Major leaders as actors

likes this

This is not a post to confuse the topic with the misdirection of Dallas Goldbug’s 0;research”. It is to illustrate the concept that higher political offices are controlled by influences and power structures that are anything but grassroots. Hoi elaborates:

People — real people amongst us — get a minor position of power that is gridlocked in the system, and they realize the only way of doing anything significant is one of two things:

1. Having tons of people appear to care (doesn’t seem to matter if it’s real or not) to wave at their opponents.
2. Lucrative connections to people with “real” people power, especially through fake friendship greased by money, drugs, sex, etc.….

No tags for this post.

46 thoughts on “Major leaders as actors

    1. anthonycarallo

      orebil- some depressing predictive programming set to the annoying sound of jazz. When you start to see that everything is shadow and try to get out of the cave, the only people outside of the cave are the shadow throwers who create the lies – and the ones in the cave will stone you to death if you try to get them to come out.

  1. ab Post author

    I’ve decided to close off debate on the Dallas Goldbuggery on this forum. I thank Frank for his (sincere) contribution and wish him well on his search for unlikely dopplergangers. It’s clear that neither side will be moved by the other so we will save future readers the confusion of reviewing any further debate.

  2. Videre

    Mr. Salt:

    As stated previously DallasGoldBug – DGB – Ed Chiarini does offer truth. That is the HOOK. He then adds a monotone voice, a repetitive heart beat that strobes across the screen. That is the METHOD OF HYPNOSIS to make his viewers more accepting of the lunatic messages that he attaches to his nuggets of truth. That is THE CRAZY.

    He does this because he is government and a smart government ensures the failure of their opposition by leading it. You are either a paid shill or one recruited by the powerful methods they use. If you are the latter – they are getting more bang for their buck.

    Sharing “Education Illuminated Face” AKA Ed Chiarini’s methods is far more interesting that the crazy he has spun and attached to his nuggets.

    I hope you find you way to where we are. There is a lot less confusion and a lot more clarity in their methods.

    Good Luck,

    1. Videre

      For those who are just starting out on this journey, it is probably useful to understand how these nuggets of truth wrapped in crazy are then useful to the powers that be.

      The researchers who have been “enlightened” want to share their new found knowledge with their friends, family, coworkers and the world. They present the nugget to their loved ones and colleagues with passion and conviction which is only to be met with fear and anger. Their audience either feels sick at the thought of what they are being presented with (cognitive dissonance), or they are in fear that the teller has truly lost their mind.

      The tellers of the DGB “truths” are most often left with the feeling of loss and that they are now looked upon different or as crazy. They have lost the respect of those who once saw them as respectable. This new found info was offered like a jewel and with the teller’s pride in the knowledge that they had uncovered something so valuable to be shared.

      After the unease of the imbalance in relationships between the teller and those they told, many will set aside what they have learned and move back to a much more comfortable place so as not to be ridiculed, and most importantly not to be exiled and alone.

      We are part of a herd and no matter how crazy it feels to adopt lies believed by the majority of the herd, many will move back to the herd as feelings of being separate and alone are worse. They know that and use it against us. This is all part of social engineering in moving the masses.

      Jesus was given to us a sheep herder. Our masters like to live authentically as well and often do offer the truth for those who want to see it – but they do protect it. An ounce of crazy goes a long way.

      1. ab Post author

        Well put Videre. I presented Alex Jones to a few people and lost my credibility quite quickly. Too bad I didn’t start with September Clues with them!

        1. anthonycarallo

          If people lack the curiousity to research this stuff themselves they can’t jump right into the fakery stuff because their brains will not allow them them to go there. They will look directly at a totally fake looking picture and read an impossible, contradictory story and not say “yes, that looks/sounds fake”, but they will say “oh so all the police were in on it then?” or they will want a link from a mainstream source. They have to be told what to think by whom they view as an authority or they become very uneasy. Everyone I know is that way , which is why I come to these shilly forums.

