ep133-Hoi Polloi of cluesforum

Be the 1st to vote.

When? Sunday, Feb. 1, 2015 6:38pm EST

Who? Ab and Hoi Polloi


K, all you Super Bowl party planners, here is your key bit of info. Kickoff for Sunday’s game between the Seattle Seahawks and New England Patriots is scheduled for 3:38 p.m. PT.

A Theory of Abuse: Why Perps May Be Perps



Climbing Mount Analogue

Originally printed in the SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2001 issue of Quest magazine.
Citation: Lachman, Gary. 0;Climbing Mount Analogue.” Quest  89.5 ( September-October 2001): 166-171.

By Gary Lachman

Gary Lachman

Sometime in the year 1924 a precocious French poet named René Daumal had a mystical experience that became the determining event of his life.

No tags for this post.

9 thoughts on “ep133-Hoi Polloi of cluesforum

  1. anthonycarallo

    The idea of fakeness also relates to the idea of abuse. People who are severely abused, especially in childhood, begin to dissociate, that is they create another form of reality to escape from what they have experienced…and that is what these events embody. These stories describe events that would be the worst horror imaginable, but then they are not true. I think a lot of people recognize the unlikeliness of the events, but it is sort of the reverse of when a parent says “no that was just a nightmare”. rather they are told “yes, it is true”. Reverse dissociation.

  2. Blue Moon

    My favorite observation from this episode was the idea that the perps can’t get over how sociable the Clues members actually are. That must indeed puzzle them.
    That stated, this post will try to tie together the theme of abuse, in this case mass psychological abuse, with another of Hoi’s recent observations, a Clues thread regarding an episode of the X Files television show from the early nineties. In that thread, Hoi observes several references to 911 embedded within the 3rd season’s 3rd episode entitled “D.P.O.” which are the initials of the lead guest star, Giovani Ribisi’s character, Darren Peter Oswald.
    Here is the link to that thread: cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?…
    I’d like to add a few other references to 911 within the show that are more speculative. The primary victim of Oswald’s attacks is his employer, who is also the husband of Oswald’s obsessive crush. That victim is named Frank Kiveet, as in caveat emptor: buyer beware- This Frank admission is in hospital room 404, which in internet parlance means Page Missing, or nothing is here. Read: Vicsim.
    Further down the thread, HonestlyNow observes that the image of the dead character named Zero refers to Ground Zero, the hanging man imagery found in the Falling Man photo in the 911 fauxtography, and possibly fake money as in arcade tokens, possibly representing fake victims. To me, given that Zero is seen stacking quarters earlier in the show, it could be a reference to the misdirection video, Loose Change. I realize that is a real stretch but how far in advance do these plans operate? Is not an obvious tool like Dylan Avery thought up in advance as the controlled opposition is as important as the hoax itself in order to hold the public in stasis long enough for the hoax to enter official history.
    Finally, the two FBI agents concede, despite their own direct observations of Oswald’s crimes, that there is no evidence to convict. The crimes apparently never took place. Just like 911 not bringing any convictions because no crime took place. And lying on television isn’t a crime. As well, Oswald shows no signs of damage, exactly as the “real” Oswald showed no damage from Ruby’s pistol.
    So, what does it all mean? Well, to my way of thinking, this X Files episode is just another in a series of signals that the perps send us regarding their intentions. Call it predictive programming, pattern recognition conditioning, whatever- the point is, as I’ve said ad nauseam, I believe they tell us what they are going to do, do it, then confess it. The interesting thing about this X Files clue cluster is that it acts not only as a signal for what was coming, but given that the series is still readily available for reviewing, has a vigorous cult supporting it, and a new series of the X Files coming to a TV screen near you, it also acts as a confession well after the fact. Even at this late date this mind fuckery from over twenty years ago still has a working function. And that function is to dare the public to do something about their actions…and they never do. The abuser gets away with it time and again, blaming the victim for his bondage because the victim won’t respond. “You got what you deserved”-

  3. Hoi Polloi

    UNreal, I think a lot of it is obfuscation because it’s a real phenomenon. 9/11 and terrorism seem different because they are about war: the grandest of political games. The movies you reference don’t do jack shit, I think, for bringing real problems to attention. If anything, they seem to mock concern about it, like a clown. I am not a big “movie” person, though, so maybe whatever deep point they make is lost on me. I think actual discussion, not entertainment, is what is called for on this topic.

    Why is it that “priests violate children”? Because some do. And because people who hate the church can find it and publicize it and try to make it all look bad, it doesn’t mean abuses don’t happen. Is it any wonder the news and Hollywood at least have to pretend to care? In fact, they seem to exploit the problem for entertainment. I wouldn’t call that “giving” abuse PR or doing PR “for” abuse.

