Security state apparatus - concern between two friends

interconnecting dialogs
interconnecting dialogs

There are times in every observer's work when one takes a proverbial thermometer and pokes it into the proverbial soup to see what the temperature vs the boiling point of our state happens to be. Those of us who wander the back halls do this from time to time. Alot of our internal dialogs, meaning the rarely publicized ones, are basically this temperature checking. We'll make analysis commentary which more resembles small talk in the course of touching base with each other, but there is meat to be seen there if you listen often enough to be cognizant of the flow of thoughts, opinions, and ideas.

Often for people like myself there are dry periods in which I don't write much. This is mostly due to being unable to share what I'm doing or what I've been party to conversationally because so much of it is confidential. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to. Whenever I speak I have to weigh carefully what I can say, who I can reference, in what venue I can speak, and if so how can it be couched. Then I have to have a reasonable purpose for speaking. If there is no one with an interest or if it would fall on ears that would only misinterpret or use it in a negative rather than thoughtful way, then there really isn't any point in speaking.

I have a friend with whom I share a mutual concern about the disconnect between the general public and the real governing powers. Part of that mutual concern is how uneducated the public is in regards to how governance currently is accomplished. Most of the general public think governance involves voting, elected bodies, representatives, and special interests. Well that's like the celophane wrap around that pot roast in your fridge waiting for that picnic you've been meaning to get to but just can't find enough value in to attend. So let's see how good you are at reading between my lines.

Just today my friend and I shared a few comments, mostly filled with a layer of silent frustration about public awareness and capacity to understand their predicament. Let's give him a name of "Gus" for the sake of making this article a little more personable.


Gus on manchurian candidate

In the exopolitical end of our paradigm we are routinely familiar with how governances utilizes plausible deniability to maintain secrecy in the open. Left hand says 'you are mistaken' in a syrup'y voice whilst the right hand laughs at the fact you aren't in the decision making loop and are thereby powerless to do anything in its opinion and so it doesn't even have to say one way or the other just keeps on trucking.

Gus pointed at one of the pink elephants and stated this morning, "Once Denial Plausibility is no longer capable what then???? Isn't it enough that we have a proven forgery before us that suggests POTUS was born in Hawaii .... and now there seems so much more to this story of the real Manchurian Candidtate !!!!!!"

My reply wasn't much more than we've known for a year or so. Big events require alot of preparation and the system's right people in the places they want them in, to do this or that. And I never even specify the circumstances involved here because we're way ahead of that.

I said, "that's the key question I think we all have. I've been hearing repeatedly through the proverbial grapevine that there is a plan to keep him in office one more term no matter what, so that he can complete the tasks set for him. There's a heck of a thought because he's doing a great job tearing the country apart and making a laughing stock of all governance. Where people didn't trust government before now they outright loath it for its corruption, disdain of the constitution, depopulation policies, endless war making, and the belligerance it holds toward our own people in the name of 'protecting' us. Who needs enemies with friends like this?

I think it's doing a great job of illustrating just how apathetic and incompetant the public has become. We can't seem to work collectively together to put the crooks in their place with one big boot. Those with the most desire are too broke or too wrapped up in other matters. Those who are well off seem to not have enough impetus or awareness to know just how close to the cliff edge they are....and others are simply too socially mind controlled to do anything but snear at those who can see with discomforture that we're in one heck of a mess.

I think the biggest thing this society needs is some way to come to an understanding they don't need and should not have any government or governance with a public mandate (real or proverbial) to 'protect' them from anything. Government and governance is a tool for the use of the people or collective portions of the people to accomplish work that is important to the collective. One small sector of the population has perfected control and utilage of it, whilst the rest are left to flounder and suffer beneath it, because control and influence has been removed from their grasp via the "security state apparatus". Most can't even recognize the "security state apparatus" let alone specify when or how it operates. And if they can't do that then they certainly can't identify the food chain...so what does that make them? Victims."

