Agreed.


I like your definition, but most of the time, truth-seekers have to do both. You often fail to see that gray area, that middle ground, when you label others as gatekeepers. I suggest that your binary thinking based on not recognizing the gray area contributes to your debilitating certainty.


That you only see the obvious means your solutions are unlikely to succeed. You have to see beyond the obvious.


Ironically, there is no real certainty on what a "healthy and functioning" ego looks like.


I would, but your link is incomplete.

Oops ... sorry about that. Here's that link again:

https://www.facebook.com/EndTheFederalR ... omments=18

Pax

The article Jim Hebin is criticizing is here. The author of that article is Stephen Lendman, who as I recall is on Zook's long list of gatekeepers. I suspect both Zook and I would support Lendman's criticism of Netanyahu. What do you think, Zook? Could we possibly remove Lendman from your list of gatekeepers?

Okay. I tried to find the full article at theintelhub.com but that page no longer seems to be there.

My essential point was about Hebin coming to the defense of a war criminal, unblinking psychopath, smooth-talking sociopath, and Zionist Israel's regional face: Benjamin Netanyahu.

That increases the preponderance of his pied piper promotion of USUFRUCT being not just an unwitting dupe's idiotic understanding of freedom, not to mention the brain-freeze required to think that the masses can get recourse by appealing to a corrupted legal system that is now fully of the elites, for the elites, and by the elites (if it ever was otherwise) ... but a dedicated psychological operations against the unsuspecting masses.

Indeed, Hebin's general theory of capitulation to an occupying power (for fruit usage privileges) ... can now be hitched to an endorsement of a specific occupying power (Rothschild Zionism). After all, Netanyahu is one of the more aggressive faces of Rothschild Zionism.



Is it not possible to have the Good Cop Bad Cop template being active here, e.g. where both represent the police force, only one has a gentler tongue? I ask this with all earnest, Chico? For instance, in the very article you link to, we have this by Lendeman:

beginExcerpt
On September 16, Netanyahu lied like he always does. He claimed Iran is six to seven months from having a nuclear bomb capability. Again he demanded Obama set a clear red line. For good reason, the president, other US officials, and most others are fed up with him.
end

Lendeman speaks about David Gregory's and Candy Crowley's obsequiousness towards Netanyahu (during mainstream media interviews) ... yet the small excerpt above exposes a surreptitious and more sinister form of obsequiousness, namely, to the narrative of American political theatre wherein "the president, other US officials, and most others are fed up with him" ... as if this mendacious group of critters has even so much as an ounce of protagonist virtue to spend.

Nay, Chico, there is more than enough warranted certainty (and preponderance) to support the charge that both Hebin and Lendeman are playing cops ... with Hebin, a beat cop trying to persuade the citizenry to remain civil (with false promises of recourse) ... and Lendeman, a desk cop working for the same precinct.

And when one attacks the other's perspective - as Hebin does with his sharp opinion of Lendeman's article - the game changes from a tale of two cops ... to a story of good cop and bad cop. That sorta thing.



Pax

I certainly agree with you, Zook, that these other "critters" are thoroughly corrupted and cooperate with Netanyahu on most occasions, but your uncompromising condemnation of Lendeman for this seeming error does not serve you well, as I will attempt to show you. This goes for most of the other gatekeepers on your list. You conveniently ignore that Lendman has criticized most of these other "critters" in his other writings as severely as he does Netanyahu in the VT article, so your surface conclusion that he must work for the banksters as a gatekeeper is a gross and unjust oversimplification. The same technique you use to dismiss Lendman can just as easily be applied to you. Watch.


Suppose I reply, using your own words, "yet the small excerpt above exposes a surreptitious and more sinister form of obsequiousness, namely, to the narrative of forum political theatre wherein 'the administrator, other forum officials, and most others are fed up with him' ... as if this mendacious group of critters has even so much as an ounce of protagonist virtue to spend."

You were uncritical of Nexus when it split apart to form US, even defending the cause itself, dictator Richard, in order to remain in his good graces. You are now uncritical of US as it splits apart, with Vaja laying down the new law to eliminate unwelcome "drama", some of which apparently came from you. This situation, in the most glaring of ironies, even drives you to UP, where your criticism and condemnation have been over the top (which is rightfully allowed here). Can you not see, by your very own logic, that you yourself could top your list of gatekeepers?