    Just because there are a lot of movies about cars doesn’t mean cars don’t exist.

    It isn’t the “worst kind of fear imaginable” to talk about sex or sexuality. I think that’s a very Christian/Puritan position to take on a subject. What we are discussing must be made less broad than Hollywood must by necessity paint something.

    I am trying to raise the topic of what is or is not actually going on. Maybe more people are concerned about it than talk about it. Some things are so shameful in the public eye that even accusing people of something makes the accuser dirty just for bringing it up. The topic is disgusting. Shall we all pretend it’s not there? Just continue to do the harmless (allusions or innuendo from the corny reference notwithstanding) “hokey pokey” dance, as a recent admirer jested about my initials — never mind difficult topics where you actually have to weigh heavy possibilities that generation after generation in this country have mingled with child predators in positions of power? This may have something to do with the very motivation for the PsyOps we are now facing daily. Is part of the “big picture” a subconscious cultural burying frenzy? Do we like to cover up this facet of how they rope in children and the “next generation” into the PsyOp culture because it disturbs us? That doesn’t mean it’s the most terrifying thing ever. It’s just kind of awkward and discomforting, I guess, and I don’t think that should prevent the discussion. Was Sandy Hook a way to get a “fresh batch” of actors to manipulate, for example?

    I still value freedom and I don’t think we need a London or Israel or China or any one else to tell us how to govern ourselves or give us an “-ism” or “-ist” system to “save” us. Despite what my own very confused heckler in the chatbox claims, I don’t think communism has anything to do with my writings, except that it relates to one of several malfunctioning State systems — capitalism being another. (How retro of them to confuse discussions of peace with being a “pinko” though!)

    I also do think we have some responsibility in our country to be aware of how the promise of idealism contrasts with reality … for us and for future generations. To show the world we can do this, we can continue to refine and design a good “free” society but ignoring it or only talking about it using Hollywood/Television terms hasn’t really seemed to help us, has it?

    Maybe you don’t know any children that have been abused or seen it, and that is fine. Not everyone can talk about everything. Not all discussions belong on every site. I know! I don’t expect everyone to be an expert on everything, either. Like I was saying in the audio, we only have room in our brains for a few subjects we care about, and on top of that, CluesForum or Fakeologist might not be the proper place for this kind of talk.

    And it is so complex. If we could ask the priests who have been caught, well, the point is the Catholic Church really does create a safe haven for powerful people to sit comfortably in a position where they can abuse their power in communities, but it’s only so simple in terms of the law. Priests think they love their kids, and weep when they think of what they have become. Altar boys get fiddled as part of the cycle of abuse before they become abusing priests themselves.

    Anyway, I just wanted to point out that this topic is more serious and nuanced than we are trained to be capable of. I think we could try, though.

    By the way, Ab, nice work on the newest iteration of the site. I am sure you will continue to improve it and tweak it as the need fits, on your own terms. It is a work in progress that, perhaps, is only for a certain kind of person — is “mature” the word? — to get the most out of it.

    1. UNreal

      with so much research on so many topic’s you imply that there is one exception, the child molestation issue. why would this be ?

      Hoi, you are wrong.

      no issue is beyond interest for manipulating our feelings, especially those that touch us so intimately that we crawl back into beliefs and behind moral dilemmas. It is exactly when your feelings are touched that they finally have a put you in a situation they work so hard to put you in. you seem to have hit your wall just as Ab has hit his wall with Chemtrails. i certainly have a wall being built for me too, because this is how they proceed to enter our minds and thus manage to control it.

      so, the extent to which actual child-molesting is perpetrated, and to what extent they can rely on a “no-plane” tactics, i don’t know.
      but i do know that they set no limit as to meeting their goals.
      if their goal was to molest children and/or eat them without us knowing, they sure would have succeeded.

      but it is not so.

      because they use this as a meme too. they use it against us an asset it their continual conquest of our minds, with the same procedure as always, through books, films, articles and contrived intelligence.

      it is just not any other reason for us to know what we know about for instance president Bush’s overnight visits from Johnny Gosch in the White House…

      1. Hoi Polloi

        Look, UNreal, I think you are confused. My only attempt at a point was to state the fact that child abuse occurs. It is why we have a name for it.

        I am not sure what you think I implied or said or why what you imagined I said was so disagreeable to you, but it is true that child abuse happens.

        If you are telling me that movies inflate and distort this picture to exploit our emotions, I don’t disagree and I never disagreed. I agree whole-heartedly, and would not make any “exception” for the facts of how much TV fakery techniques enjoy dominance of our minds.

        If you are telling me child abuse and cannibalism do not occur within elite circles, awesome. I have no proof but that’s good news to me.