          1. anthonycarallo

            “Please elaborate on “these shilly forums”.”
            It is based on 10 + years of experience. If I were to go into the details of what has happened then I would be called a “drama queen” (or king)…. If I were to give you a link to a blog devoted to the sole purpose of doing serious harm to myself and my children (in my real name)- then I would be discredited by association by linking to the blog, a blog which is associated with forums that are venerated here. I would sound petty and vindictive if I told you how I was treated by the forums who popularized the victims research, which ignored me while I was doing it before. If I disclosed the personal (offline) experiences that relate to these forums, I would sound crazy. That is how abusers operate, if you tell what they do you sound nuts. If I were to warn people what can happen on skype (spy-kam) , then I would be a “shill” trying to get people to not talk to each other. No one listens to a nobody, and there are real victims in this world, not everything is a joke. They only listen to the authorities; the name brands, even on these boards. Am I the only one who gets cognitive dissonance from forums about fakery run by people whose own photos and identities look fake? I don’t think so, but they are the only ones who don’t disappear.

    2. anounceofsaltperday

      Hi Videre, Ab, K etc,

      You might be right… if history is a guide, you are probably right.

      And yet you completely fail in any challenge offered to disprove any of his claims. K continues to talk about voices… even tho we know that there is voice morphing technology, with Psyopticon absolutely fooling all of you very clever people so well and for soooooo long. This examples hoists you with your own petard. is media. You are the media fakery specialists. Prove that Julia Gillard and Jodi Foster are not the same person. Prove that Elton John and Kevin Rudd are not played by the same person. Prove that Christina Applegate is NOT playing the role of Christine Milne. Ro11o lives here, he should have this nonsense rubbed out with a quick smear.

      This should be very simple for you. Do these things. Put this NONSENSE to the sword and show me what Serious Conspiracy Research is all about.

      Verily, I write this unto thee. Your comments are just a mass of blatherings demonstrating your impotence on this topic. You may even need to invoke SIMON SHACK to get through this.

      Show me the way great keepers of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

      I wait humbly.

      1. khammad


        You wrote:

        “K continues to talk about voices… even tho we know that there is voice morphing technology”

        Are you serious?!?! Do you really think an actor or actress uses voice morphing technology in their every day life to remain in character? HOW DOES THAT WORK?!?!

        How does live at-the-moment voice morphing technology work, where one person is sounding like another person and not himself? How does a person talk out loud in his normal voice in front of people, but then what the people hear is the altered voice?

        You are either DELIBERATELY not addressing these technical issues or you have NOT THOUGHT this through enough to discuss it in public.

        Either way, perhaps it’s time for you to go.

        1. anounceofsaltperday

          you continue to avoid my direct questions K. Prove that dallasgoldbug is wrong.

          You dodge, duck and weave.

          If you ban me (again) I win because you make clear that you cannot back up your statements and all you have are appeals to authority, the pressure of social acceptance.

          No issue to me. I guess the fact that the topics that I respond seem to be the only ones that generate any lingering interest is not lost on me, you or the readers of the thread.

          Your not very veiled threats simply demonstrate exactly how friendly all the fako’s are… until someone disagrees with them : ). I think that qualifies as a cult.

          1. or e bil

            So, Frank… You Inspired me to dig deeper into finding more potential Goldbug boo-boos, and it didn’t take long to find a few.

            You, being a fan and all probably remember around Sandy Hook time-ish when DGB made the amazing call that one of the main characters from that event, Robbie Parker, was none other than skateboarding superstar, Tony Hawk. It appears that the call is now in fact that Robbie Parker is instead, Tony Hawk’s son. But according to the banner he has up describing all of the miscellaneous parts that Hawk’s son plays, he still infers that Hawk is Robbie Parker as well as Hawk’s son. I’m thinking “Holy crap… Is this a mathematical transitive type thingy where Tony Hawk is quite possibly impersonating his own son!!??” Here is Goldbug describing to you in his own RAW eloquent prose his unfortunate past faux pas.

