It's just a matter of days, now...

page: 7
84
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by georgemoseleylander
 


It's not stupid to be a non-conformist.

But like I said, too much emphasis on the French Revolution, but you are complete right about college degrees being used as a new form of aristocracy. It doesn't take brains to get a college degree, just the willingness to bend over and take it from behind when so directed.




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Herr,
I find your whole concept intriguing, yet very scary. Sorry if you've been asked this already but after 2 pages I had to respond...Why do you feel this is so imminent? Are you familiar with Bruce Buena De Mesquita? Your ideas put me in mind of him. Thank you for a great thread



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Please,,,,, Not puppies !!!!



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by herrw
 


Nicely written but one question. At what number of days - with no sign of what you foretell will you come to the conclusion that your equations are not predicitve?



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by herrw
 


herrw, you are very smart and I agree with you that decay of the US (anyway) is inevitable. Of course I agree with some of the others, that we have a little more time left. Reason being that we have a few more good people still left who provide what I call "common grace."
How to change the human mind though? Even trying to improve my own thoughts I find resistance. In a sense, just because of psychology a disaster is coming.
Power and the seeking of personal peace is to blame I think. Might is right is another one of our colloquial moral mistakes. (I agree with the middle east, we do think that way.)It's not time yet though, I don't think, though we would say in my faith "The Lord Tarries." I think we are in end times which are the result of constant rebellion.
Stay cool.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
If human nature was that easy to predict the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.
Study women.
Once you have them figured out let me know and we'll take over the world.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by herrw
I feel as if I should explain the relationship of some of the variables in the equation, now that I've found a way to share it.

d is an important variable, when you consider its relationship to everything else. Given enough time, the most mediocre of threats can escalate into a huge panic. As time reduces to the point where the threat is realized, the strength of the threat increases (d is a negative value until it reaches 0, or the present, which causes the equation to transform as the threat becomes infinitely real). Once the threat has passed, it remains an effect on society until enough time has passed to reduce it's influence to near nothing. Such was the case with the attacks on the World Trade Center (not trying to open a debate on their cause here... just looking at their effect). Immediately after the attacks, the United States was fairly unified in thought and emotion. It was not until weeks later that the mental unity devolved enough that our reactions might be questioned. Months were required to really generate interest in a 9/11 truth movement.

The nature of the threat does not matter, except in the way that responses are directed. Hunger threats tend to make us want to change the way that we rely on our food. Translated to large groups, that becomes a revolutionary tendency, or a rejection of current leadership. We blame the people in charge, because we trusted them to make sure we could feed ourselves. Security threats tend to result in armed resistance. Yes, a hunger threat may evolve into a security threat (say, marauding gangs of thugs) but then it becomes both a hunger threat and a security threat, rather than one or the other. The two are separated for clarity. Energy threats (real or implied) tend to involve the ability to achieve the staples of life (access to communication/internet is a fine example, as is access to fuel and access to electricity). These tend to result in industry. Finally, Moral threats involve any ideal or dogma which is threatened from any quarter. This includes liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, and holy-isis-the-aliens-are-attacking-ism. Moral threats generate responses of expulsion and, given the percieved severity of the threat, murder. Executions for offending Allah, or excommunication for violations of church dogma would be excellent examples.

Prestige is a directing influence which is afforded in varying degrees to individuals. These individuals will be either internal leadership or external leadership. Internal leadership tends to be of the more populist variety, while external leadership tends to be of the more 'star chamber' variety. Internal leaders are generally very good at generating sentiment, but poor at planning future activities. External leadership tends to keep an eye to the future regardless of what effect it might have on any specific individual.

Consideration of the tendency towards action for a given nature of threat helps determine likely outcome. Disagreement with my segmentation is welcome, although I might humbly request historical examples which support the argument. I love being wrong. It means that I get to be right in the future.