Explanations

For the benefit of new or less frequent readers of mine, I'll just reiterate a few things I've insinuated in past writings. Ignorance means that you're not actually a beneficiary of any system. That's because in ignorance you're only along for the ride or a fixture in the environment around which everything that is not ignorance related moves. To be ignornant makes one potentially collateral damage to someone who is not ignorant's purposes and actions. Ignorance is an adjustable or correctable state.

So having identified a pink elephant is never enough. One must be influential or more than a fixture in the system to get the left and right hand to respond in ways that have an effect with regards to any pink elephant. This generally involves desire, intent, planning, purpose, type of action, and position from which actions move out on their course. We also need to understand that sometimes one pink elephant is a doorway or consequence of other pink elephants. Elephants usually travel in herds. And there are levels of ignorance...one can be non-ignorant enough to garner a response from the left and right hand of power but still too ignorant to control the outcome. Meanwhile power is still ten steps ahead. So one could surmise that not only collective determination, an adequate level of non-ignorance, AND a necessary and effective degree of urgency must be present in the equation of any would-be influence to not only cause an alteration in the left and right hand but to control effectively with purpose and achieve intended result.

So here's the question can you value that there is more to governance than the celophane and can the general public pay enough homage to the importance of observing, demanding clarity and understanding of the 'security state apparatus' to come to terms with how governance is done? Can they put together a long enough attention span? Can they correlate pieces of its history to see intents and actions? Understanding and recognition always precedes any attempt at influence and control.

This is my answer to those who howl at the enigma and want the details. The mistakes of the past by the interested public have primarily a great deal to do what I've pointed out above. Misunderstandings about system enigma details compound the problem of how you react to those primary enigma details. You aren't ready for the details because you don't understand yet your world. From the system inhabitants point of view, the system has enough of its own problems just yet without adding public system ignorance to the mix...this is why we have a vicious circle preventing the advent of open dialog on the topic. The ball is in the public court but the public hasn't done its own homework yet. You have to prove you didn't cheat on the exam to get the A in class. To do that you first have to study for the exam and publish your class notes.

It's all suggestions. No one has to do anything it's all being decided for you...but the voices in the assigned 'ome indicate they wish to be included so a sign post has been set to lend direction.

More by this Author


Comments 8 comments

Cyrellys profile image

Cyrellys 4 years ago from Montana Author

Agreed. And too few are identifying the security state apparatus activity. Like what happened in Colorado recently with regards to an event that may have been designed to ensure the UN Treaty gets signed. Check out this pdf before it disappears http://info.publicintelligence.net/DHS-FBI-Theater... We have many things like this where what their internal options are get broadcast in their own documents. And what good does it do any of us when reason and logic are comedy for 60+% of the population who know little to nothing about the system?


Dr Billy Kidd profile image

Dr Billy Kidd 4 years ago from Sydney, Australia

I've learned a lot here at HubPages.com. Some of the folks who previously seemed a little loony are not. They simply have different facts. And they are concerned as much as me about the future of the U.S.

The problem is what you said before, when one central system controls both sides of the facts and the candidates and what the discussion will be about, then there is no free will at play in the voting process.


Cyrellys profile image

Cyrellys 4 years ago from Montana Author

These are the things that happen under soft tyranny when we fail to speak out, work together, come to each other's rescue, or fail to create balancing factors:

Oregon Man Sentenced to 30 Days in Jail for Collecting Rainwater on HIS Property

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/oregon-man-sentenc...

and

Public vigil red alert: Raw milk advocate James Stewart seized by armed bounty hunters driving unmarked vehicles with no plates

http://www.naturalnews.com/036611_James_Stewart_Bo...

They pick us off one by one. Any excuse will suffice.

Where will the celophane inhabitants be when those brave enough, strong enough, motivated enough to stand, speak, or to act are gone? Will we wish we had been more receptive to those who were willing to outreach? Will we wish we had responded with less cynicism? Will we wish we had not walked away in the face of our failures?