            “In the photograph above we see Chris drama Pfaff, who is the cousin of rob Dietrich. Rob of course is the host of the TV show ridiculousness, that is produced by none other than Jeff Tremaine. But the really interesting thing about Chris drama is the fact that he is the son of Tony hawk. And if you recall I matched Tony hawk as playing the role of Robbie Parker when in fact I was wrong. Robbie Parker is Tony hawk’s on Chris drama. Chris gets is drama nickname for good reason as you’ll see him playing many roles in the fake alternative media actor based reality. “



            You remember how Goldbug sort of seemingly brought this Greenberg/Sexton family acting clan to the limelight, right? (I know you do as I even saw you commenting about it on this or another thread. :)) Well, it seems that many conspiracy-type websites picked up on the fact that a few members of this Greenberg/Sexton family look as awful lot like some of the Sandy Hook characters, of which I am in total agreement with. Here is an example of one of said websites:


            Where I find it strange is that all of these other websites seemingly picked up on the very obvious similarities, but in these particular cases, your fakery guru Mr. Goldbug appears to have declared web silence and presented no revealing material related to the same matter. It seems like he really had the opportunity to “spike the football” but evidently didn’t make the connections or chose not to.

            Why do you think this is, Frank?

          2. anounceofsaltperday

            Hi or e bil,

            i can’t reply to your post, so I am replying here.

            How refreshing it is to see an actual thoughtful response on this topic. I could almost cry with joy, if I didn’t value detachment so much.

            I totally agree with you that there is “something fishy” about DGB. I can’t put my finger on it. Nonetheless, some perps have been identified, and this gets mixed up with wierd music, blind alleys and strange dialogue.

            But my question still remains… Is Jody Foster and Julia Gillard played by the same person?

            There seems to be a pattern where the truth is revealed…. but revealed in such a way that it all gets forgotten in the next news cycle.

            Is Jimmy Carter played by the same body that played JFK?

            The fallacy that we must be aware of is to attack the messenger, rather than focus on the truth of the message.

            I really appreciate your work on this topic. I for one have a very strong desire to see if the politics of my country can be sorted out. If it turns out that Christina Applegate is playing Christine Milne, then lets get that made public.

            If that is BS, lets get that put to rest as well. The Robbie Parker thing doesn’t affect me. I get what you are saying, but i think DGB has given himself wiggle room. He has to be pinned down.

            Lets do that. Suppressing discussion on this topic is childish.

        2. thegulo

          Dear KHammad

          I find it curious, that in search for circumstantial evidence, you would even consider the private life of the celebrities in question.

          It seems logical that when studying people that we never actually meet, especially from an avant-garde media-fakery point of view, we should be careful in mentioning, if at all, an alleged life away from the cameras and the attention for these individuals.

          Try asking randoms in the street about famous personalities, what they know, how they know it, and see if you can apply the same criterias as you demand here.

          Evoking the image of sir Ian talking to his family – What is really the every day life of these strangers? Aren’t we agreeing that VicSIMS are augmented by the living? The unicorn woman of Oslo Bombing™ describing her experience with Breivik in court? Is it safe to assume, conceptually and/or reasonably, that no-one would ever try to exploit their time in more than one role?

          However, in order to address the debate here, I will finish off with a question to you KHam:

          Can you please find evidence where we hear the voices of everyday life in any suspicious celebrity’s archives? (To clarify: Private recordings, which you, as an active media fakery journalist, critically can promote the credibility of its personal uniqueness to – that it clearly constitutes a separate entity)

          …And please, a question for you Frank:

          Would such evidence be enough, and if not, what could?

          Thank you all,

          edit: syntax

          1. khammad

            MATW, you wrote:

            “Aren’t we agreeing that VicSIMS are augmented by the living?”

            Do VicSIMS need to be dead to be a VicSIM? If there is a CluesForum member out there willing to weigh in, thank you in advance.

            Concerning Hollywood people, I know non-actor people who work in that town in support jobs. I have heard of several actors behaving in their public way ALL the waking hours, as these support people are around them.

            The deception that your scenario would require, over time and distance, is cost prohibitive. In this case two is cheaper than one, unless you can name a reason why 1 person is so indispensable, as to cost hundreds of times more.

            And now to answer your question:

            “Can you please find evidence where we hear the voices of everyday life in any suspicious celebrity’s archives?”

