Information Warfare Education, Propaganda, and How to Tell the Difference

Town Square
1727

States conduct their own elections according to federal law, and the federal government assures that all states are in fact following federal election laws.

The fake elector scheme may have violated the following federal laws:

18 U.S.C. § 1512©(2) – Obstruction of congressional proceedings

  • Whoever corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

  • If two or more persons conspire . . . to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 494 – Contractors’ bonds, bids, and public records

  • Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any bond, bid, proposal, contract, guarantee, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States; or . . .Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited —Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

52 U.S.C. § 20511(2)(b)

  • A person, including an election official, who in any election for Federal office – knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a State of a fair impartially conducted election process, by the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held, shall be fined in accordance with title 18.

18 U.S.C. § 1001 – Statements or entries generally

  • Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; …
shall be fined under this title.

—-

And then there are the Georgia civil cases, which allege the following laws have been broken:

18 U.S.C. § 1512©(2) – Impeding Official Proceeding

18 U.S.C. § 371 – Defrauding the United States of a Government Department’s Lawful Function

  • The 10 alternate electors allegedly violated these statutes “by purporting to cast Wisconsin’s electoral votes, knowing that they were not the duly elected presidential electors for the State of Wisconsin, and by intending that Congress count their purported votes rather than those cast by Wisconsin’s duly elected presidential electors.”
  • Defendants Chesebro and Troupis allegedly violated the statute by corruptly attempting to obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512©(2) and §371, by conspiring with, aiding, and abetting the alternate electors.

18 U.S.C. § 494 – Knowingly Forging and Transmitting Public Record

  • The 10 alternate electors allegedly falsely made, forged, and counterfeited a public record or other writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States, and transmitted such writing to an United States officer, by representing that the ‘Certificate of the Votes of the 2020 Electors from Wisconsin’ was an official certificate reflecting the votes of Wisconsin’s duly elected presidential electors, transmitting that certificate to the President of the United States Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and the Chief Judge of the United States District Court of the Western District of Wisconsin and by intending the Congress count their purported votes rather than those cast by Wisconsin’s duly elected presidential electors, according to the complaint.

  • Defendants Chesebro and Troupis were not mentioned in connection with this violation.

1728

I don’t remember seeing that. Did you report it to me? If you had, I would have intervened. Does that make you feel like you have license to do the same?

Would you not characterize the vast majority of your development agendas as “increased collectivism” or “increased individualism”?

Both. As I’ve said many times, there is room for both. And when collective action is taken, it should be used to increase personal autonomy. Spend a dollar today to save $3 tomorrow.

Minimize poverty, create more equitable economic inequities,
Ensure 100% access to healthcare and support for mental health,
Decriminalize marijuana and psychedelics,
Make addiction a medical issue instead of a justice issue,
Increase sexual education with emphasis on personal responsibility (because there is no “responsibility” without education), which results in fewer unwanted pregnancies.
Allow every 10 year old rape victim, and every mother of a headless fetus, and any other victim of medical emergency, immediate access to abortion regardless of what state they live in.
Eliminate oil subsidies and transition to clean(er) energy.
Invest in nuclear energy.
Free federal voting IDs for all citizens.
Eliminate wasteful military expenditure
Fix our failing roads, bridges, and highways
Invest in mass transportation

Et cetera. A combination of individual action, and collective action designed to empower even greater individual action. Some things are best left to emerge naturally the bottom-up, like entrepreneurship, democratic elections, etc. Other things are best coordinated and enforced from the top-down, like power grids, healthcare systems, civil rights, etc.

An integral political lens attempts to integrate both individual and collective poles, and does not reject either. Individualism, when taken to an extreme, is dangerous. Collectivism, when taken to an extreme, is dangerous. Every ideology is an absolutism, and all absolutisms are dangerous.

This, I think, is why I have generally been able to agree with you more than you agree with me in these conversations. I find a place for individualism in my personal political model, but you seem to make no room for any kind of “collectivism” (except things like abortion bans in states and speech bans in classrooms). At the same time, I try to make an appropriate place for the products of the green altitude, and you seem to reject that stage altogether. I’ve tried many times to build that bridge with you, but you don’t seem to want to budge. I can agree with many of your criticisms about the excesses of the left, but you rarely agree with my criticisms about the excesses of your party.