Let's see here. Security threats invite unity and cooperation. Hunger threats invite a negative response to authority, and leadership. Moral threats are worst of all. If I'm in charge, I think the security threat makes sense. Not to make a leap here but, Security threat might be terrorism. Hunger threat jobs. Moral threat abortion. Now bear with me on this. There are true believers who will not abide murder and must intervene. But I may be wrong in assigning any importance to these threats other than as examples.


Internal leadership, external leadership. Internal those we see and somewhat know. The ones we identify, and with whom we identify. External, those watching with a view of the bib picture, leading unencumbered by any real concern for the plight of any special interest like you our me. Oh yeah, we need these guys. And finally you sum it up,

" Consideration of the tendency towards action for a given nature of threat helps determine likely outcome."

I'm sold. Now you got to tell me why you use the word imminent.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I'll try your book, looks really interesting.
Good thread. I've gotten lulled into a false sense of security after expecting this crash for so long...and it not happening. I'm not feeling the doom atm, but it won't be a shock if you are right. Maybe I should go get some water etc.
edit on 24-10-2012 by Pilot because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by okyouwin
 


I apologize to everyone for my absence from this thread. I've been working like crazy--making hay while the sun still shines, as it were.

A lot of people have asked why I consider the threat imminent (in this case, before the elections).

It is because of a number of factors.

1. As -d shrinks towards 0 (i.e., the time til the election shortens), the effect of time upon mental unity increases exponentially. Everyone knows that the economy is going to tank hard, even the uninformed. This makes the hunger threat very real.

2. Priinciple of Inversion. As mental unity increases, abstractions tend to be treated as concrete, while concrete objects devolve to the status of abstraction. This is directly out of The Collective, where I expound on it at length. Since I've offered it free in an earlier post to all the thread readers (available as a preview download), I won't go into detail on why it is that way right now. You can either look it up, or just take my word for it. Personally, I'd look it up. In this case, the Principle of Inversion means that any crash has and will continue to be already a concrete occurrence for those who are under the influence of Mental Unity. As I have shown, the percentage of the population will continue to grow as we approach Nov. 6.

3. Narcissism. I have dealt with borderline narcissistic personalities too many times in the past not to be able to spot one when it's in charge, and right now we have a narcissist in charge. His need to be loved outstrips everything else in his field of vision, often alienating those closest to him. He will treat personal relationships as conquests, losing interest once the conquest is complete. But most dangerous for us, he will react violently and angrily to anyone who dares to suggest that he is not loved. It is a rejection of his trust in his own demi-divinity. To this end, we will get an example of 'you won't have Richard Nixon to kick around any more!' except it will come from a standing official.

4. Security Threat: we are being bombarded with abstract images of threats to our security. These abstractions become real to those who are under the influence of Mental Unity. This is why many simply accept the TSA rather than forcibly reject the imposition on their rights to privacy.

5. Moral threat: This is tougher to understand, but I'll try to explain. A moral threat is more than something which offends one's relationship with God, although that too is a strong moral threat (with the Prestige of God driving it on). The Machine treats everything as a moral threat. Everything. The Morality of The Machine is such that any objection to its total control of everything within its field of vision is a threat to its continued existence. Lack of control means death. So all moral threats must be nutralized and destroyed.

If this election is not unduly close (and I think it will be a landslide against Obama because of the state of the economy) then I expect The Machine to grind into action and perform examples of 'self-hurt'. We should sympathize with the beleaguered individual. When this doesn't work, The Machine will follow SOP and will try giving its prospective underlings everything that they want. In short, the spigot opens and the money flows as fast as the machine can push it. That's the beginning of the end.

Mental Unity is high right now, but not high enough. This equation is constantly changing. I could easily be wrong about the timing. I could easily be wrong about the nature of The Machine. I do not believe that I am wrong about the equation, however, and the equation points towards a tipping point before the elections.

I am currently plugged into the CNN as an observer (I remain neutral). I am currently plugged into the TOG as a sympathizer (although I retain distance for neutrality). I am currently plugged into The Machine as a fellow cog in it's activities (as a contractor). I get to see all of it from a very unique vantage. I also get to watch it without being absorbed by any or all of the collectives. My neutrality gives me distance and clarity.