            No. It’s a trick question. By archives you mean a recording of some sort. The minute a voice hits a recording, it’s authenticity is in question. The only way to know is to hear the celebrity in person, and even then it is a judgement call. I guess if your techy, you could analyze the two voice signatures, the live one the suspicious one.

            I hope we are done with this area.

    1. anounceofsaltperday

      Hi or e bil,

      as discussed, you are the one saying the fellow is wrong. You are the one that has to disprove it. I haven’t looked into it. I am not affected by this.

      I am affected by the possibility that Tony Abbot and Tony Blair may be characters played by the same person.

      1. or e bil


        In this particular case, his claimed image from the “Boston Bombing Hoax” is in fact an image from the Oslo Bombing event of 2011, so perhaps it may be an instance where one would find him in the wrong. Understandably, he could have simply made a mental error and mistakenly subbed “Boston” for “Oslo”, but his addition of the marathon seal seems to indicate that he either really believes it to be footage from Boston or is intending to mislead for whatever reason. Either way, I think this type of sloppiness is inexcusable for those looking for guidance or assistance in seeking the truth.

        Moving on to the facial comparison angle, I, personally don’t see a resemblance of either the males or females in this example, but it almost seems that his contention could be that one may resemble practically anyone else with a tad of makeup here, facial prosthetic there. And if the technology he preaches is sound, what of the actors that might wear fake ears all day in public to hide their true identities? Ones that wear a mold of another actor to add or throw off suspicion? 🙂 There are so many what-ifs and who-cares that tag along with this type of research. I think this is why so many discount the research as highly unreliable and fairly useless.

        Oslo Bombing article…

        1. anounceofsaltperday

          So have you proved that Princess Muna Al Hussein is NOT the woman with the spike in her head?


          That is another fail.

          1. or e bil

            Here’s Wikipedia’s list of well known politicians that were also known actors. This likely has more relevance to the current topic more so than trying to make sense of Goldbug’s mad methods and choices of comparison subjects since it does actually show that actors do in fact enter politics and that to enter politics, one may not necessarily need any other qualifications other than to have been an actor. It also demonstrates that one can do it out in the open without the necessity of makeup and other associated special effects.


      2. Videre

        He has a method and it is obvious to us. Like those coffee table books you see, if you look hard enough, eventually the picture will become obvious.

        We’re still holding out hope for you salt-guy!

  3. anounceofsaltperday

    and of course why on earth are you blaming me for bringing Dallasgoldbug to your gatekeeping website?

    It was Khammad and you Ab that dragged me here. I had not made a single comment on any topic when I was made the subject of ridicule and innuendo.

    It is all sowing and reaping.

    1. Hoi Polloi

      Okay, sites like this may throw around “Shill” a lot, and so you can throw around the term “Gatekeeping” a lot. We can all do name calling.

      But what truth does this point to? A fundamental disagreement. You know that we can dish it as well as you and that the longer you sit in your position the more you will attract insults, just as the longer you are there getting mad about it, the more you will insult this place — regardless of any platform this argument gave any of us for our own beliefs.

      If you believe something, you have the tools to make it known and do something about it. If these kinds of sites don’t demonstrate that for you, you are probably going to be degraded and insulted because it will seem to others that you are doing it on purpose just to be a whiner. This will undoubtedly lead to you being seen as a “thorn in the side” of this site.

      Ab has a higher tolerance for that than CluesForum, but this is where we are at now.

      So instead of throwing our beliefs at each other, why don’t you just make a cool blog or forum or something, like we have? Or maybe even do something even better or more creative? Are you really going to dedicate your time to harassing communities you disagree with?

      1. anounceofsaltperday

        why don’t i just stay here and keep pointing out that you have not disproved the premise of Dallasgoldbug that we CAN actually start to sort the BS out by closely scrutinizing the bona fides of the people that are in political office?

        Simply put… if we scrutinise Sr McCain on the basis that he may be the Fonz, then we might actually start to sort out the mess.

        NOTHING that you write Hoi Pollois is the SLIGHTEST bit helpful.