And again, all of this is fine! I’m happy to disagree, share the reasons why I disagree, and walk away. I’m just not so invested in my political identity that I feel a need to insult you personally for your views.

1729

It wasn’t a rant.
I was completely legitimarely trying to figure out why @FermentedAgave would just completely forget what he had said the previous day or week, or many points that had been made in conversations just a week previously - or positions he held steadfastly that he flip flopped on.

I was wondering what was wrong with him, and since my mother has advanced dementia and displays similar characteristics and I have to repeat the same basic things to her again and again, then come on here and have to repeat basic things to him - yes, at times I do wonder if it is a mental disorder such as dementia.

Now of course if you agree and say he does these things - you just have TDS or something. Surely you could never agree with me.

1730

Oh, are you “tip of the spear”?

Let’s stay away from diagnosing each other through our screens. It’s fine to point out the contradictions and flip flops in arguments and hold each other accountable to that, but let’s not make accusations about medical conditions :slight_smile:

Speaking of “tip of the spear”, has anyone watched Primal? Amazing show, about a caveman named Spear and his T-rex, Fang. Made by the same guy who did Samurai Jack. It’s rapidly become one of my favorite shows.

1731

I suppose I am.

Though i can’t remember the dialogue exactly - I’m pretty sure I have asked him many times for his explanation and I have to say i still have yet to receive an alternative reason or explanation from him.

What I find humorous here is that the “months long rant” was from @FermentedAgave, lol.
Nonstop posting in here about blah blah blah Integral marxist whatever double plus goodwise duckspeak.

I may have mentioned dementia once or twice and that qualifies as a “months long rant” in his mind.

But such a completely fragile person when even 10% of what he sends out comes back at him.

1732

There are pills to cure the symptoms of headaches, arthritis, colds, flu.
There are pills to regulate diseases such as MS, rheumatism.
There are NSAIDS to control inflammation.
There are pills and all kinds of unnatural interventions that save lives.
Sure, pills, many kinds of pills and unnatural solutions, are important in many different ways.

The problem with the contraceptive pill, however, is that its purpose is to free up women to make dumb choices. Really dumb, like university-dorm gang-bangs, off the scale dumb. Nature’s natural regulator, childbirth, is disabled. Thanks to the pill, sex is easily accessible, but what kind of man wants the kind of woman who gives it away so arbitrarily? There’s a word for that. Cuck.

I don’t think there’s an example of any other of medication whose purpose is to facilitate the making of dumb choices… oh wait, I take that back… there is:
alcohol;
cocaine;
heroin;

… you get the picture.

In encouraging the making of stupid choices (in both men and women, btw), the pill’s impact on evolution is backwards, in the direction of the apes.

But there is a further significance, in the pill’s impact on women’s physiology (and mind). This interplay between women’s physiology and culture, with the choices they make, has serious repercussions, not just on women’s health. We’ve seen women’s psychologies change profoundly over the past 5 decades. How much of that is pure surface-culture with its cultural artefacts, women’s alleged “empowerment”, with trends and groupthink, and how much of that relates to the deeper, more significant self-organization, interplaying between culture and biology?

I realize that my take is controversial… but I think we need to give it some thought. On the one hand, in this forum, I’m testing the water, seeing what others think. On the other hand, the more I think about it, the more serious I think this thing is. The more I think about it, the more surprised I am that such an important topic has never been broached anywhere before. We are living in very dumb times indeed.

How’s that for the depth of this rabbit hole? :slight_smile:

Projection much?

You funny man. lol

1733

With the implications I outline in my reply to Ray, and the insane world with its nutty options that your precious daughter engages with as an adult… does that not scare the begeezuz out of you?

1734

I most certainly do … I have done this with you before on other runaway political topic strings … I was impressed as you responded quite well as a leader here.

Sadly, over time I have come to see you more as a political operative than an integral thought provoking leader. I try to stay out of these toxic political discussions but I was flabbergasted at the insulting tone that spewed from your comment to @steljarkos when I read it.