This is going to happen. If my timing is off, it gets worse. Why? Look at the equations. When d=0, the equation changes. The threat becomes reality, even if the threat doesn't exist. That reality converts into an Ideal, which becomes the driving factor for the affected collective. If Obama is reelected, The Machine clamps down hard and fast. If Romney is elected, Obama has a couple months to either scorch the earth or to allow his followers to explode in moral outrage. Either way this election goes, it goes badly.

On the bright side, after the conflagration hits at least time will start to count up. Once that begins, mental unity can begin to decrease and sanity can take over.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


If I am wrong, and I accept that possibility as being very real, it means that I have made an error either in a) the nature of the equations or b) the nature of the variables, or c) both. It means that I need to go back and reevaluate them.

They work well with historical data. They were not meant to be predictive, but ended up being that way.

When the science of meteorology began, it wasn't very good at predicting weather. However, we didn't tell the fledgling science "you suck, your predictions were wrong so you need to go crawl under a rock." I would not expect the same consideration in this case.

If I'm wrong, feel free to call me any number of names. I'm a big boy, and I can take it. In the meantime, if that is the eventuality, I'll be working hard to update and correct inconsistencies.

I happened on the equations by chance, rather by mistake. I was trying to account for why they weren't working the way they should. When I moved to the triple collective model, they made infinite sense. It wasn't until I asked myself 'so what does this mean' that things really took this sinister turn.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope, come the beginning of December, that I can say 'well, guys, I guess I have a lot of work to do. Sorry if I scared you needlessly.' I don't believe that will be the case.

Keep in mind, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I have to be right three times in a row to even begin to consider the equations as absolutely valid. I'm prepared to eat crow if I have to.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
If human nature was that easy to predict the divorce rate wouldn't be so high.
Study women.
Once you have them figured out let me know and we'll take over the world.


What an interesting possibility. If we consider that women are members of a gender collective, we could find the commonalities which lend personality to their collective intellect and predict its actions with some semblance of success. I do not doubt that somewhere someone has done just that. I wouldn't help you get a date, but it would definitely help you generate sympathetic support from women in general... I should give some time to that.

Scratch that. I don't want to know why my wife doesn't kill me. I'll just continue to believe that it's the effect of repeated brain damage brought on by being in my presence too long.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by herrw

Hunger threats result in a tendency for revolution.


I agree with the other two, but not this one unless things really change for the worst. It is suggested that the daily calorie diet needs to drop below 800 in a society for this to happen...we got a long way to go before we even come close to that.


A Hunger Threat is not generated by hunger. It is generated by the possibility (real or imagined) that a standard of living might change for the worse. For the rich man, a loss of $1 Million might mean nothing, but the prospect of that loss will be treated as an existential crisis. For a poor man, the threat of losing his assistance might or might not be real. However he cannot afford to risk the loss, so there is more danger in inaction than in action. It's all relative. Hunger threats are relative to one's percieved comparative status within Maslow's Heirarchy of Motivation.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by georgemoseleylander
 


Your allusion to the French Revolution is ironic, but accurate. Gustave LeBon lived through the French Revolution, and it was his insights into the nature of Crowd Psychology which most greatly impacted my own work. Your insight is impressive.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilot
I'll try your book, looks really interesting.
Good thread. I've gotten lulled into a false sense of security after expecting this crash for so long...and it not happening. I'm not feeling the doom atm, but it won't be a shock if you are right. Maybe I should go get some water etc.
edit on 24-10-2012 by Pilot because: (no reason given)


Thank you, I hope you find it worthwhile. As to stocking up, well, there is no downside to being prepared, long term. The downside to not being prepared is conditional, but rather striking. Your choice. I, however, choose to remain prepared.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by herrw
 

herrw, I have been reading your book and find it fascinating.