        If you are saying they don’t ever happen, I think you might be pleasantly deluded. And in that case, perhaps we should take a trip to Liberia together to find out.

        Finally, and I hope you do not take offense that I am carrying my refutation this far, but I would never categorize Ab’s distaste for the chemtrails topic as a “weakness” or “wall”. He just says he would need proof or to witness it himself to make a judgement. And that is pretty sound logic to me.

        I have a belief that child abuse happens because I have been convinced. I don’t care if you believe in it or not.

        Are we not on the same page? I think we are, and I also think you might believe we are not, and I am not sure why.

        1. UNreal

          we are on the same page Hoi, the fact that we discuss the topic shows that much. very much value your observations and points of view.
          however, my position is that the elite would not in any way miss out on a subject as horrible as child-molestation in their arsenal of tools for mind-control and fear.
          the subject of child abuse in this sense is not any more “a real phenomenon” than other memes such as terrorism, serial-murders or nuclear bombs.

          this is where our opinions diverge.

          terrorism, war and murder happens to the extent they are useful as a way of controlling us and our society. this is also why the usual propaganda tactics are used, such as films, books, internet sites & videos etc. Strauss Kahn’s NY sex predator case or Cathy O’Brien’s accusations are both parts of a strategy to portray a meme, just as is the Jimmy Savile scandal in the UK. we are meant to be disgusted and emotionally affected by this meme. nothing happens in the public eye that is not part of a program to control us.

          human lives are not a limited ressource for those who are in power. to picture what horror the people in charge are capable of, one does not need look further than chemio-therapy, a form of ritual murder in itself.

          1. Hoi Polloi

            I still don’t think you are saying anything we disagree on. This is just a semantics discussion now.

            I was implying “terrorism” isn’t very “real” because the word seems like a distraction from the fact that it’s just warfare. It has always been used most sagely in conjunction with the understanding that terrorism is part of war. Terrorism is war, in a way, if a specific kind. In that sense it is real. It’s not real in the sense that terrorism is represented by the powers that be as a separate wild phenomenon that war can accomplish the end of.

            Contrastingly, “child” is a basically useful word and “abuse” is a basically useful word, so I cannot take issue with them. Combined, the term “child abuse” is made, which holds a literal meaning, and which honors the basic meanings of those words. A child is treated poorly, for example. I do not say, therefore, that “child abuse” is unreal. That is a misuse of the term “unreal” or “fake” because it would destroy our ability to simply define when it isn’t.

            You seem to be saying the topic of child abuse is tainted, because it is used to manipulate us. Again, I do not disagree. But I do disagree, for reasons states above, that we should call child abuse unreal. Instead, I would say it is manipulated, misleading, difficult to talk about, difficult to research, itself a topic that is abused.

            We use different English, but I think we really mean the same thing. So please, next time you hear me talk about this topic, do not hear things I did not say or intend. If you just want to tell the world, “I don’t think it’s a topic worth looking into at all” then you might say so proudly. However, please be careful and selective with the only language I know with any detail how to communicate in. How we phrase things in this research is quite important.

            If you are asking me to be more careful and cautious about how I use language, then I would ask that you please be more specific in your request rather than berating me for my use of mine. Thanks.

  4. UNreal

    The Emperor has no Clothes

    Many illustrious films comes to mind when on the topic of child abuse:
    8 mm (1999), Gone Baby Gone (2007), Lovely Bones (2009), Prisoners (2013)*

    So, why does the elites propaganda-machine do PR for such devious behavior ?

    Is it because they engage in this behavior themselves, or is it another attempt, like the atom bomb, to have us live in the worst kind of fear imaginable ?

    Why are “trustworthy” characters always chosen for these parts ? Is it by accident that priests violate children, that Breivik was a Police officer, that top military leaders are Satanic Cult Priests or that Ted Bundy was the ideal son-in-law ? or that psychologically damaging names are found as to illustrate these different news-storys like “Zodiac Killer” (implies the horoscope as fearsome) or “Son of Sam” (implies all America’s children (Uncle Sam) are suspect) ?

    Maybe a clue to the mechanics at work here is David McGowan’s “Programmed to Kill: The Politics of Serial Murder”. In this book, we can clearly sense how many of the most famous mass-murderers clearly have ties to intelligence services or the army and how their body count is largely constructed,,, Why was Alex Jones bid to fame/credibility to enter the Bohemian Grove and the underlying suspected at this location ?

    We might also consider that all “Satanic” cults seems largely made up and that Charles Manson really never did anything as his “murders” appear quite definitely fabricated.

    *the movie “the Virgin Suicides (1999)” could also be part of a child abuse meme

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.