My Epitaph

If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything!

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Sam Tripoli's Taboo Topics and Conspiracies Hypocrisies

I can't admit that I have listened to all of the Tin Foil Hat Podcast episodes, and I doubt if I will listen to all of them.  First of all, the entire premise seems to demonstrate why I haven't had much-to-any interest in attending standup performances because it appears that the premise of the podcast is "comedians casually commenting on conspiracies" but I have yet to find any "comic" that appears to demonstrate a quick wit and/or a sense of humor during any show, especially from the host: let alone a true sense of "academic" authority on any topic discussed I've seen.  Are the topics of conspiracy theories one of the few subjects that even "professional" (i.e. getting paid to tour) touring comics refuse to find any humor, or am I delusional in thinking that standup comics would also have a demonstrably quick wit, love for laughter and sense of humor towards all subjects?  I suppose hearing many standup comics on The Bob and Tom Show (They moved to town and began warping my pre-pubescent 12/13 year old mind and sense of humor around 1983/4: Bob and Tom displayed great humor, even if it offended some 1980s snowflakes - a humor I have never once seen or heard the times I've been exposed to Howard Stern's radio/E! show, who always seemed a distant second, at best, from the heyday of The Bob and Tom Show, and even well even after B&T lost it early magic after divorces and syndication) that used to be able to hilariously banter on about the news of the day, maybe I was spoiled in what I expect out of professional comics without recognizing that you can be a professional standup comic and not appear funny whatsoever outside of your prepared material, and maybe that's because B&T only brought on to their show the touring comics that can be funny outside of their prepared material and off the top of the heads and tips of their tongue with an entreatingly quick wit?  And, although Mr Tripoli might acknowledge differing degrees in conspiracy theories with the analogy to the colored belt system of martial arts, he would be as delusional as I seem to be (about how comics should be able to demonstrate a quick wit and sense of humor on podcasts on any subject) if he thinks he can take his "black belt" into a cage match against another martial art of conspiracy comprehension.  That would end up like the early days of UFC/MMA where certain "arts" were proven not to be successful or even partially effective combat arts when placed in the crucible of combat.

I can only recall one author/"expert", and he is a Sitchinite who appears on Ancient Aliens, so trying to get the input of supposed experts on a subject doesn't appear to be high on the Tin Foil Hat Podcast's list (or implausible to achieve no matter how hard they try without gaining a huge audience), and I doubt it will ever be possible to book authors so long as they continue just "circle-jerking" other comic's podcasts (do people who pay for standup have money or time left to purchase and read books?).  But, since the circular citing of ideas among conspiracy authors seems a method operandi to try and legitimize the ideas being cited circularly (authors relying upon Sitchin as a primary source also cite other authors citing Sitchin as though such citations lend credibility to any of the sources within that circular reasoning and citation circumference), why should we expect these deviations from the skeptical rigors of true scholarship and logical fallacies to be eliminated by comics on their podcasts (what % of readers of said conspiracy circles fall for the flawed scholarship)?  If certain conspiracy authors demonstrate inferior scholarship, I suppose it's my own fault for thinking a conspiracy podcast might strive for the highest standards of scholarship, especially one by standup comics (if only I could believe that Alex Jones was formerly Bill Hicks...)
That doesn't deserve a link in case any reader of mine become seduced into such a worthless rabbit hole of idiotic beliefs!
Because...
Belief is the antithesis of knowledge.


Though I do have minimal respect for Sam's rules for ronin's intent.  
I would have more if he could live up to this own Rules for Ronin.