Regarding your feelings about the aftermath of the elections, have you seen the number of people, most likely receiving government assistance, who have vowed on Twitter to riot if the election is not won by Obama? This seems to corroborate your fears. Even if most of these people do not really mean it right now it shows that the idea is out there, and the "Law of Contagion" means that if only a few act on it initially the rest are primed to join in.

twitchy.com...
edit on 26-10-2012 by blacksuit99251 because: repeating same word too much



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by blacksuit99251
reply to post by herrw
 

herrw, I have been reading your book and find it fascinating.

Regarding your feelings about the aftermath of the elections, have you seen the number of people, most likely receiving government assistance, who have vowed on Twitter to riot if the election is not won by Obama? This seems to corroborate your fears. Even if most of these people do not really mean it right now it shows that the idea is out there, and the "Law of Contagion" means that if only a few act on it initially the rest are primed to join in.

twitchy.com...
edit on 26-10-2012 by blacksuit99251 because: repeating same word too much


the progression follows along the following lines:

1) group A starts riot.
2) group B sees riot happen.
3) Group A gets lots of attention.
4) Group B adds its numbers to group A, and begins its own riot.

That is how these kinds of action oriented movements progress. After each successful action the movement gains prestige and their numbers double.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by herrw
 


Seriously dude, you didn't see my post pointing out that your research is mainly based on the French revolution?

2008 is a lot like 1928, except the collapse came before the election. So Romney didn't get elected, they got Obama elected instead. They want Obama to be the new Hoover and dream Romney will be the new Roosevelt, but that ain't gonna happen, as much as you wish it would.

Still don't want to look at what happened in Cuba?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by herrw
 


www.jfki.fu-berlin.de...

The above carefully explains how the Global Government ideal was 'Globalisation'. Fine for those who understand such, But it then explains how such such plans Orifinated around 1880, and went on to become the key to WW1.

I too am woried about what is really happening today, what sort of a Future is oncoming for growing youngsters,,,,such as our Grandchildren for instance ???

I dug out - or have tried to find - multiple info prior to two previous World Wars. Even names such as J.P.Morgan are mentioned when it comes to Financial crisis etc. before and during WW1.

WW2, if Wall Street happened to crash - 1929 - and if all global countries fell into Debt,/ Depression, - as at present -, then how come it was Germany who suddenly found enough Cash to re-build their Military and march us into WW2 ? Check-out info regards Concentration Camps. You will how when the Olympics were held in Germany (1936) there were no signs of Homeless / Deprived citizens upon the streets of Germany. They had all been arrested and were sent off to such Concentration camps. Dachau, Mauthausen, etc. and such means of getting rid of penniless citizens started to Grow across such a Nazi nation.

55,000,000 were killed during World War 2, and the Majority happened to be Unarmed, still at home Civilian Citizens. History does explain all, yet today it seems that History books are disapperaring.

So what does towmorrow hold for us ???????????????????



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by steaming
 


Interesting looking article. Haven't the time to read yet. You sir (or Mam) have a clue.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Just to quickly reply to Steaming and Poet1b:

I try not to focus on causes in my studies. I agree that causes are important, but if I focus on the causes rather than the actions and reactions which contribute to the interactions of collectives, I start treading a very dangerous path. Once a cause has been identified (or appears to be identified) a value is assigned to it. Did it have a positive effect? Did it result in a gain or loss of power? Regardless of its outcome, some positive or negative value is associated with the 'cause' and from there it colors all of my observations.

Rather, I try to watch only the surface actions of large groups. I am finding that regardless of motivations or origins, and indeed regardless of how well such things might be hidden from public view, if I carefully watch the results in the action of the affected collectives I can trace the influences. I don't need to guess--the people who are affected will tell me more surely than any pile of records.

Poet1b, you are correct that my studies originate from the French Revolution, as they derive from the original work of Gustave LeBon, who lived through the French Revolution. He did the initial work, published, and never lived to see his work put into practice by the most despotic rulers of our century. Small blessing, that.





new topics
top topics
 
84
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join