Will you now argue that Chico and Zook have been playing "good cop, bad cop", that both are gatekeepers working on the same side, the bad side, and both are gatekeepers of the highest order, just as you did with Hebin and Netanyahu?

Please understand that I am trying to help you here, Zook. I believe you could be an exceptional truth-seeker if you could just correct certain crippling flaws. I have no doubt I could say the same thing about myself, and indeed I'm working on identifying those flaws and correcting them. I would love to see you do the same.

Not for this seeming error in isolation, Chico. You conveniently ignore that Lendeman also supports a known psychological agency in Wikileaks and operative in Assange/mendax - who is a provable proven servant of the banksters as evidenced by many Rothschild tentacles (already discussed here). Lendeman has earned a preponderance that cannot be undone simply by heaping warranted criticism against Obama and the rest of the political critters (and of course, against Netanyahu). Disinformation contains truths and fictions.

Just because Lendeman is adept at observing some of the truths (and attending righteousness) is not enough to make him a truthseeker, not when he is endorsing fictions elsewhere.

Pax

I really don't have the appetite for cross-forum energies. It's a waste of time (IMO, it also assists Cass Sunstein's objective of mixing 10 parts chaff into 1 part informational wheat). But I will indulge you briefly anyways for the sake of truths, great and small. The small barely perceptible truths about the Nexus split include the fact that I expressed my criticism of Nexus in sundry ways before the split actually happened. I openly remarked about my frustration that faith systems and energies had taken over Nexus and had largely displaced the pursuit of facts and science systems there, at least from my vantage point. My progressively decreasing presence in the MOD chamber because of all the disparate human energies that were buzzing inside. My diminished posting there and general shifting of my time commitment to United People here, right after you were banned, is the largest of the small barely perceptible truths.

As for staying in good graces with Richard, you forgot to extend that sanctuary ... for I always attempt to stay in the good graces of anyone that I'm directly interacting with as a first resort. I have a proactive halo over my head, in a manner of speaking. It's when the other side proceeds to create a disturbance that is ongoing and no longer tolerable, that I lose my patience with the other side. Richard never crossed that line with me. Screech Owl did. Screech Eagles is the most recent example of someone who has no ability to interact short of sermonizing.

I no longer have the desire to post at Universal Spectrum because a false energy has taken over there. I feel sad for the good folks that are still being dragged along by a false piper's tune ... not so much for those that had left earlier. I think they had a better intuition about what was going down at Universal then I had. I usually am one of the last few to leave because I have tremendous patience when things are going south, or tremendous ignorance, and perhaps a bit of both. The final straw was when I arrived one morning and found that my token moderator status as epsilonMod (just a figurative position with no real powers) was removed.

It was not so much the fact of my removal that ended any desire for me continuing to post there against all the false energy, but rather, the total disrespect of not informing me - one of the founding people of the forum - that I would no longer be needed as a moderator, not even a token one. The pettiness of the false energy bearers then became quite evident to me. At that point, the light bulb clicked and illuminated the high road.

If you had been following the forum, you would have known that the drama was essentially created by four or five people that had their own forum (elsewhere) to discuss their faith systems (a shout out to Pod for discovering that fact). http://topicoftopics.org/forum/userlist.php

But that forum apparently had no drama because all were busy drinking from the same Kabbalah and kool-aid keg. They essentially migrated to Universal to create drama, which is inevitable when truthseekers get ambushed by faith-holders. They had one of their own in the MOD chamber. After most of the other MODs ceased participating, due to a variety of reasons, Universal slowed to a crawl and the US super-admin was about to close shop altogether due to the lack of interest. So some of us started posting more regularly to try to keep the forum alive. But by this time, the faith-holders far outnumbered the truthseekers ... and this is quickly evident when you read the Hitler threads at US. Fantastic stories displaced hard evidence and analysis. As long as a few truthseekers were available to argue against the fantastic stories, well, this is the perfect opportunity for friction, wot?

Voila, drama and the carousel!