        My view is that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Ditto Tim and K

        1. ab Post author

          Hoi is part of the solution. Hoi writes in a way that cuts through the disinformation and makes clear arguments against things we know are wrong but can’t otherwise put unto words. K as well. We are gatekeepers of good information that we as a collective think is right. You Frank have made your point enough times to not convince me or Hoi or K, so leave your argumentation now to the Goldbuggery forums where they can remain with the believers. The Internet is big enough to hold both.

          1. anounceofsaltperday

            I am not in slightest bit interested in convincing you Tim, or Hoi Polloi or K or Markus. Your approach has, is and always will be to steer people away from the role of the Greenburg family and the Saturday Night Live crew in fakery and flim flam.

            You brought me here. You and your team continue to revive the topic of dallasgolbug. I have no problems about finding out that the guy is wrong, but neither you, your drones or me have been able to do so.

            What my purpose in continuing to pursue this is to demonstrate clearly to the readers of this thread is that you cannot discredit the guy. You have NOT provided a SINGLE scintilla of evidence. All you do is WRITE that you have disproved it.

            Its a logical fail.

            When you block me, your readers will know that I am blocked. It’s really checkmate.

            Thanks for the game. : )

    2. khammad


      False, I did not drag you into this current DGB argument. You did that yourself by showing up on Teamspeak just when K Ham Radio was starting on that very same Teamspeak channel.

      Nothing I have written nor anyone else has written since we last spoke could have given you cause to think I or anyone that frequents have changed our minds about DGB.

      Interesting how you made yourself the whipping boy.

        1. khammad


          The point of the video “Sorry DGB You are busted” was two fold.

          1) To show an obviously incorrect comparison: Ron Paul and Ian McKellen. In hearing their voices side by side, one can clearly tell they are not the same person. One voice is shrill, the other voice is famous for his Shakespeare.

          2) Then sit back and watch who will defend such a bad comparison.

          Really, the point of the video was to see WHO would still defend DGB after being shown how the comparison couldn’t possibly be true.

          1. anounceofsaltperday

            What is this BS about voices K? Actors act. Mel Blanc did an untold number of voices. Your vid actually has Ian Mack saying “I pretend to be the person I am playing”.

            Voice morphing can easily be used, if it was necessary, because none of us ever see these Ian Mack and Ron Paul in the same room at the same time.

            You haven’t done any analysis of the voices anyway, you are allowing yourself to believe what you want to believe.

            Ian Mack MAY not be playing Ron Paul, but you have NOT proved that he hasn’t, isn’t or will not.

            This is the same challenge you have with Jodi/Julia and Elton/Kevin.

            Your DGB busted video slurred myself and the charming Gwynneth and the ORDERED people not to go anywhere near dallasgoldbug…. because SERIOUS CONSPIRACY PEOPLE have the CONSENSUS that he is a shill.

            I urge all readers to revisit K’s first video to watch clumsy, inept attempts at gate keeping.

  4. anthonycarallo

    “well entrenched” families like the Kennedys (haha their teeth) – versus actors-what’s the difference?
    JoKennedy- movie producer/Gloria Swanson
    Marilyn Monroe/Peter Lawford/ Arnold Schwarzenegger/The bigtoothed actress from Curb Your Enthusiasm/Darryl Hanna, yada,…Jackie O was the Kim Inacarcrashian of her day, it’s all distraction for us to speculate over. Isn’t it odd that other than the one line Kennedy/Fitzgerald, you never hear of any of their relatives?
    Dallas Goldbug always makes original cogent arguments that are probably true, but then he discredits his own ideas with farfetched proof, such as all the actors of the Gifford shooting were related to Hank Greenberg which he decided by looking at their (conveniently located) facebook pages, or the shoe bomber is Omar bin laden. I mean, maybe Fonzie really IS John McCain, but no one is going to buy it and it discredits other work by association. Photo comparisons are good if they show morphing or fakeness, but not trying to compare real people because you don’t know what has happened to the photos.

  5. anounceofsaltperday

    The clues forum continues to expand on this topic…… .

    One remains bemused by the numerous characters point blank refusing to tip their hats to Ed Chiarrini aka dallasgoldbug on

    I read of “the fear” that readers will led down dark road of “dallasgoldbuggery”. Oh Cluesforum Forbid !