As a rebuke to you personally I mirrored it back at you. I was so disappointed in you; and now your responses show little humility or consideration beyond yourself. No matter what your personal beliefs or understandings may be, I expect a more rounded integral input on the complexities of American and world politics from you as the face of Integrallife.

My advice is to be integral, or at least neutral and balanced with your commentary. You may think you do that but you do not. Arguing with me or anyone else is wasted energy, argue with yourself to get it right. If you can’t do that, for the good of your own integrity and for this platform, it’s better that you remain silent?

1735

hehehe don’t tell him @FermentedAgave . Ray thinks he’s peering over the edge of the abyss from his tiny little mouse burrow… He has no idea.

1736

Yes, I was also surprised. But I’ve learned to step back and allow the truth to take its own course.

1 Like
1737

Hey @FermentedAgave . You are not showing due respect. They are willing to sacrifice their womenfolk, their wives and daughters, to the greater good… even when that greater good is as corrupt and rotten as the Biden Administration. Would you do that to your womenfolk in the interests of the greater good? I bet not. They will support the feminist masquerade, with its abortions, its cognitive dissonances, its gang-bangs, its pornography industry, its discarded women, its discarded fetuses, its train wrecks and whatever else it takes, in the interests of this greater good. Do you have that kind of courage? So shutup and show due respect to your moral superiors. Just sayin’ :wink:

1738

It is unfortunate that you feel that way Excecutive, even after explaining how I was intentionally not trying to offend, commenting only on the ideas presented, and even pointing to the warm comment I posted immediately afterward to make sure that a container of fundamental respect was being maintained.

We don’t need to shy away from heat or conflict in this community. It’s okay to criticize ideas. Mine get criticized here almost every day. (Hell, have you ever heard Ken himself criticize other people’s ideas? He’s WAY more bombastic and aggressive than I am :wink: ) We simply need to make sure we are staying clean and not trying to wound. I think it’s very clear that my comments were not trying to wound.

Meanwhile, I am being told that I am willing to “sacrifice my wife and daughter” to the “corruption of the Biden administration” (LOL), and I am being repeatedly insulted by another contributor to this thread — yet I don’t see you taking offense on my behalf, as you are doing for steljarkos in your comment. I understand that you want to hold me to a higher standard, I also hold myself to a higher standard, but some consistency would be nice I suppose. Are you holding everyone else to similar standards you seem to be holding for me? Are you holding yourself to that standard in your comments to me?

If you can’t do that, for the good of your own integrity and for this platform, it’s better that you remain silent

It feels as though you are attempting to restrict my agency and voice here, using shame as a bludgeon and my reputation as a target. This is actually the sort of thing that many people in this community often complain about out in the world — someone takes offense on someone else’s behalf, and tries to shame them into silence. Isn’t that the definition of “cancel culture”?

The fact of the matter is, I believe I am also allowed to have opinions, and opinions about other opinions. I get to have a view, and a view on other views. I am allowed to voice my disagreements, as much as my agreements (and if I disagree, I always try to find a different point of agreement, as I clearly did in my comment to steljarkos). I am not required to be fully accepting of all viewpoints, and I don’t think any integralist is required to do so. We need to listen, yes — that is healthy nonexclusion, where we try to identify as many partial truths as we can. But we don’t leave it there, that would be endless Green processing. The next step is “enfoldment” where we use an evidence-based approach in all four quadrants to determine which truths are more or less partial than the others. And that will always involve some degree of conflict, because no one wants to be the steward of a partial truth, they want to be master of the full truth.

Which means, if someone was to come into this community and started espousing, let’s say, flat earth theory, and their “evidence” is the fact that all of the world’s authorities are conspiring together to convince us that the world is actually round when really it’s a disk, am I not allowed to point to the flaws in that logic? Am I not allowed to discern whether a worldview is coming from a belief-based enactment of truth, or an evidence-based enactment of truth? Am I not allowed to simply say, “I think you are wrong here”? Or do I need to be totally accepting of all claims, no matter what they are? Am I allowed a point of view?

