orientated and played about, especially when the leader left the room. This also happened with the autocratic group as well.

The laissez-faire leadership produced low morale and output and irresponsibility was high.The choice of a leader, therefore, especially for an authority, must be determined bar many factors, the least of which that leader reacts with his sub-ordinates.

The maintenance of the group is determined by the type of leader providing these formalities have been observed.

ROLES

The roles of the individual members within the group is important if the group is to endure. This is not so important in 'informal' groups (such as the two students at coffee-break) but is much more important in 'formal' groups, such as the family and groups within work and so forth.

Each member has a role to play and he must be attracted to the role he is playing. Generally, especially as the group gets larger, a type of hierarchy will develop. As mentioned before, there will be super-ordinate and sub-ordinate relationships. In real terms, a sort of meritocracy should develop and in the most successful groups, this will be the most cohesive factor. A greater or lesser meritocracy will produce the more successful or least successful groups. It may be a little idealistic, but nevertheless it remains true.

THE FUTURE OF LARGE GROUPS OR GROUPS in extendum

When a group becomes very large (the predicament of society as a whole) certain factors will produce a lack of cohesiveness. If the individual does not feel that his interests are being served by the group and he can find others of the same thought, then a break-away group or sub-group may be formed. If this group becomes large enough to affect the larger group it will then become a pressure group. The whole situation in regard to society is one of flexibility. Groups must be flexible to withstand the strain that is part of any group. We have seen that groups have a structure based on the personality of its individual members. This structure takes some form of hierarchy. A small group is easier to maintain, but depends on the initial reasons for its formation. In other words, a dyad of college students might break-up as the lesson bell is tolled, whereas an octal camera club would still be easy to maintain, but yet again, would last only as long as the other factors of group formation (cohesion, common-goal, attractive to members and so forth) are met.

We have also seen that the larger the group, the less individuality can be expressed and the more difficult to maintain. In a very large group, the rules become more authoritarian and more in number, to cover the contingencies that arise with large groups (especially in work-groups). The rules then satisfy the average member (determined by his contribution or lack of it; the overall morale of the group and the aims of the group and so on). However, the average member is not any, individual member, since the average is brought about by all individuals' conforming to certain criteria. No average member, therefore is individual in the context of the group.
In a completely democratic society, where each individual is supposed to have his say, it is not possible for him to voice his own opinion, since the individual is functionally an average member and being a function of the group any dissention from the norm would not be acceptable.

Democracy is the feeling that one is free to choose, without actually having that freedom. The dictates of the whole are too strong and there can never be a democracy with a minority ruling group.
The future of large groups, therefore must be determined by the action and reaction of the smaller groups within it. An appreciation that smaller groups (functional groups). make up the whole of society (by extrapolation a non-functional group) and constitute, society, is more important than considering society-as-a-whole, affecting smaller groups.

Groups must be viable within society and must remain, the structure of society, otherwise the danger of society becoming the omniscient god to which all bow by dint of totalitarianism, will destroy the image of man. In other words, society should be looked upon with a small 's' not the capital 'S' of a personification (Orwell's '1984' concept of the Big Brother). Careful use of terminology is, therefore, of the utmost importance in determining the nature of society.

The nature of society is the nature of the interaction of small groups. The nature of small groups is the interaction of individuals.

As groups become larger, as we said before, an organisational structure appears. It was this, about which Max Weber wrote when he put forward his theory of bureaucracy. As a theory set down on paper, it seemed valid, but his concept that a bureaucratic organization would be more efficient and the workers happiest in such a structure has tended to become invalid in practice and larger bureaucratic organisations have become less efficient and certainly workers do not always see the goal to which the organization aspires. In Ford Motor Company, for example, a man may be engaged in simply putting into a car, a component about which he knows not the origin or its purpose. Weber, it would appear, did not take into consideration the human element, not the interaction of groups.

Some aspects of groups in relation to work are discussed in The Hawthorne Study at, Western Electric in Chicago, Working, At Fords and others.

Mansur
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Mansur » Tue Jun 21, 2022 11:42 pm

Prescient wrote:
Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:41 pm
Mansur wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:55 am
Prescient wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:28 pm
"The women wear the trousers"
Ah, and that's literally true, - - -
The phrase was originally used for specific cases, - is it now used in a general sense?
Not sure on the cultural linguistics of the phrase, but my experience has shown that men who are partnered with women, She has the power. I've met men who are complete bastards and bullies at work but are completely pussy whipped at home. Some men I have met have said they have two bosses - one at work and one at home. Other instances include where men have said to me they come to work for a break! I use the word "men" - but in reality they rarely display the original qualities of a classical man. Thanks Tavistock et al. Oh and never forget: "The most expensive sex is when you don't pay for it" Oscar Wilde.
By 'literally' I meant to refer to fashion; the rather unfortunate fact that, at least for most of the year, women are only seen in trousers.