    What on this lovely earth are you so fearful of? He just writes words, post pics and puts his views in a way which clearly allows any person to make judgements on the validity of his methods and the people he nominates.

    Yes, we agree that they are actors… but which ones? I am still trying to disprove the “easy, soft targets” like Jodi Foster not possibly playing Julia Gillard.

    Unfortunately for me, everyone on cluesforum and fakeologist and truthin7minutes is tooooo FEARFUL to help out….


    1. Hoi Polloi

      (Sorry, everyone to feed the troll, but …)

      No, you are wrong. People are not afraid of bad information. They are uninterested in promoting it. There is a difference, and your deliberate misrepresentation is disrespectful of that.

      Believe it or not, many people have seen Dallas Goldbug’s efforts and (after patient reading and watching, and after careful analysis) have gotten what they value from it. You assume that intelligent people with critical thinking skills will value it and want to promote it as a good source of information. You are wrong. It is more for the likes of people who do not want to research anything, because anyone who tries to verify the accusations of Dallas Goldbug will quickly find it is hot air. Several members on CluesForum don’t value Goldbug’s “findings” for what they purport to be, but as either the creations of a deluded individual that is terrible at doing research or a deliberate ruse to dilute research.

      You simply cannot compare slightly similar people and say they are the same.

      It is also the direct reverse of Vicsim research, which has found overly cloned-looking or overly divergent faces in those purported to have died on 9/11. That is real research because it is backed up by facts. You can find this all out by scraping the surface of 9/11.

      Goldbug’s shit isn’t the same. It is as if Goldbug wishes to confuse the issue of what constitutes someone “resembling” someone in order to poorly argue about physignomy and take away the findings of the Vicsim Report.

      But by all means, everyone please do go to Dallas Goldbug’s pages and sites. And instead of swallowing it as presented, do as a good researcher on any topic would do and research it for yourself to see if it holds up.

      Here you go:…

      And, if he convinces you, by all means stay there in his world and promote it all over the Internet. Just don’t bother coming to CluesForum with garbage like it. We are a bit more discriminating; we are interested in real forensics, and the most universally convincing findings that anyone could do for themselves. That is what distinguishes CluesForum/Fakeologist thinkers and readers from wastes of time like Goldbug videos.

      Anyone following and liking Goldbug stuff: please get out of here once and for all; go flood Facebook and Twitter, now. Good luck, and godspeed. I hope you do well to wake people up. Just leave it off our sites that you apparently think are a “lost cause” because we have a taste for real science.


      1. anounceofsaltperday

        I just don’t accept the continued use of the “appeal to authority” that the various people on this site are just going to impose.

        Dallasgoldbug makes actionable statements. You people just say “they are actors”.

        Dallasgoldbug is useful. You behave like the White Rabbit in “Shardik”.. we are all doomed, but don’t worry about it.

        Dallasgoldbug put particular people under the spotlight. It is foolish to accept his views without further evidence. Nonetheless, as I keep repeating and repeating and repeating… so far, his models are yet to be disproved.

        This latest discussion is an obvious attempt to ringfence the likelihood that JFK and Jimmy Carter are the same person.

        This latest discussion is an obvious attempt to ringfence scrutiny of the Greenburg family.

        My clear view is that you are all condemned by your behaviour and censorship in this topic.

        1. Hoi Polloi

          No, you really don’t understand.

          We are open to the idea of factual, good points that there are nameable people responsible and that we should name them. Dallas Goldbug just doesn’t do a good job.

          As for censoring Goldbug, well, that may be taking place yes. But there are many bad things and misinformation censored from good sites in order to concentrate on the best available information. If it turns out people who think alike and make a case for it are all “condemned” for being the “authority” on their own thinking, you are guilty of the same and it’s a piss poor argument for your guy whose work doesn’t stand on its own, regardless of the bravery of his saying what he purports to believe, if he does believe it and he isn’t just pulling our leg with poorly argued videos.

          Now, if the characters of JFK and Jimmy Carter are played by the same person, we will each of us owe you and the public and everyone an apology for being fools. We will have to eat humble pie, indeed. It’s an intriguing idea.

