To all amazing and courageous researchers, I have a proposition for you.
While "Q" might be on hiatus -- the #FollowTheWhiteRabbit hashtag still has good steam. I propose we commandeer that steam for the children -- and get people looking at the deeper research you all have worked so hard to uncover over this last year.
We would need a team of memesters to begin drawing peoples attention to the monsters behind the monsters and the underlying connections and organizations you have found that hold them in place.
For instance, a meme of this picture of Clinton at the ICMEC launch (http://archive.is/irGDp)) with text like: "I helped found the ICMEC so I could meet (and blackmail) all my child-predator friends around the world" with a couple of comments and links under the tweet/post to get people questioning and lead them back to research here or other reliable sources.
In addition to photo-memes, we could use the white-rabbit-on-black-background template for questions, Q-style. But once again, our questions would be deeper than Q's -- reflecting the depth of the research you all have done -- and once again with comment/links that bring them back here or to other sound sources.
On a related note, we would need a couple of researchers to focus on compiling summary posts of what you all have learned over this past year. You've all been digging up nuggets and veins of gold -- I was astounded at what was already known here on /pizzagate when I researched ICMEC the other day -- and @ESOTERICshade was kind enough to unpack the summary post I made about it into easier-to-read format in the comments: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2262090.
Seems to me that when we begin to unfold and piece together all that you have already found, we'll kind of blossom/explode into the next level of powerful, and unleash meme-magic based on the Real Deal.
If there is enthusiasm for this idea, I'll to cross post this on 4chan and see if we can get the autists to join in the fun.
Comment with any and all ideas of what needs to be meme'd -- as well as any thoughts about how to make this a successful campaign.
Hat tip to @Lr2000, who got this ball rolling yesterday with this post: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2261740
view the rest of the comments →
finska ago
What about also capitalising on the Weinstein/hollywood #meetoo momentum with "Why is the LAPD badge covered in known pedophile symbols?"
finska ago
Or even better "Citizens demand the removal of known pedophile symbols from the LAPD badge"
Random101 ago
Citizens are not in a position to demand anything from their protectors.
chabon ago
Yeah. That's another thing that's al upside down and backwards, eh?
Random101 ago
It's mostly about expectations. If someone is protecting you from harm, then you're in no position to tell them how things should be done. Of course police/government can play other roles, for example entrenching the dependence of the citizenry in order to strengthen their own position.
chabon ago
The system we have in place is broken seventeen ways to Sunday -- there's a lot to sort out before we can even agree (as a society) what that simple phrase means to everyone.
Random101 ago
I agree that it's broken. Protection in society can be applied in different ways, with different strings attached. It can be as straightforward as a storm warning or as subtle as statement like "You need to (((do something)))". Need implies that a threat of some kind exists, and has a subtext in which the speaker is dominant. Protection implies a relationship of dominance, and this relationship can be beneficial or predatory.
chabon ago
While I agree that relationships in general can be beneficial or predatory, I don't agree that protection implies dominance. Like so many other words, dominance has many connotations and meanings. I am protective of my kids -- but I don't forcibly dominate or insist on control.
It's been my lived experience that LE was much more benevolently protective in my youth, and that it has become ... or is in the process of becoming ... something quite different in recent years.
Random101 ago
The dominance I'm speaking of relates to the cases in which the protection is effective. The effective protection of your kids involves threat assessment and taking action should you become aware of the existence of a real threat. You are dominant over your kids in that case because you are taking control of the situation to some degree if and when a threat arises. It doesn't mean that you dominate all areas of their lives, it's much more limited than that.
LE is directly related to the dominance paradigm because lawmakers are dominant over those who are bound by their law. Understanding the nature of the LE relationship involves knowing how law works at an ethical level and at a psychological level. Trust is a big part of this relationship, and trust is based on ethics rather than on power.
chabon ago
It's getting late for me to think deeply on complex topics :) but it's this quoted bit that I think we, as a society, need to re-evaluate. Public servant implies that law makers and enforcers are required to hold to the best and highest interest of those they serve. This has long not been the case, and it's been steadily worsening, while their capacity for physical and legal dominance grows all out of bounds.
Real trust can only grow in relationship, with known peoples. Ethics are a frail fall-back position once the relational terrain grows too large to handle interpersonally (i.e. beyond tribe).
Enjoying this conversation -- thank you for engaging.
Random101 ago
The other side of this idea relates to how a servant should be paid by a group. The benefit obtained by by individual members will vary, as will the contribution made by each member. When the contribution isn't aligned with the benefit the arrangement is unfair, and in this situation if coercion is applied to obtain payment then the arrangement is unjust.
The standard approach to this problem is to institute the idea of sovereignty, where the sovereign has the right to make laws. This idea fails when then only real quality of the notional sovereign is independence. Historically sovereignty was an expression of virtue and power.
It's a pleasure to talk to someone who is prepared to actively address the problem.
chabon ago
Agreed. I'd add that all coercion is counterproductive to a healthy society. The fundamentals of coercion, in their first gesture, wipe out true sovereignty. Power over others is introduced, then supported by increasingly vast legal frameworks -- all in the interest of that power accruing to an ever-diminishing few.
Every manner of weakening those the few would overpower is implemented and improved upon over generations: mal-education, mal-health care, disruption of the family, 'war' between the sexes, financial theft (through taxes and usury), fake political parties, increasing propagation of fear and outrage -- all done to isolate and weaken individuals intellectually, relationally, physically, materially.
I would say virtue and strength -- to distinguish it from power-over others. And this circles back around to the trust we spoke of last night: Where there is strength and virtue and enough interpersonal interaction to establish personal knowledge of mutual strength and virtue -- only then can there be true trust.
Everything we're doing right now as a 'society' is fiction built on meaningless words: democracy, republic, government, etc. None of it is based on what is real.
Random101 ago
In normal circumstances I'd agree that coercion is inconsistent with true sovereignty. Coercion has value as part of a strategy for survival, for example if parents were to force their children to get into a swimming pool when they knew that a forest file would burn their house down and they couldn't escape.
Blackstone (a renown 18th century jurist) described it as wisdom, goodness, and power. Power over others is meaningful when you face an adversary.
"In commerce, truth is sovereign" is a maxim of commercial law. Free market commerce respects truth as part of the process of making representations about the value of goods, services, and information. I agree that meaningless language is central to the problems faced by society today.