1. We ('ronin') never 'affiliate' with any group -

Since he also seems to run a sports podcast (Punch Drunk Sports, again not worth the link in case any reader of mine waste time on team sports owned by the plutocratic class), and wears an LA Dodger's hat in this "Mother of all Truth Bombs" it would seem as though he has allowed the imposed (from the highest echelons of wealth and power running the land covertly upon the masses) tribalistic divisions into team loyalties and devotion of spectator sports nullify any claim of never affiliating with any group (even if it's only being a sports fan in general is a group with whom he willing affiliates), and he overtly states he condones affiliating with any sexual deviance grouping/labeling (he uses "kink/kinky" but he's invalidating his own rules nonetheless by making sexual and sports exceptions - even if he doesn't admit the sports, his wearing a Dodger's hat and having another podcast about sports clearly shows he can't help but be hypocritical to his very first rule of never affiliating with any group).  At the end of this posting, it should be obvious what biased group positions he has never questioned the dogma of their beliefs.

2. We do not defend anyone we personally do not know

By failing to take a critical view (or at least multiple views of each conspiracy theory to at least ascertain a "plausibility index" for said conspiracy) of Sitchin and having the only author I've seen on the Tin Foil Hat Podcast being an "expert" and former sycophant to Sitchin before the old con man (and Zionist Jew trying to deflect attention from the Cuneiform tablets clearly being among the various uncited source documents that were plagiarized in the Bible - instead of allowing those who might unravel the fiction plagiarized as the Bible to realize there's no objective archaeological evidence of the literal stories in the Bible: most definitely no evidence of the supposed historical events as literally told in the Bible and the shattering of preconceived beliefs arising from this realization about the Bible and associated loss of faith) died, Sam Tripoli seems to defend many ideas promulgated by people he does not personally know (at least I didn't hear Sam claim to have known Zechariah Sitichin before he died on that episode).  If Sam were serious about this rule, it would seem to me that he would need to be more challenging to the conspiracy theories he endorses by making a show about them, as well as ideas he clearly defends and fails to scrutinize (keep reading, I'll get there) than he is; he seems too eager to believe instead of exerting what it takes to know.  I may have authors I defend to an extent, just as I have other authors I "attack" their credibility (Sitchin being just one, but I couldn't tolerate more than his first book The Twelfth Planet, unlike Tony Bushby whose 4 books inspired much of my studies in rare book libraries - even if only to fight my way out of that rabbit hole where I had read Bushby believing his claims about 20 years in rare book libraries around the world), but the one's I defend are because their works withstand the scrutiny and skepticism I will demonstrate in this post (as well in the link 3 lines above).  If I were to reword what I percieve his intent for this rule to be (as well as trying to close loopholes inherent from his wording), it would be akin to "We do not defend anyone or any idea that cannot withstand the highest scrutiny of true scholarship."  

However, I have been called a "scholar" by more than one professional librarian/archivist in university/research and private libraries inside the USA, and I doubt if Sam Tripoli has ever been called a scholar by a professional who would recognize true scholarship in anyone possessing and demonstrating it.  As the link to The Bushby Fraud page will demonstrate to any objective reader, not defending anyone we personally don't know should most definitely include authors whose works can't sustain scholarly scrutiny and skepticism!  When I was in some of the best libraries in the USA/world, I would try to attack any idea and source discussing said idea with a gale force 10 wind of skepticism.  Having done so to multiple sources, the facts that withstand the scrutiny from all sides and remained standing for observation seem obvious and consistent underneath each source's surface spin.

For instance, in my ideal definition of "Bible Study" [the Newberry Library would allow me 4 Bibles from the vault at one time; after going through all the Bibles in the vault, I settled for the Vulgate translation (either the Rhemes or Douay depending on whether I was in the New or Old Testament), and of the 3 dedicated to the reigning British monarch I would have the 1535 Coverdale Bible (dedicated to Henry VIII - the wife killer and founder/head of the Anglican Church and the first full English translation of the Bible), the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 King James Bible] requires true skeptical scrutiny of the competing agendas to have any hope of ascertaining any "truth" occulted inside the Bible.  Clearly there were and are at least two competing agendas between these translations: the Vulgate supports the Vatican and Roman Catholicism while the others endorse the monarchy ruling the British Empire (but not all of the same family/bloodline).  The verses where they disagreed usually revealed an occulted fact that both agendas wished to keep hidden from the masses [and which the Freemasons had the key as to where to begin unraveling what was occulted under the literal stories of the Bible - even if no/few Freemason(s) today would know this], or a common control mechanism (for instance in Romans 13, both translations want the masses to be submissive to authority as though that authority was ordained by God, they just disagree on which hierarchical system should be accepted, without questioning by the masses, as ordained by the divine: the divine right of kings, or the corrupt centralized bureaucracy of the Vatican - I've been too conditioned by the Constitution and Enlightenment to accept either king or pope as being placed on their respective thrones by any "true God").

Sam Tripoli will try to claim that "We have no Masters" but it seems obvious to me that Sam Tripoli exemplifies my quote:
If you don't master your language you will always have a master.  

Especially when hearing him attempt multisyllabic words like Simulation (he totally believes that it's Sim-A-lation, but I suppose he's only watched videos and never read any books on the topic and that's why he can't seem to grasp which vowel occupies the second syllable), and the funniest I've heard Sam be was after being told the phrase was virtue signaling, he couldn't quite comprehend the difference between virtue and virtual, and I'm pretty sure he once stated virtual singing instead of virtue signaling - and it wasn't written so he can't claim he's dyslexic; he heard it stated correctly and didn't even bother to break down the term to comprehend why each word in the phrase to be specific and accurate because it's concerning people openly, aggressively and overtly signaling the virtues they demand we all exercise.  Observing how he didn't repeat the phrase back to insure he completely grasped the concept seems to indicate the level of intellect he's operating where facts and accuracy don't matter.

And before this ends I will discuss another master or two he hints at having - even if not outright admitting it, other than demonstrating his being a slave to a language he, like most, fail to master and one of the most effective divisive techniques to create conflict that can be profited from by the plutocrats: televised sports.  (At least it sounds like he finally gained mastery over cocaine, but the reason people still comment that he's on drugs seems likely because he's gotten the "brain damaged" nervous habits that come from way too much cocaine and meth.  Even after someone has quit those drugs, some, maybe even most, still demonstrate the fidgeting habits hardwired from muscle memory that they'll never be able to kick.)

3.  We defend no action we had no say or part in committing

Again, I seem to comprehend what the motives behind this rule likely are and can appreciate the underlying motive while again feeling like he fails to live up to his own rules and worded it so legal loopholes exist as currently phrased.  In essence, I believe his attempt with all his rules for "ronin" are along the same principle as my own epitaph:
If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything.
However, using my epitaph to cleanse the palate from these early courses to prepare for the entree, I will begin my ultimate constructive critique for Sam Tripoli by working backwards through his rules while applying them to a certain conspiracy theory that he absolutely refuses to address and whenever the very topic is brought up, even if by Sam himself, Sam always states his emphatic belief that this "conspiracy theory" can never be considered as even plausible, let alone to try and objectively weigh the evidence as presented by the opposing sides like a judge is supposed to objectively weigh the evidence presented in court with the known facts of the law his oath is to uphold.  This consistent Pavlovian response to an audible stimulus seems to prove Sam Tripoli still has master, so he's a Samurai instead of Ronin!

To begin with, let me propose an example.  I participated in the local anti-war protest on the day of global protest before W illegally invaded Iraq in 2003.  Although I participated in a peaceful protest, what if some of the protesters had been agent provocateurs and had started some criminal action trying to instigate a mob mentality?  What if they had been undercover police trying to incite a riot to be put down by the police?  Would my willful participation in the global day of anti-war protests have been an action I had any say or part in committing if this example of agent provocateurs inciting a mob to riot had happened, even if I did not participate in the actual rioting?  For that matter, what about Charles Whitman: if one develops a brain tumor, one may no longer be able to control what actions they make.  Whitman knew something was wrong with him because of the changes in thought patterns he had been experiencing that seem to have had an actual physical cause that overrode the frontal lobes dominance over the amygdala in healthy people who can control what actions they commit with willful intent.  There's been at least one other court case where a man who had lived a normal and healthy sex life began suddenly to get attracted to children.  It was discovered he had a brain tumor that when it was removed his sexual desires returned to normal.  When the tumor returned, so did his perverse thoughts that again disappeared with the tumor's surgical removal.  Let alone if we consider people who have toxoplasmosis and/or rabies.  These infectious diseases exemplify how even single-celled organisms can control and/or influence a grown adult's thinking processes.  If men infected with toxoplasmosis take more risks because of the toxoplasmosis, can they really claim to never take actions they might not otherwise do if it weren't for the toxoplasmosis?

If Sam Tripoli would really apply this thinking to his life, then he should free himself of the tribalism desired among the masses from spectating sports by the plutocrats owning the teams (at least the City of Green Bay owns the Packers instead of some billionaire who inherited a team like 'Junky Jim' Irsay inherited the Colts!) because, unless his Punch Drunk Sports podcast tries to get people awakened and out of the docile passive aggressive nature of spectating sports, he is still stuck in the "Matrix" established by the plutocracy to insure their perpetual dominance over people like Sam Tripoli and me.  But, even more to the core of his rule #3, if he is a typical sports fan(atic) he allows actions he has no say in or part in to have an endocrine impact upon his body and psyche - flooding him with natural highs when the team he has no say or part in whether they win or lose wins, while likely negatively impacting his body and mind with less euphoric endogenous chemicals with each loss.  (Maybe the dopamine and adrenaline rush of spectating a win replaced the high of cocaine for him while the losses replaced coming down?)  Having a favorite team whose exploits in their sport provides one a feeling of belonging (i.e, group identity) as well as the neuro-chemical joys of victory and agonies of defeat while doing nothing but letting the mirror neurons deceive the brain into believing the consciousness occupying said brain to be doing the actions of others seems to be the grossest violation of the underlying motive behind his rule #3.

If one wants to refuse to defend any action they had no say nor part in enacting when it comes to tackling conspiracy theories, why wouldn't they want to refuse to let the winning or losing of a team they aren't on, or coaching, influence their mood and state of mind?  Maybe Sam Tripoli is a better man than my brother, but my brother seems far more typical of a "true sports fanatic" who allow a loss they didn't participate in or coach to negatively impact their emotional state, or who get some high from a win they had nothing to do with, either.  There is a reason the "fan" as in a "Dodger's fan"
(because he's wearing the Dodger's cap in the linked Mother of All Truth Bombs above) originated as an abbreviation of fanatic.  (What's that quote of mine above about having a master if you don't master your language?)

But, to the crux of the issue: why hasn't Sam Tripoli applied these Rules for Ronin to the most heretical of all "conspiracy theories"?  I haven't seen him state it explicitly as rule #4, but he also admits to not try and discuss certain topics with those who aren't ready for the information, and out of respect for the idealism behind these rules I will state here and now that if Sam Tripoli is ever reading this, that he probably wants to stop now because I will present a logical reasoning behind his refusal to even address the data of all sides to ascertain if what the official dogma claims can withstand the highest of scholastic standards of skeptical scrutiny (a far greater "spiritual skepticism" than Sam clearly demonstrates), and it's highly likely that he may never be mentally prepared for this constructive critique of his demonstrable hypocrisy to his own rules.

Don't proceed if you aren't ready to have your belief system shattered, Sam. It might cost you far, far more than just the stress of a cherished dogmatic belief evaporating from exposure to actual facts.

One habit of thought I especially tried to hone while in the back brace in 2007 spending about 2000 total hours in some of the top libraries in the USA I alluded to above with trying to have a gale force 10 of skepticism blowing at each source, what remained standing, so to speak, was the closest thing I could find to an objective fact.  I mentioned above doing this with early English language Bibles from the Newberry Library's vault, but with that exercise I was fairly aware of the two major competing agendas (pro-Vatican v pro-Anglican/Monarchy) and am adamantly and vehemently opposed to both agendas.  However, I spent many a summer evening on the 4th Floor of the East Tower of the Herman B Wells Library in Bloomington, Indiana (was just called the Main Library when I was in school with the 7 floors of library in the East Tower being also called the Graduate Stacks, while the 5 story West Tower was the Undergraduate Stacks - the first four floors in the East Tower having separate collections, and offices, than the Graduate Stacks above them) where I would take a cart to the encyclopedia aisle and pick up every volume through the years (from 1860's English Cyclopedia through the most current Britannica) that would contain the entry I was wanting to study.  (There's a reason the 9th Edition of the Britannica has been called the "Scholar's Edition" because the next edition that was printed - after being bought and moved to Chicago by the Rockefeller's - began to eliminate paragraphs, and sometimes pages of what they had published in the previous "Scholar's Edition".)  Again, I scrutinized each source as best I could to discern the agenda behind the spin that was published to see the "real" truth about any fact or topic I researched, and the Encyclopedia Britannica was not the only source that I witnessed editing out information after both World Wars of last century.

The #1 form of mind control is information control because if you can control what information one has to make make a decision, you can predict, and profit from each decision made knowing what the one being profited from doesn't know.

In particular, what first began with taking Mr Bushby's books to libraries to try and verify his scholarship through his own sources cited evolved into using said world-class libraries to try and question both the "official stories" and the "conspiracy theories" to try and ascertain which have a statistical plausibility and to discredit ideas that had little chance of being possible over the past few centuries.  There are things that I might have thought possible before 2007 that I no longer think plausible, and I mean both official histories and conspiracy theories.  There were multiple times that I would encounter a fact on paper and it would cause me to leave the library and contemplate what it really meant, or if it had any meaning, and I have no doubt that my brain was consuming oxygen and burning calories like a marathon runner for that hour of deep concentration and contemplation about what meaning, if any, some strange fact might have.  

For example, I totally know that coincidence exists: not everything happens for a reason or has a hidden meaning - or at least I convinced myself that to not go too far off the deep end about just how intelligent the enemy of mankind is because I doubt I would have retained any sanity had I completely embraced a few things as being anything but an incredibly interesting coincidence.  A perfect example was looking up the name Bushby in the pre-WW1 Jewish Encyclopedia to see if that last name might have an entry.  When I found the proper page in the right volume, I read a short paragraph and had to go outside and walk around a beautiful campus for about an hour in summer trying to make sure I wasn't succumbing to confirmation biases with trying to make a connection.


Genealogy was not among my interests that summer as I blew dust off old volumes, daily.  I have always hoped someday to find someone who enjoys researching genealogy so I can discover if the father and son Presidents whose last name is Bush descend from the same "well-known" Jewish merchant family from Philadelphia.  I hope that there isn't a connection between both Bush families because this one paragraph about a Revolutionary War casualty ties in Jews with a Bush family and September 11th.  This one paragraph convinced me that coincidence is completely a part of the human experience, but it took about an hour of walking around thinking if it was a rational deduction or confirmation bias if I perceived anything but an interesting coincidence in this single paragraph published a century before I found it; so was it a motive for there to be another Jewish connection to 9/11 via another member of a Bush clan?  Until someone searches the descendants from that Philadelphia family of Jews named Bush to answer it either way, I'll assume that that paragraph about Lewis Bush to be a very interesting coincidence of history.  I don't know how sane I would be today if I couldn't reach the conclusion of coincidental 11 years ago about that paragraph.
If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything.
And I most definitely mean questioning your own conscious and subconscious biases and beliefs that can dictate your interpretation of data in a predictable way if left unquestioned!  I figured the physical act of walking while deeply thinking versus sitting and thinking deeply was to actively engage both hemispheres evenly with physical movement to engage the whole, active brain into the thought pattern and thinking process.  This is my explanation as to why physical activity can be the ideal trigger to finding a solution that has one stumped; I have heard and read of many a story of, say a physicist, who leaves their desk for a walk, or bike ride, or any other physical activity that requires both hemispheres to be active equally for physical coordination, and before long the solution to what has had them stumped becomes apparent, and it just seems to be a physical reaction of increased blood/oxygen to both hemispheres engaged in moving the body that can allow solutions to be revealed that would likely never arise if still sitting at their desk and thinking about the same problem.  Hell, some of the best lyrics I have ever created were just singing songs to myself while walking or riding a bicycle: never had anything to record them and could never recall even what the song was about by the time I reached a destination - I was just living in the moment singing to myself whatever was in my head and on my mind at the time and some of them were pretty good songs I wished I could have written down and found the music I was hearing for them!

If I were to apply these "rules for ronin" to the grandest heresy of all conspiracy theories today, I would have to accept that "conspiratorial" interpretation of the data that Sam refuses to even open-mindedly investigate on his conspiracy podcast.  Although Sam doesn't want to affiliate with any group, he most definitely affiliates with the conditioned and indoctrinated masses into believing the Holocaust narrative that absolutely refuse to question that narrative (because of the depth of conditioning in regular people, let alone men like Sam Tripoli that are "practically married" - a direct quote from one episode - to a Jewess girlfriend).  I don't affiliate with any groups of people who have had the intellectual honesty to seriously question this aspect of fairly recent history, but in my efforts to question both official history and conspiracy theories in world-class libraries to determine which narrative has more objective evidence to defend the narrative, I most definitely had to utilize sources published long before 1939 to try and ascertain which narrative is closer to a fictional interpretation of the objective facts, and which is closer to being the factual history - based upon objectively interpreting the data (and most definitely scrutinizing myself for any biases interfering with being objective).

So, although one may have every intent of never affiliating with any "group" that doesn't mean that others won't try to label said person into groups the masses have been conditioned and indoctrinated to essentially begin drooling and salivating at hearing the bells and whistles of the syllables constituting the words used to label and force an affiliation, that may or may not actually exist, into the minds of the conditioned and indoctrinated masses.  I suppose the Holocaust may be one of the few beliefs that only has an Aristotelian either/or logic: you either are unquestioning of the dogma, or you could be slandered as a Holocaust Denier for daring to question anything about the myth we've been, quite literally, psychologically conditioned (both classical and Skinner behavior modification conditioning) to salivate, drool and bark out Pavlovian reactions like "anti-Semite!" and "Holocaust Denier!"  I suppose the very topic of the Holocaust might be the reason Sam has rule #1 to convince his girlfriend/wife that he'll never become a "Holocaust Denier" because he thinks that's an organized group with which he could "affiliate" instead of an educated position of the highest levels of scholastic scrutiny and skepticism.

If I were to live up the second rule of never defending anyone I don't personally know, then I must carte blanche reject every "survivor's" story because I don't personally know any of them, let alone enough of them to determine firsthand their characters individually and as a collective/culture.  I don't know if Sam's girlfriend's/wife's family has anyone claiming to be a survivor that Sam would personally defend, but of the Jews I have known/met in my life, I would only consider an extreme minority to be honest and worthy of defending.  I sure didn't feel that way about that tribe when I spent a winter waiting tables in Boca Raton, FL, and that only confirmed just how in-group conditioned (mind-controlled) that tribe can act as I witnessed as an undergraduate when one of the 3 Jewish fraternities stole the Accounting 1 final and, being true to their stereotype, sold the final to the other 2 Jewish fraternities and all the Jewish men in those three Jewish fraternities cheated on the Accounting 1 final (and if any were expelled for cheating it never made the school paper and I still saw Jews wearing letters of all 3 Jewish fraternities in my classes for another 3 years so I suspect the university couldn't refuse the out-of-state tuition they charged most of them).  I have met a few Jews that have been honest, honorable and trustworthy, but that's an extreme minority of the Jews I have met in my lifetime (and seems to only happen when there's only one or two Jews versus enough they can have a culture and not assimilate with their perceived out group).  I strive to never prejudge someone I meet, but of all the stereotypes in the world, the one I want to interact the least with is the stereotypical Jew.  The further from Jewish stereotypes a Jew or Jewess acts when I meet them, the more likely I will get along with them.  The more they are atheistic and seek to assimilate the more likely I will categorize them as being worthy of defending as a person I know.  Ben Shapiro seems to exemplify the type of stereotypical Jew I wouldn't like after about 5 minutes (if not 5 seconds if he was wearing his yarmulke and screeching that Jewish whiny "accent" at full speed like an untrustworthy shyster lawyer he appears to be - every thumbnail I've seen of him on YouTube he just looks soullessly empty and evil in his eyes to me and if his mouth is open I think of a spitting cobra about to spit).

My ideal way to "swallow" any Holocaust survivor's story is as though I had a lead role in a courtroom drama defending at Nuremberg and where I only use the courtroom objections of "Hearsay!" "Leading Question!" and "Speculation!" as though the person telling the story is on the stand and under oath and my job is to make sure everything they say meets the standards of courtroom testimony accepted in the United States where forensic evidence has exonerated so many people to date who were wrongly convicted because of flawed and biased "eyewitness testimony" - if any story would have left forensic evidence AND the story is speculative and/or based on hearsay, it should never be accepted as credible testimony taking precedence over the hard forensic evidence, or lack thereof.  I absolutely assure anyone that if you go through Spielberg's "IWitness" archives as though you were the defense attorney looking to object to the testimony/line of questioning whenever you observe the witness using hearsay or speculating (or if you happen to hear a leading question to object to the question instead of the quality of the answer) that you will begin the journey into the ultimate heresy today: "Holocaust Denial".  To anyone who is appalled that I would ever think of using courtroom objections to nullify survivor's stories of genocide, please try listening to a few hundred stories of survivors as Spielberg recorded at the "IWitness" link using these, primarily, two courtroom objections (speculation and hearsay).  If you limit every story to what they actually saw or did, and not accept the hearsay of the camp gossip of genocide or the speculating of what was actually happening out of eyesight (like all the claims that Jewish bodies produced a different color smoke from the crematoria fails to withstand either the Objection: Speculation! and Objection: Hearsay! scrutiny), then the claims of the NSDAP that the camp system was for slave labor for the war effort become the reality you must accept as being most likely the facts of history.

I did not come to these conclusions about this ultimate modern heresy quickly or easily.  Quite the contrary, I expected to find ample evidence antedating the rise of the NSDAP in 1932/3 that would clearly defend the narrative I had been conditioned and indoctrinated since birth to believe without question.  I have used the metaphor more than once that we develop mental "ruts" that can eventually become as deep as an old wagon wheel rut like on the Oregon Trail that was as deep as the axle.  Think about how much energy would be required to free a Conestoga Wagon from the trail ruts that are as deep as the axle.  To free a mind from a deep mental rut requires a congruent amount of energy or shocks to the system as the wagon wheel in a rut up to its axle would require.  I probably left the library to go think critically about these topics about a dozen times for about an hour each: I don't know if I had any other topic that had as many shocks to my system of enough energy to free my mind from the conditioned and indoctrinated mental rut from birth!

If you, dear reader, recall the original Battlestar Galactica show from 1978, I tried to act as an alien anthropologist let loose in the library/archive of the civilization that had long disappeared but where robots/androids existed that had shown Starbuck to the archive/library in that episode of my youth.  I tried to look at everything with an eye to knowing what I know about how the brain, mind and psyche work as well as basic sociology (Social Change was one of my favorite classes that helped change my worldview and I wouldn't have taken it if it we're an 8 week class instead of 16 weeks) as though I was putting the pieces of the puzzle of what happened on this planet by studying a great library.  And by scrutinizing it with what I know about psychology and sociology (as well as knowing the victors write the history), that means when I came across a section of the library that has 10,000 volumes all agreeing on verbal stories but 50 books that are scrutinizing the science proposed and explained in those verbal stories combined with my application of mathematical gnosis and know-how, and the objective sciences and mathematics tell a radically different story than the vast majority of books on the subject/topic based upon oral testimony (let alone reading those testimonies with the same courtroom objections of speculation and hearsay and verifying sources cited contained in the same library/archive), it becomes obvious after several hundred hours researching this topic alone, that those 10,000 books were using simple psychological tricks utilizing highly charged emotional states and repetition, ad nauseam, ad infinitum to overcome the rational, sane and intelligent objections to the stories raised by the sciences and mathematics known to the alien archaeologist and anthropologist.