          But Dallas Goldbug makes a terrible case for all of his ideas.

          So far, your argument that we are “gatekeeping” is synonymous with an argument you are making that basically we are not superheroes that provide everyone with all good information to fix everything. We specialize in what we know and what we can communicate. It is up to more people, who want to, to do the same with what they know and what interests them. If Goldbug is good, it doesn’t matter what we think. It will rise to the surface of bullshit and shine as clear and true as all other truths.

          I don’t see that happening, though. His stuff is mostly really insultingly dumb and it doesn’t convince me, if it’s *posing* as very well-meaning indeed. I don’t trust him or his motivations, even if you believe that “condemns” me or if you believe we simply *should* have more information than we do.

          Again, everyone should probably go to Goldbug’s stuff and see for themselves what they think. Maybe it’s great and we’re the dummies.

          1. anounceofsaltperday

            as i will continue to logically point out, we are looking for DISPROOF, not proof.

            I know you are not convinced… that is not at issue. My point is that you have not eliminated his arguments as being impossible.

            This is simply hoi polloi.. when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

            I have made this really easy for you. I have patiently set this situation up so that you can kill dallasgoldbuggery with a single coup de grace.

            Because all Khammad did with her original “debunking dallasgoldbug” video was to create a mockumentary revealing logical fallacies.

            And I am going to keep pushing you guys on dallasgoldbug. THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT TOPIC IN FAKEOLOGY… because if DGB is right, then there is a lot of things that can change for the better.

    1. Hoi Polloi

      An interesting recommendation, since it’s associated with the awkward “whistle blower” character of Ted Gunderson. Something to look into, but indeed take with some salt, as your handle suggests.

  6. Blue Moon

    Special to Hoi at Clues Forum- Thanks for reposting my spiel- Formatting looks great- Onward…

  7. Blue Moon

    I think the actors come from a few different backgrounds- The Bush/Kennedy types come from well entrenched families who have served their masters at the highest levels over a long period of time and the family name earns public and historic recognition for their service even if they don’t wield actual power while in the White House- They continue what the family has always done which is to protect the interests of their masters, though with a very public face- These actors may be loved or loathed by the people but they never care what the people think- They want their family name carved in stone-
    Then there are types like Reagan and Obama who are simply actors- They spell the families who have clout so that the charade of this democracy gets a fresh boost from these “outsiders”- They have no power of any kind and simply read their lines- They ward off the suspicion that there are in fact elite families who actually run things- They are groomed for many years to ascend to the throne but are then shackled to it-
    Then there are gangsters like LBJ, Nixon, Clinton- They know how to broker deals in the back room while lying through their teeth at the podium- They come from the legal class, have communication skills, have been compromised at a very early stage of their careers and “get” how things work- They are alternately salesmen and muscle- These are the high functioning psychopaths periodically needed to shake things up, because forcing change on the public is the way to control them- Nobody gets rooted in traditions for too long- They might resist if they do-
    Coming up through the ranks at the local levels, I think business cartels have talent scouts on the lookout for promising prospects- I think the key to finding these newbies is if they have ever taken a binding oath and held to it- Whether military, legal or fraternal- Taking orders without question is probably the fundamental talent these future politician/actors need to display before any money gets invested in their initial campaigns- Swearing an oath within a pecking order system is one way to tell if the rookie has the right personality to obey without question-
    As for the stray populist, he may occasionally have his day in the sun, but he fades soon enough- He’s good for business, though, as a temperature gage of the public’s wrath and his message and methods are copied and modified and a new actor poses as a simulacrum of that popular rage, but it gets absorbed into ineffective groups of like-minded armchair revolutionaries and fizzles-
    Bottom line: Politics is as big a waste of time as religion- Those systems are propelled by faith alone- And no, I don’t have a third alternative- I’m a Nothingist when it comes to herding the people-

  8. anthonycarallo

    I was just thinking about this exact same thing. On a big scale I think they are just actors or agents reading scripts. On a local scale they are under the control of someone. Unless they serve a powerful master they don’t get anywhere. Unfortunately, the people are not united to be that powerful master.

Comments are closed.