I agree that cops mistreating and harassing black people is a real phenomenon and a very real problem. However, I think that the two major police shooting incidents in the two days prior to the Dallas "shooting" were hoaxes, and I absolutely think they're tied into the Dallas hoax as part of a larger psyop that is seeking to stoke racial tensions or even start a race war (divide and conquer), de-legitimize the blacklivesmatter movement (which is itself a psyop meant to discredit or blackwash genuine protest against police brutality), legitimize the militarization of the police, condition us to permanent martial law AKA "lockdown," killer police robots, etc. etc.
If you see that and sense that, it could have been studied, put there, acknowledged or dismissed as part of the larger story, for sure.
I see it a little differently, but I don't think our views contrapose against each other. We have to examine the entire string of articles as people are meant to read them after
the most potentially traumatic articles have sunk in. Therein lies the direction of the firehose we are meant to follow after we are all properly stirred up and in the streets of our minds, even if we're not looking for an action but just seeking dialogue.
The military game is to take legitimate attempts at bridging communication gaps and turning them into action and reaction. In short, their answer is consistently something like, "We cannot deign to talk to you as people talk, so choose a form of military aggression that we can be useful at."
The BlackLivesMatter movement is an organization that does
discredit genuine protest, but the use of the passive voice in the words "is meant" does not address our forum members' mutual interest in the perpetrators and the reasons. Who means
to "discredit" the largely successful movement (which can be considered militarily successful not because it is a covered and monitored movement but because it has consistently resisted
being transformed into an actionable, non-dialogue centric movement)? Of course, if you don't want to engage in people with legitimate concerns and who have language about that, that's fine. I can understand how annoying youth and energy can be — how seemingly "out of control" and easy to manipulate. Yet, the dialogue in America about BlackLivesMatter (and the latest accoutrement
"we support our Muslim friends") is, aside from this latest derailment effort
an incredibly refreshing point of dialogue that was not covered by the media so much as latched onto with its meat hooks.
We saw very similar things with "Occupy WallStreet" which was the brainchild of legitimately concerned people and military intervention. Military intervention feels it must always try to be the rapist in charge of determining the offspring of populism and force. One of the first things that seems to happen with less successful populist uprisings is that the language is disrupted. There was a sort of agent provocateur
at one of the Occupy groups I would attend who would consistently disrupt complex discussions with pleas to find his missing articles of clothing. He was constantly dispensing with the conversation and jarringly forcing everyone to break discussion. The inexperienced group had not set up a system in place to vet these people because some portion was unaware that such people existed or that they might work for the alphabet agencies/channels to slow down dialogue and get their hooks into it. That's why it's quite critical when we talk about these things on CluesForum that people understand there are
agents trying to make their media into a national spectator sport, and movements that otherwise would be quite effective
get disrupted by apathy, frustration and dramas
created by provocateurs.
There is a "race war" already in place, in a sense, as I've been researching and writing about, and which we have been touching on here and there, (though occasionally with people like jumpy64 falling for the propaganda of one coalition or another). It appears to be between all major groups with power lust, but especially "Western Civilization"-lust, which needs to characterize some group as from a dramatically different Golden Age of noble inferiority. (Even if it's occasionally also the incredible culture of a competing imperial force.)
Let's see what articles have now come up lately.
Politics|Obama on Dallas: No Reprise of '60s Racial Strife
Cruz: Obama has 'inflamed' racial tensions - CNNPolitics.com
How the Dallas shooting was despicably spun into a race war
Mother Jones: Trump's Facebook Fans Call for Race War
Alex Jones: Will Race War Cancel Elections?
Slate: There Is a War Over Race in America But it’s not whites vs. blacks.