How this thing can be explained, I don't know, let those who have the strength to do so, go ahead. Our time is wanting of thinkers (maybe that is the most important feature) whose eyes and views we could borrow now and then. Fashion and its changes have not escaped the attention of the elder generations…

The other day (i.e. fifty years ago) someone said that if fashion did not exist, women would eat human flesh raw without knowing what they were doing.

Sorry, these are certainly not ‘family-friendly’ thoughts.
__________________________

What I had in mind a post earlier was that sexless (and rather ageless) amazon which seems the very real base of society today, - the ‘queen’ - who within her scope endures only submission unconditional – and there can possibly be no ‘Talmudic’ refinement of ruse that the creature couldn’t mobilize when it is about a possible violation of her queenship.

This woman does not create the home, but ensconces herself and is ineradicable. And into these blessed hands is entrusted not only the 'happiness of men', but the education of the whole of the next generation (and by extension the generation that follows) from the most tender age, through the teenagers, into youth and in most cases beyond, even if 'only' as a permanent influence from which there is little or no chance of escape.

It is not clear what forces have contributed to its creation, but the exploit seems to be entirely conscious and almost tangible.

And you cannot imagine a better demonstration in this matter than the present virus circus - (or any other ‘health care’ issue as to that).

(Funny you bring up Oscar Wilde; he now seems to be an idol and historical vindication* of gay propaganda, also called 'culture'; as if a vague hint of the direction of the 'real solution' to this issue, no?) (And by the way, women seem to be very pleased with the homosexuality of males.)
____________________________

* A few years ago he was officially released from charge as it were and he was offered an apology of his having been convicted (idiocy cannot be heightened more). (At least that is we can read in news.)

And, ‘while we are at it,’ homosexuality (if the word has any meaning at all and not a mere misnomer or oxymoron) means an anomaly or mental illness. If there are two individual of the same sex where there should be two of different sexes that is an anomaly and of the worst type (one’s own sex is the deepest point in one’s being); not that it couldn’t be cured with relatively easy methods but healing is something that must first of all be wanted.

I don't know if homosexuality has really increased or if it's simply louder ('gayer') than it used to be, but perhaps I'm not being overly Freudian if I think that homosexuality and the 'amazon' (mom or other influential being or beings in close environment) go hand in hand.

cooler1021
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 2:51 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by cooler1021 » Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:33 am

Dear folks. It is impossible to predict the future, but nevertheless I've tried to anticipate for what the next global psyop could be. We have all seen the fearmongering scenarios spread by the likes of the WEF in various published videos: A massive cyber-attack that disrupts the entire world, pandemic 2, climate change disasters and what not. But I noticed (and logically so if you listen to the extent of these "predicted" crises) that they almost always mention a disruption of the supply chain in these multiple crisis scenarios. Now I assume that people reading this forum are ofcourse known with Event-201, the simulated coronavirus pandemic in late 2019, and that the nutwork basically always runs simulations before they let them go 'live'. That's why I thought I should share this 'Global Food Security Game' I found today, run by the CNA back in 2015 (started on november 9th of all dates :rolleyes:). This could very well be what is upcoming for us sooner or later. Mind you, I dont want to spread any fear but I think we should take a look at this.



Notice how the woman at 6:23 says: "The new normal is volatility". Interesting jargon...

Here is a link to the article of this simulation: https://www.cna.org/reports/2015/food-c ... urity-game

Full report: https://www.cna.org/reports/2015/IQR-2015-U-012427.pdf

I also found this video about it: https://archive.org/details/food-chain- ... ews-report

antipodean
Member
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by antipodean » Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:11 am

Thanks cooler1021 for the above post very interesting.

I got reading https://www.cna.org/reports/2015/IQR-2015-U-012427.pdf from page 24 onwards.
The accurate prediction for today's economic climate is quite telling.

Maybe the Pandemic and the war in Ukraine is what has facilitated their premonition.
Now we have to brace ourselves for what ever it is that will be introduced via The Hegelian Dialectic.

Also CNA's wiki page pretty much shows how entwined they are with the nutwork.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNA_(nonprofit)

antipodean
Member
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by antipodean » Tue Jun 28, 2022 2:28 am

I've just found this on another Discord channel, someone speaking about the content in the above post.

https://discord.com/channels/6928421523 ... 2842344448

Post Reply