A sobering view of the numbers

Be the 1st to vote.

Hoi has some deep thoughts on the numerology. Perhaps I do get carried away by their frequency. I really don’t read too much into them, but can’t help but notice them as more signatures than anything else.

It has come to our attention again and again that the numbers “11” and “33” as well as sequences like 9,11 and 4,4 and 7,7 appear in the news. It has also been made plain that certain astrological and gnostic and cabalistic or otherwise occult symbols make their way into the fake news as a matter of course.

via View topic – Numbers and Semiotics in the News: Why? • Cluesforum.info….

6 thoughts on “A sobering view of the numbers

  1. Hoi PolloiHoi Polloi

    It totally was not a dig at you, ab. I don’t criticize your curiosity about it and I wasn’t thinking about any specific person when I wrote this. I do not think that I am that passive aggressive, even if I am midwestern.

    wolfman, you said “If one’s notions, are to a degree, ‘sympathetic’ to the intention, the more likely they are to resonate with the desired affect of the user of the symbol.”

    I don’t think this is true unless you are specifically — and coincidentally — using similar brain genetics, neurology and even upbringing as the writers. I feel I should contend my point that people are much more diverse and interesting than the perps assume. As such, this ‘sympathetic to intention’ kind of way of communicating doesn’t work for everyone. For all the formulaic ways people are, there are too many ways to interpret symbols. Hence, their apparently long held “belief” (at least, which we are told they believe) — that “consent” is implied by their correct application of symbols in stories to the masses — is incorrect and highly flawed. It is flawed because they do not understand psychology but merely pretend to; it is the same reason their mockery of the best of humanity is so apparent, and why they do not empathize like normal empathic human beings when they attempt to sound empathic.

    This means that their claim of moral rectitude in lying en masse to the public does not hold water. They are not, as their own moral code apparently states, actually achieving the subliminal or spiritual or subconscious “consent” they claim they are getting when encoding the symbols because “sympathy” with the symbol is not as direct or universal as they claim except for those already brainwashed and captured by their immoral system. In short, their arguments only work for those who, on some level, are susceptible — not everyone!

    This is the same pattern as the relationship between lying children (the hoaxers) and other people (the general public). For some reason, when we imagine these people at work we seem to forget that a child’s lie can be dangerous and wrong and they should be chided or corrected in some way instead of played along with until the child believes his own stupidity. Somehow these people escaped this kind of discipline and grew up to be horrible adults without a sense of what really is an immoral lie!

    I like your ‘magic eye’ analogy because it illustrates to me precisely what the encoded symbols are not. There is not a specific code of instructions and suggestions on how to decipher the cryptographic nature of the news. There is not even one single way of interpreting the news correctly, and there are many “wrong” ways that — by any conventional or military law — would constitute a lie, psychological attack or aggressive anti-personnel move against the public’s best interests. It would be like a ‘magic eye’ which is a circle shape and which has been deliberately modeled such that crossing your eyes while the picture is rotated at several angles produces several conflicting and incomplete patterns, all of which are close in resemblance to the ‘correct angle’ if one has even been given for that particular circle. This could hardly constitute “consent” to interpret the correct symbol under any legal or common sense application of the concept. It does, on the other hand, very much constitute cryptography and a deliberate attempt to hide both the data and the method of its manufacture even while (by necessity of hiding the data) acknowledging the fact that it is a ‘magic eye’ of sorts, or else no crossing of eyes at any angle should produce hidden data.

    The news is simply lying. Let’s not get ourselves caught up in their self-deception that has enveloped them so thoroughly that we are forced to equivocate on their lies. They are deceivers. Liars. Trickers. Pseudo-murderers by proxy, some of them probably really murderers. And they are greedy gangster bankster assholes to boot. Magicians? No. I don’t buy it. They wish.

    1. ab Post author

      I didn’t take it as a dig, actually. I take it as another viewpoint, and I’ve always valued your analytical mind. In fact, I consider you the best psyOp philosopher that I’ve seen on the internet, so I value any critique of my thinking from you.
      I would like to do another audio with you, featuring this post. I even decided that before I read today’s reply!

      1. freetofindtruth

        I would like to discuss this on the air. I think the poster, as well as many others, are overlooking the relevance and point of Gematria and making strawman arguments to discredit why it is significant.

        1. Hoi PolloiHoi Polloi

          You shouldn’t call each disagreement a ‘straw man’ even if it isn’t one. Straw man is setting up a false and faulty argument that one intends to tear down to fluff up one’s own argument. I am not doing that. I am disagreeing with what HAS been said about the numbers. I have no beef with ‘Gematria’ which I just looked up now.

          I could very well accuse you of this false definition of ‘straw man’ by saying you are lumping me in with a group of people whose intention is to discredit Gematria, just because I haven’t seen this discrediting happening.

          Plus, I have never tried to discredit stuff by ignoring it. You are trying to associate me with people who have done this or saying that I am BOTH ignoring and discrediting something.

          If you have something to say about Gematria, you could post something good about it right here instead of immediately and rudely trying to describe my intentions. I have written a very earnest post. And your response has been to get me in a discussion by insulting me. No.

  2. wolfman9wolfman9

    An ‘intercepted communication’? Yes, possibly so.

    My feeling is that, symbols have no intrinsic power of their own. They are like tools that sit there, neutral, until someone picks them up and uses them in a particular manner with an imbued intention. These symbols then ‘broadcast’ this intention but, it is up to the viewer/ interpreter of the symbol, to as it’s effect on one, depending on their biases, preconceived notions, emotional tendencies and awareness. If one’s notions, are to a degree, ‘sympathetic’ to the intention, the more likely they are to resonate with the desired affect of the user of the symbol. The more awareness one has, it seems to offer more of a choice to resonate with the desired effect or to choose ‘something else’. Most symbols, it seems, are used with the intention to influence subliminally, below the range of conscious awareness. If one does not realize someone is trying to influence them, on some level they are not aware of, how much choice do they have to decide how they would like to ‘feel about it’?

    Once the ‘tools’ of the stage magician have been identified and how they work, the illusion is blown and makes it that much tougher for one to ‘suspend disbelief’. This is making what was once ‘subconscious’, ‘conscious’.

    The brain seems to be hardwired to always try and make sense of the world, making connections to create a seamless narrative, in the form of a personal dialog/ thought pattern. It is for this reason that it can be easy to get carried away with ‘trying’ to make connections. “Paredolia” is the experience of seeing patterns in random sets of data. One trying to make ‘sense’ of the world may come to strange conclusions that are not accurate or, be engaging in some kind of daydream fantasy. Does this mean that there is no such thing as patterns in seemingly random sets of data? Certainly not. A great example is those magic eye paintings. At first glance it seems to appear chaotic and disorganized but, when one learns to look at it in the correct way, a whole ‘nother level emerges and the intricate details of an organized pattern are revealed.

    When a ‘true’ pattern emerges, it does, in the very least, seem to imply some intentionality. Firstly, one must recognize the pattern to even have a chance of understanding the intention. 🙂

Leave a Reply