Number one Google term after typing "race" into the search engine: "Race War"
This is largely about the superficial discussion of race, for sure, but also Obama, destroying/infecting/controlling the legacy of "The First Black President" (besides Bill Clinton) and using that figurehead symbol to control dialogue about race, as Obama heads out of office and we are stuck looking head on at two corrupted White fools vying for the next position. With attention on Obama, they can direct everyone to what I suspect is the main drama here, even directly from his latest designed and prepared statements for these events:
"There is a racial issue" vs. "There is not a racial issue"
The outcome, in general, is going to be the 'leftists' trying to swing the talks to integration and the 'nationalists' trying to swing the talks to immigration. In short, this seems to be a deliberate attempt to dissolve the dialogue
by taking over BlackLivesMatter with a drama, then cleanly and logistically eliminating it from the public dialogue under the weight of their PsyOps. There is something deeply racist about the affront, but it is hidden behind the White Fragility of a "political correctness" which seeks to always address matters under authoritative texts, stories and agendas.
To me, what this super-dialogue screams out (even while masking itself as "confusion" and "disarray" that "could start a race war") is a kind of "Endgame" against the fragility of America at this point. Probably by Jewish/Zionists/City of London/EU/UN/NATO that is dishonestly
pointing out the superiority of "Western Civilization" over "disorderly" undeserving brown people that only fit into life by fitting into the dominant system of the super polis
I am certain that there are some "loyal" (to people) government employees made impotent by the corrupt
government and who are doing something to seed questions to people and poll them through the news and through measured reaction for good reason; they may think that by bringing a story or movement to national attention (as the military no doubt takes over, blinds and misleads the leadership of the movement) that they are running democracy, but the artificial "nation" is very large and this is their pathetic strategy rather than coming clean, blowing the whistle on the military intervention and cronyism, etc. I think even these well-meaning people might be deeply racist on the same level: super-State government must exist so that the military can continue its insecurity protocols against nature, sovereign people, etc.
BlackLivesMatter is just one more example of a brand developed by average people with some
interest in a kind of national power that has been turned against itself in order to prevent
large and necessary systemic changes. During constant discussions with people of these movements (let's face it, many of them are my dear friends) I am so frequently floored by the ignorance they demonstrate when I explain there are agents co-opting the movements that they have to be aware of. They understand the concept, but have no idea how to implement a vetting procedure that rids them of psychopaths. The obsessions with celebrity continue to creep in and invade and self-derail the movements. This is a weakness, like Simon points out the weakness in our visual judgement, in our deliberately numbed faculties. People-loving people don't want the responsibility of vetting people.
There was real hope in BlackLivesMatter, as people had slowly, painfully re-learned the trust in a political populist feeling
, learned new trust in each other, unpolluted by big media. But once more, a few PsyOps sprinkled here and there quickly took over the discussion again
To me, the major portion of the PsyOps we see from World War I through World War II through the War on Terrorism (and ongoing into what may be another abortive iteration of the constantly threatened World War III) is all
about controlling and hijacking the human imagination for dialogue
. (This is one of the reasons why I find television SitComs and Hollywood scripts so insidious and reiterative a control mechanism, but that's a discussion for another topic.)
On a smaller level, I think there are some other activities going on. There may be, for example, the anti-Constitution movement (that is being used by the powers that be) that wishes to disrupt and force changes in all laws and safeguards against bad governance, and one of them will have us all clamoring for a third term for Obama, or bemoaning that Obama could not get a third term. The effect on Europeans I know (besides those especially intelligent friends that can look more skeptically at the whole "campaign" in America) is that "Obama has his hands tied!
" and "His job is so hard, though he wants to do good.
" and they seem nervous about America's next leader rather than their own leaders, which is a bit befuddling (not because it doesn't make sense if explained, but there is a communication gap between Euro and American Western thought caused by mutual superiority complexes and misunderstandings about each other's systems in the general populace; on the American side, many "average" America-centric American folks say: why does Europe have any business caring what happens here?
However, the main thing I see in addition to all those points about creating micro-dramas which you brought up, is to take from the people their right to run their own discussions and therefore to create and manage government in everyone's interest. The military cults can't seem to turn themselves off when there is peace. And when there really is
a deep racism in government that manifests as cultural disagreements, those are going to be pitted against each other on all levels. We don't have to buy into it.