Dr Billy Kidd profile image

Dr Billy Kidd 4 years ago from Sydney, Australia

Brilliant statment: There is no answer for them when all the options are provided by the same system.

Regarding speaking out: When I was at a government agency, I had these choices: cover my supervisor's behind; do not criticize the agency; do not intervene when some other person not under my supervision is about to blow 75% of the IT budget; do not make friends with colleagues because the supervisor may force them to tell them about your personal life; accept that the chair of the department was a political appointee and a real, nasty fighter, who you would not speak to, but only nod approval, even when he was totally wrong and people's lives might depend on fixing the probem.

Now. One peron spoke out while I was there and his position was eliminated (not fired, just eliminated). Others just quit and moved on. I finally did to.

So, I do not have confidence that those in the middle who want to reach out to others will. Like you said, you could lose everything you have.

And, this is why empires slowly go downhill, one small step at a time.


Cyrellys profile image

Cyrellys 4 years ago from Montana Author

Hi Jim, I think you missed about 80% of what I meant in the article. This has nothing to do with voting unless you still think celophane can lance the moving parts of a rock. But the masses will have what they need to know about voting come Novemeber. There is no answers for them there when all the options are provided to them by the same system.

Here is an example how shadow governance read 'security state' circumvents a portion of the voting system:

Memorandums of Agreement, created by two unelected and unaccountable non-governmental regional planning bodies, in collaboration with federal agents, are being sent to all California county governing bodies for their approval. If approved, representative government and rights to "coordination" will effectively cease to exist and be subordinated to government dictates by a process called "cooperation". If federal agents are doing this in California, they are likely doing it across the country.

Under the agreement, the natural resource planning for all participating counties will be consolidated into one super NGO. Essentially, two NGOs are working with federal agents to create a third super-NGO that serves the interests of the federal government.

Each participating county will be represented by a single person, through whom all future federal government communications will go instead of through the county commissioners, sheriffs, fire departments, and other elected officials. A U.S. Forest Service agent and a Bureau of Land Management agent will be assigned to work with that one person, forming a triad of which the majority two-thirds will be government agents. It is the perfect setup for federal takeover, while maintaining the appearance of representative participation, however tenuous.

Quote is from http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Governance.h...


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 4 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

Great Article, and interesting way of presenting the argument. The answer to your last question in the comments is simple - get out and vote.

Remember in November.


Cyrellys profile image

Cyrellys 4 years ago from Montana Author

Yes it does. A very accurate assessment, I think. Now what is needed is to reinvent the relationship between a small fraction of governance that has indicated it is ready to begin outreach (but been severely burned in a first attempt) and the 60% who get it but would argue the details. That 20% of the population who understands and gets what is going on needs to climb to 80% prior to deadline to avoid implosion in the face of what is expected to happen. In governance those who are ready for outreach sit in the middle of a conflict paradigm and don't run the entire show on their end which is problematic. And out in the 60% are maybe 25% who are getting armed to the teeth because they don't like what they see for all the lies of the last six decades and the obvious tyranny of the last 12 years. So how do we bring the like minded together without heads rolling, careers lost, or worse? Some think it's too late for that...how do we prove it is not?


Dr Billy Kidd profile image

Dr Billy Kidd 4 years ago from Sydney, Australia

So here's the question can you value that there is more to governance than the celophane and can the general public pay enough homage to the importance of observing, demanding clarity and understanding of the 'security state apparatus' to come to terms with how governance is done? Can they put together a long enough attention span?

Great question.

20% of the population would not know what that really means (it's a very intelligent comment)

60% get it and would argue the details, as you said, of all the different deniably plausable things government presents us with.

20% of the population understands and gets what what is going on.

But just maybe 5% of them actively participate in change activities. It's too few people and most the politicians laugh them off. The politicians' version of the truth works better. It gets that 60% all wound up and at each other' throats.

And it's only when that 60% can focus on a single idea that much of anything gets changed. This is why Obama was able to ride the simple, single idea (change you can believe in) to the White House.

Does that make sense?

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working