The fact is, part of the “post-truth” era we now live in is that political narratives and unexamined assumptions now dominate our political discourse, whether we are talking about Wokism or Qanon. And I feel strongly that this community should be a place where those narratives are put to the test. Integral is not a free-for-all where all views are accepted at face value. Everyone is partially right, yes, but that means that everyone is also partially wrong. This is a place where we should be trying to rescue babies and flush the bathwater. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And I think it is perfectly okay for us to ask for that evidence from each other when we encounter these narratives in this community. And if the only evidence provided is more narrative and belief-based, then I think it’s perfect okay to use the language of mythology to describe it.

“and now your responses show little humility or consideration beyond yourself.”

Again, I think your observation is out of line. I told him where I disagree and why, without ever insulting him personally. I then shared the various points of agreement that I shared with him:

I do think many of your complaints about the left have merit, and I have echoed many of those complaints myself.

Your comments about women’s oppression do have some important truths

And then I’ll just repost the comment I made to Steljarkos immediately afterward, because you seemed to have missed it altogether. Am I not attempting to do precisely what you say you expect me to? Re-confirming an overall container of mutual respect, while pointing out that it is always okay to disagree?

“I try to make it a practice not to let political views dominate my relationships with people. I often reflect on how politics are an area of our lives we have the absolute least control over, individually, yet where we often place the majority of our focus, frustration, passions, and projections — and when we start enacting each other through those filters, it creates more resentment, more ill will, and more fragmentation. There are billions of moving data points to account for, and we are all going to see different patterns and constellations when we look at it, according to our conditions, informational terrains, and Kosmic address. So I try to hold my own opinions seriously, but lightly at the same time. It’s all too easy to get swept away, put each other in a box, and write each other off, after all.

So I try to approach these conversations like a sand mandala. I will try to construct the most reasonable and deliberate and hopefully artful arguments as I can, in order to best reflect my own personal views and sense-making — and then I have to be ready to wipe it away as soon as it becomes necessary, and focus on other things in order to create new shared realities.

So, aside from our political disagreements above, how are you? What is turning you on these days? Any shows or music you are really feeling recently? We can bring this into a private message if it’s too off-topic for this thread — but at this point, I don’t think anything is really off topic in this particular discussion LMAO”

I value your feedback very much, @excecutive, and I always embrace any opportunity to do more shadow work. But in this case, after reflecting and re-reading my various comments in this thread, I continue to think you are out of line here, assuming the worst about my intentions and ignoring the clear efforts I’ve made to maintain a respectful container.

1739

But they did hurt and they do hurt. This conversation is not going where I’d hoped. I shared what I did with a positive and purposeful intention. To help you wake-up and clean-up this negative toxic banter. Apparently I have way over-estimated your maturity and leadership here.

You do see the mirror reflection clearly. I am sorry that the look in the mirror had zero effect at pulling you up to higher state of consciousness. This is your show and your product. I will stand-down from here. ~ Peace :slight_smile:

1740

Can you tell me exactly what I said that was personally insulting or hurtful? Does it strike you as at all possible that your observations are inaccurate here? Are you sure this is definitely my shadow you are looking at right now, and it is not mixed at all with your own?

You said:

“I shared what I did with a positive and purposeful intention.”

So did I. Which means we are both treading the exact same ground. You intended to be positive and purposeful — but have you considered that your own accusations about me are actually more hurtful and personally-directed than anything I said in my comment?

“You do see the mirror reflection clearly.”

Except it’s really not a mirror, because I am not trying to restrict anyone’s agency or voice, I am not trying to personally shame anyone, I am not making disparaging remarks about any community member’s reputation. I am disagreeing with a view, and saying why I disagree as clearly as I can. I honestly think you are participating in the very shadow you are accusing me of having. Is that a possibility, in your mind?

Again, I love the invitation to do shadow work. Simply having this conversation is what pulls us both up into a higher state of consciousness. I am doing my best to reflect and receive your feedback, but I do not feel you are similarly reflecting or receiving mine. Who knows, maybe we are both looking in a double-sided mirror right now.