Anyone thinks that I was in anyways responsible for the drama at Universal other than to protect the forum against funny bunnies and foreign invaders ... ought to just read the archives. There at Universal. And here at United People when I was the sole voice of reason during the attacks by Screech Owl and her puppets (and sockpuppets). Even you were fooled, Chico. You had to destroy UP1 and create UP2 to get rid of Screech Owl's energy. Kudos for that. It was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, for Universal, they've destroyed US1 and created US2 in the mold of Screech Eagles' energy. In its new incarnation, it is doomed as a truthseeking forum.

Now that I've explained the matter as generously as I can, let's keep to the illuminated high road and UP2 ... or is this UP3?

Pax

Don't be silly. One, the good cop bad cop analogy only works with Hebin and Lendeman (e.g the former offends the latter); and not with Hebin and Netanyahu (e.g. the former defends the latter). Two, comparing oranges to apples just shows a lack of perspective on your part. For neither you nor I have amassed enough power to matter one way or another. If and when we attain some degree of influence, is the time to wonder about whether you and I are working the good cop bad cop template for a corrupted system (or not). By contrast, the time to wonder about Hebin and Lendeman is already here, because Lendeman is a mainstream public figure with tremendous influence. I am thus wondering. Question begs, why aren't you? Hyperbole may be well-meaning, Chico, but ill-founded all the same. Keep things in their proper scale.

Three, my arguments can never be confused for support of the corrupted system. I don't mix chaff with the wheat nor Leave wiggle room for any confusion in my arguments. I'm as certain as the facts and the preponderance will allow ... and this is my personal protection against premature conclusions. You are entitled to your own arguments and research methods.

To wit, some degree of confusion must exist in the resolution of the good cop (and to a small extent, the bad cop) ... for the good cop bad cop template to work. And some degree of scale is required before time resources should be wasted in the wondering.



Point out my crippling flaws with evidence and not just hearsay or opinion ... and I will gladly surrender to a wiser reality.

Pax

Zook, you really missed the point and the opportunity. I use the same kind of hearsay and opinion that you use to populate your gatekeeper list. When you do it to others, you find it perfectly acceptable, but when it is done to you, you demand "evidence".

I won't belabor the point, Zook, as I mean you no ill will. On the contrary, I would love to see your analytical abilities strengthened into a formidable force in which I can find no fault. Just think about what I have said in the prior paragraph. Question it all you want, but don't dismiss it. There is value there.

We'll have to disagree, Chico. My analysis and evaluation of individuals as gatekeepers is almost always based on their own words and endorsements. For example, Lendeman didn't fall into the gatekeeper mold simply because I had a gut feeling about it or had heard hearsay ... I used his own remarks about Wikileaks and Assange to evaluate that he is knowingly protecting an intelligence agency psyops.

IMO, no genuine truthseeker can possibly mistake Wikileaks or Assange for anything other than frauds given the vast amount of evidence pointing in that direction. Granted, Assange has much more direct evidence against him than there exists against Lendeman. But that only indicts Lendeman because he is refusing to evaluate this hard evidence against Assange, preferring instead the safe route and sanctuary of praising a mainstream media promoted alleged avenger of the people.

Apparently, you have more uncertainty in your research methods and analysis than I do. So we'll have to agree to disagree.



I don't dismiss it, Chico . I question my own research methods all the time, e.g. to make sure that I'm not wrongly accusing individuals. To date, I'm comfortable with my evaluated list of gatekeepers. If there are exceptional cases in my list that will eventually manifest and prove my evaluation of them to be incorrect, then I will necessarily do the right thing and apologize. But I don't anticipate my having to apologize; my initial indictments are usually airtight.

Caveat: I have called yourself, Andy, and Magamud ... gatekeepers in the past. I remain agnostic about all three because when I made those charges, the only evidence I used was anchored in our mutual direct interactions and sometimes vitriolic exchanges. I reserve the right to call anyone anything in the heat of argument, and then retract it later when my emotions have settled. Proactive tampers and reactive tempers being what they are. I do have residual lingering suspicion about Magamud, because he does use the Zionist coinage and shibboleth "antiSemitism/antiSemite" far too often for my liking, and for any genuine truthseeker's patience.

That said, I don't believe in the death penalty in my universe, so even those gatekeepers I have correctly convicted can have their evaluation changed, e.g. if they change their stripes and help assist the hard truths come out. I also recognize that fear makes a lot of otherwise good people retreat into safe routes and sanctuaries.

Pax