First they came for the communists,
and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a communist. Then they came for the socialists,
and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was
no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)
I know it's beside the point, but this does invite a question.
If they came for the Communists, and then they came for the Socialists... and then they came for the Trade Unionists... then "They" might have just been tired of the lies, corruption and destruction of society.
The communists, the socialists, the trade unionists, and even the capitalists are all created and controlled by the same group. All groups are controlled opposition.
The only viable path to help people is to help them understand that we are ALL controlled opposition, our particular ideologies given to us; canned belief systems that each person has the freedom to choose from. The choice of what box we chose is the only true freedom we have. From that path forward we are locked in the Matrix
However, with a large scale understanding of how that small group of people create and control ALL beliefs, we will come together, united in one purpose.
"Come for the communists" etc. is not the path. That's a victory for that small group ("the cabal") that created ALL of our beliefs.
United We Stand. The enemy is not the communists etc. The enemy is just the cabal. Until we stop thinking of our boxed groups as " other" we can't win.
We are all We The People. Act like it, and then we automatically win.
We sometimes think of "showing" as a purely physical thing, but the act of showing v. telling is perfectly reasonable using just words. For example, in my initial report (book), I started on something that is largely non-controversial. Indeed, there is nothing there to offend hardly anyone (I do need to go over the beginning just a bit to make it better, but it's not too bad atm). Having said that, just because it's not "offensive" doesn't mean it's as interesting as I'd like. You can't please all of the people all of the time. But for many people, it seems to be interesting enough. Some even call it "amazing" or "brilliant" or "completely changed my life." It might not be perfect for some people here (those aware of Q and the general fuckery), because it's designed as an exposure to the Matrix for normies, but for anyone even slightly interested in the stock market, or history, or economics, etc., it is pretty damn good (to toot my own horn).
The point is, I don't talk about "politics" at all. I don't talk about things like vaccines, or religion, or anything that would be offensive to hardly anyone. I don't have to. My goal is very broad; to expose the Matrix. So anything really important and "controversial" automatically comes out by without actually saying anything, but rather showing, as a natural flow, who created the laws, what they really say, what other people (on all sides of the fence) have to say, what they are REALLY saying (with corroborating evidence), etc. I don't *say" anything. I show how the world was created, who created it, and what their stated intentions were.
By not "telling" anything, people can hear it. I start by showing the sources. I explain exactly who they are, and all the relevant details (all verified by non-controversial links (.gov e.g.). I show the money trail. I show who their boss is. For example, if I'm going to show who created the NSF (Vannevar Bush), I first how to go through how the education system was created in explicit detail. To do that, I first how to go through how our economic system was created in explicit detail. I have to go through the media system, who owns it, who created it, otherwise people won't believe what they are reading, or that it "isn't important, because the media or history books aren't reporting it". I have to put in thousands of other details and exposures, all of which have their own vetting process. Only after I do all of that, all done in the right order in order to suspend disbelief, such as the the information about how Vannevar Bush was a long life employee of Rockefeller (and so was everyone else in that endeavor); only then can I talk about how all funding for science is controlled by the same entity.
Of course, talking about science funding is not the primary goal. It takes hundreds of pages to get there. I'm not doing it for that purpose. On the contrary, it's only intended to be corroborating evidence for the primal thesis. But to say anything, like "we are all controlled opposition" you must go through a ridiculous amount of information to show the evidence before you can even hint at the claim. People must come to the conclusion on their own. Your job is to show them the way, not tell them the conclusion.
Obviously I'm not doing that all the time in this board. Some times I do, but it takes so much work. Sometimes I'm just lazy. Sometimes I'm frustrated. Sometimes I do it just to help me work out better arguments for old or new sections of my report. Sometimes that effort gives me new evidence from people who respond to me (both for and against my claims).
It is my hope (and by from what is happening, my belief) that Q is doing exactly what I am saying; showing the little pieces so everyone will stitch the evidence together for themselves. I do not trust Q. I do not trust that the final picture they are putting together is what I believe it should be. On the contrary, some things I see are far too much "new boss, same as the old boss," stitching a new edition of the Matrix rather than a complete exposure. But in a world of controlled opposition, and reverse psychology, I can't possibly know what their actual intentions are. So it is my hope that they intend to lead us down the right path eventually.
Solzhenitsyn would never have written that - his fight was against the communists, the socialists etc..
He experienced the communists coming for him... not anti-communists coming for the communists and him not saying anything.
Solzhenitsyn would end the passage with "and then they came for me, and we went for drinks at the Opera, followed by a very enjoyable meal, we rejoiced together, at last, justice had been served"
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me. Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)
I know it's beside the point, but this does invite a question.
If they came for the Communists, and then they came for the Socialists... and then they came for the Trade Unionists... then "They" might have just been tired of the lies, corruption and destruction of society.
The communists, the socialists, the trade unionists, and even the capitalists are all created and controlled by the same group. All groups are controlled opposition.
The only viable path to help people is to help them understand that we are ALL controlled opposition, our particular ideologies given to us; canned belief systems that each person has the freedom to choose from. The choice of what box we chose is the only true freedom we have. From that path forward we are locked in the Matrix
However, with a large scale understanding of how that small group of people create and control ALL beliefs, we will come together, united in one purpose.
"Come for the communists" etc. is not the path. That's a victory for that small group ("the cabal") that created ALL of our beliefs.
United We Stand. The enemy is not the communists etc. The enemy is just the cabal. Until we stop thinking of our boxed groups as " other" we can't win.
We are all We The People. Act like it, and then we automatically win.
I tried telling someone (a non-communist semi-anti-woke left-leaner) basically that, but to no effect.
Maybe it just takes better presentation? It does seem like it should work.
It seems like it’s also not just what they want, but what they fear, and they won’t say what they fear.
We sometimes think of "showing" as a purely physical thing, but the act of showing v. telling is perfectly reasonable using just words. For example, in my initial report (book), I started on something that is largely non-controversial. Indeed, there is nothing there to offend hardly anyone (I do need to go over the beginning just a bit to make it better, but it's not too bad atm). Having said that, just because it's not "offensive" doesn't mean it's as interesting as I'd like. You can't please all of the people all of the time. But for many people, it seems to be interesting enough. Some even call it "amazing" or "brilliant" or "completely changed my life." It might not be perfect for some people here (those aware of Q and the general fuckery), because it's designed as an exposure to the Matrix for normies, but for anyone even slightly interested in the stock market, or history, or economics, etc., it is pretty damn good (to toot my own horn).
The point is, I don't talk about "politics" at all. I don't talk about things like vaccines, or religion, or anything that would be offensive to hardly anyone. I don't have to. My goal is very broad; to expose the Matrix. So anything really important and "controversial" automatically comes out by without actually saying anything, but rather showing, as a natural flow, who created the laws, what they really say, what other people (on all sides of the fence) have to say, what they are REALLY saying (with corroborating evidence), etc. I don't *say" anything. I show how the world was created, who created it, and what their stated intentions were.
By not "telling" anything, people can hear it. I start by showing the sources. I explain exactly who they are, and all the relevant details (all verified by non-controversial links (.gov e.g.). I show the money trail. I show who their boss is. For example, if I'm going to show who created the NSF (Vannevar Bush), I first how to go through how the education system was created in explicit detail. To do that, I first how to go through how our economic system was created in explicit detail. I have to go through the media system, who owns it, who created it, otherwise people won't believe what they are reading, or that it "isn't important, because the media or history books aren't reporting it". I have to put in thousands of other details and exposures, all of which have their own vetting process. Only after I do all of that, all done in the right order in order to suspend disbelief, such as the the information about how Vannevar Bush was a long life employee of Rockefeller (and so was everyone else in that endeavor); only then can I talk about how all funding for science is controlled by the same entity.
Of course, talking about science funding is not the primary goal. It takes hundreds of pages to get there. I'm not doing it for that purpose. On the contrary, it's only intended to be corroborating evidence for the primal thesis. But to say anything, like "we are all controlled opposition" you must go through a ridiculous amount of information to show the evidence before you can even hint at the claim. People must come to the conclusion on their own. Your job is to show them the way, not tell them the conclusion.
Obviously I'm not doing that all the time in this board. Some times I do, but it takes so much work. Sometimes I'm just lazy. Sometimes I'm frustrated. Sometimes I do it just to help me work out better arguments for old or new sections of my report. Sometimes that effort gives me new evidence from people who respond to me (both for and against my claims).
It is my hope (and by from what is happening, my belief) that Q is doing exactly what I am saying; showing the little pieces so everyone will stitch the evidence together for themselves. I do not trust Q. I do not trust that the final picture they are putting together is what I believe it should be. On the contrary, some things I see are far too much "new boss, same as the old boss," stitching a new edition of the Matrix rather than a complete exposure. But in a world of controlled opposition, and reverse psychology, I can't possibly know what their actual intentions are. So it is my hope that they intend to lead us down the right path eventually.
Best to talk to a Rock. You can always pick it up a throw it to make your point 💥
One thing Niemöller did was serve as president of the World Council of Churches (1961–1968). That right there raises alarm bells with me.
Agree
Buddy made it to 92 years old. Nobody came for him.
Jokes on him LOL
Ya, go after the communists and socialists.
I thought this was alexander shokzeitzen
Solzhenitsyn would never have written that - his fight was against the communists, the socialists etc..
He experienced the communists coming for him... not anti-communists coming for the communists and him not saying anything.
Solzhenitsyn would end the passage with "and then they came for me, and we went for drinks at the Opera, followed by a very enjoyable meal, we rejoiced together, at last, justice had been served"