1741

For me with an adult daughter - no. It does not “scare the begeezuz out of me”.
You know what would have scared the begeezuz out of me? If my grandhild had been with her first boyfriend because she had no birth control options. He was a Muslim from Azerbajan and displayed characteristics of an abusive personality. That would have been fucking great. Pregnant at 18 with the first man she had sex with and locked into an abusive marriage in some whacko religion in the ass end of the planet. Ok, call me racist or whatever it is against Muslims, lol.
Thank the Lord for birth control.

Many medicines facilitate the making of dumb choices. What are you talking about? High blood pressure medication tells people they don’t have to change their diet or lifestyle - just pop some pills. Weight loss pills are basically speed and tell people they don’t have to change their diet - just pop a pill and damage your heart to get thin. They are even OTC and don’t require a prescription. Penicillin reinforces that men can have sex without a condom and just take a pill to get rid of the clap, and there is medication for other STD’s like crabs and whatever.
The entire filed of prescription drugs is mostly rescuing people from poor life choices. In your words, “dumb choices”. If you don’t want to be obese, have high blood pressure, die of a heart attack, get STD’s, get cancer, get arthritis, get Alzheimer’s or dementia - make the proper life choices and we don’t need 90% of prescription drugs, lol.
Now we will get into (again) the place where you are to afraid to look. Again, you can deny all you want but here is the truth you are hiding from yourself.
Here are some observations:

@steljarkos has a fear of being out of control of women’s reproduction and a fear that he may be a cuck. Therefore, the solution in his mind is to legislate a way to protect women (and also his fragile ego in the process). Never in my life have I ever seriously had any concern that my intimate partner or my daughter would be in a gang bang, lol. Just because they could access the pill if they wanted to? lmao.
This all sounds a lot like “Reefer Madness” where people were afraid that one puff of reefer would make people go insane.

But even deeper - in fact @steljarkos will always be a self-hating liberal. He wants the nanny state to protect women (and his ego) from becoming whores. Please, please government - make laws to protect us! Regulate every aspect of our lives! Outlaw freedom of choice! Make us be good. This is right out of his liberal upbringing and he has never left it. He has just transformed it into an illusion of Liberal hate, but hilariously stepping back it is self hate because he is in fact still a liberal just play acting as a conservative.

1742

There is always a big danger in pointing out someone else’s shadows and thinking they should be the ones to clean up.

As we say “you spot it, you got it”

1 Like
1743

Honestly I am not hurt or emotionally engaged in this. I am bowing out of the drama there is no reason to continue this. I am sorry to have hurt your feelings. ~ Peace :slight_smile:

1744

Ken and I did a full episode about this last week. Basically, if you feel yourself activated by what you perceive as someone else’s shadow, and want to call it out publicly, you better make damn well sure that it’s not your own first. After all, you are the one who is being activated, which means the onus is on you to clean up first and foremost. And this is true both for “dark shadows” (projections of brokenness) and “golden shadows” (shadows of wholeness) that we put on others.

I’m not going to make an object out of excecutive’s subject by accusing him of having any specific shadows here, as he did to me. But 9 times out of 10, if we are reacting to someone’s shadow, that reactivity leads directly to our own. Certainly not always — sometimes we see an asshole standing in front of us, so we do a 3-2-1 to make sure that we weren’t actually the asshole the whole time… and after doing that 3-2-1, we are still left with an asshole standing in front of us. However, we are far less reactive to that asshole, because now we’ve untangled our shadow from theirs.

So maybe I am the asshole in this case. Or maybe the image of asshole is being falsely projected onto me, because I don’t live up to some specific “golden shadow” expectation. Or maybe it’s two assholes standing in each other’s shadow simultaneously. All I can say is, I took @excecutive’s invitation to do the work, scanned my comments for personal insults, took a look at my own reactivity, and continue to feel I haven’t been abusive at all, consciously or unconsciously. And if anyone feels like I have been abusive, I want to clear up that misunderstanding (as I have been trying to do throughout this conversation) in order to make my intention more clear. Not sure what else I can do!

1745

Don’t back out now, it’s just starting to get juicy! LOL :wink:

1746

I welcome all the juice you want to squeeze out of me. It’s my shadows that see the antagonists that don’t relent. I will relent. ~ Peace :slight_smile: