I gave it a few days and wrote my thoughts on the CAF interview where Craig posted it. I thought I'd get the subject started here for a more "no holds barred" non-public discussion of what others thought of it. The interview reminded me of what I like about her views and what I find lacking in them. It was particularly helpful in clarifying for me that much of her vision of the future is based on the "high tech secret breakaway civilization" theme - at its foundation. I guess, in the past, I discounted the weight she assigns to this.
She frustrates the heck out of me! She is very bright, articulate and can describe to a tee what it is like to be stalked by our own governmental services, so in her old videos and papers she is definitely telling the truth, despite what others might say. They tried to poison her, and she had the tests to prove it. They froze her bank accounts to prove they could. She says she decided "This can't go on forever, or she will end up dead". So the elephant in the room question is "What did she compromise on, so that they leave her alone?" What is left that is authentic and what is "moderated".
Is she discussing far fetched items like a "break away civilization" to intentionally NOT be perceived as serious by the mass media; i.e. she is allowed to continue as long as she only attracts a niche following...you know the ones that used to read The Star in the checkout counter at the grocery store "When rainbow aliens ate my jello" sort of folks? You see, is she allowed to talk only as long as she can EASILY be discredited in the formal media at any time?
I have noticed in interviews she used to really attack the control mechanisms in place, but now her stance is more "we have to learn to live WITH them and thrive despite THEM". Really I just want to know, what did she do to make all the harassment stop, what was the carrot she offered and how are her real views "modified" because of this tradeoff?
She states she can't trace the money no matter how hard she tries. I am not sure I believe the entirety of that statement. She has a pretty good idea of how the money flows, it was here job to know that! But she wouldn't necessarily have had access to all the private funding, and that is where her money trail might end.
But is even this hollow, we have SWIFT, ultimately we know where most money goes, even drug money that comes into the system for laundering can easily be tracked down, if we so desired. But we don't. It seems to be more about the government doesn't like competition. But did she in her official capacity have access to all SWIFT, or just the governmental funds? And would she be dead if she did have access and admitted it? Personally, I think the last statement is closer to the truth than her "I just don't know, I just can't figure it out" stance.
Sorry not to be of more help on the break away civilization, my interest is more in the "what in the world are our criminal government types up to lately?" When there is corruption I have the hope for change to justice, to adhere to our Constitution, that we can work our way back into civility, truth, and ethics. Change got us where we are, how do we change back? Can we, as a nation, remain whole, and get back our integrity and ethics?
Making the populous see there has been change and the degree of detriment to our society is mystifyingly difficult; I think folks just want to believe in the fantasy, they don't want to pick up the rug for fear of the bag of bones they might find under it...but every day they know they are stepping on lumps and bumps and pretending it's normal.
I do think there is potential for a break away civilization and I posted about this in DOTS, Dr Sam Semir (I believe is his name, this was a couple months ago) is doing archeological digs and unearthing amazing discoveries with building components we still don't have today. Some of these pyramids are in the US and are covered up. But when I brought this up there was no serious discussion allowed, I was attacked (yet again), belittled (yet again), and while I was gone not a single poster said "Hey, wait a minute, that is Not what was said!" So I figured, "why waste my time" and never even bothered to put together a response. You know how hot the topic is by the number of folks slamming you, it signals it is sensitive information. Sometimes people on the forums are easily led offtrack by big words, circular cotton candy thought processes that intentionally say alot, but don't really say anything. Most folks don't say "what did I learn? what is my take away? what is my next action because of the new info?" We have morphed into a "just entertain me and can't we all just get along" society. So the tough questions frequently aren't delved into to a greater depth, surface learning is all that is desired. And if the reader is led astray, I just don't think they care. Identifying emotionally with the writer becomes much more important than facts...folks are drawn to the drama and walked quickly away from the sensitive facts, never having realized they just put a brand new set of blinders on!
Well that is all the thoughts for now, have a great day and be well.
Not getting hooked by "the story" and instead taking away the facts for cold appraisal isn't easy.
I like occasionally to listen to political speech makers of various countries and politics to observe the structure or construction of their speeches, as opposed to their content. Their speechwriters use different techniques together like Lego building blocks. Joe the Plumber, or Jack and Jill and their life story, or whatever. I have found it helpful, for me, to notice realtime when these particular tricks or techiques are being used to attempt to reel me in. MLK was a master at it, far better than any of those he opposed, cadence, rising and falling tone, visualization, invitation to join his world, so much he used so consummately. He made an idea, and gave it reality, and put it in the heads of his followers.
As regards DOTS emotional content, it goes into orbit when inflections for the price of gold arrive. Quite an indicator.