So, my only affiliation is to my own mind's capabilities and capacities and auditing great libraries to find the few grains of honest wheat amongst tons and tons of chaff; maybe a better analogy would be finding the needle in each train car/river barge filled with hay on a train/rivers stretching across North America.  I may find others most willing to label me as though I have affiliated with any groups associated with any of the positions I deduced during, or after 2007 when I spent more time than everyone I know combined has ever spent in libraries without being active students, let alone the reading rooms of rare book libraries I invested week-upon-week of time, but that doesn't mean that I've personally affiliated with any group.  I think the perfect example of someone who still gets asked if he's still affiliated with the KKK as a middle-aged man when his actual biography only had him associating with the KKK for about a year or two as a young man who then disassociated himself from this affiliation he briefly had as a young man: David Duke.  He wasn't a clan member when he ran for President in 1992, but Trump essentially repackaged much of Duke's 1992 platform to get elected; but to Trump it seems empty rhetoric to get elected whereas Duke appears as though he would have tried to stop NAFTA and secure the borders in 1993 if elected.  Although even by 1992 it may have been almost 10-20 years since David Duke had affiliated with the KKK, the media, just like it still does today, introduces him with mentioning an affiliation he had as a young man but hadn't had in many years.  Isn't this like always referring to a gay man by mentioning the first girlfriend/love he had growing up that he obviously wouldn't sexually affiliate with today, long after realizing he was gay?  Or always introducing a woman who eventually settled on being a lesbian after many years of being bi-sexual with, "And formerly a deep-throating cock-sucker, Bull Dyke.  Welcome Ms Dyke.  Do you still suck dick?" - when she obviously doesn't "affiliate" with penises anymore!

Maybe Sam Tripoli is frightened of being labeled "anti-Semite" or "Holocaust Denier" and is trying to justify his fear by thinking if he even were to ever seriously question Zionism, the Protocols of the Elders of S/Zion, Judaism (especially the Nag Hammadi revelations about the nature and name of the "god" of Abraham and the Archons) to where anyone could label him as belonging to a group he didn't actually affiliate just through the pursuit of knowledge?  Maybe he fears being labeled certain words that even if he doesn't personally "affiliate" with the types of groups normally associated with the labeling, just being labeled those terms might ruin his career and his romantic relationship?  Can a real truth seeker fear what others (especially with agendas to obfuscate what's being said) attempt to label them?  Did Ted Kaczynski affiliate with the Luddites because both reject advances in technology?  How could he affiliate with a group from history?  Sure, the label of Luddite might have been appropriate (and how correct he was about how technology would negatively impact human social interaction!) to attach to him because of shared beliefs, but it wouldn't be rational to try and say he was affiliated with a group of people no longer existing (although the Bavarian Illuminati has many people claiming to be affiliated, or being accused by others with affiliation and I'm not so sure Adam Weishaupt's Illuminati still exists today); even if the label might have some accuracy, it still doesn't mean any affiliation on his part, much like the David Duke example also demonstrates.

Again, I haven't "affiliated" with any group, even if there are far too many willing to label me and try to associate me via said labeling with groups I have no affiliation, nor desire any affiliation.  I also cannot defend anyone I personally don't know - and that definitely includes every Holocaust Survivor(^TM).  I cannot defend their stories where it is easy to recognize they are trying to admit into evidence something that even the worst public defender should be able to object to as either hearsay or speculation, but I have no qualms with accepting the stories of firsthand actions because those seem to confirm the NSDAP claim that these camps were primarily for work essential to the war effort, as well as Auschwitz-Birkenau being an example of a(n?) hospital camp for those unable to work (which also explains the higher mortality rates there than at the main camp a few miles away that I visited almost 23 years ago).  The hair, shoes, luggage and clothing in the Auschwitz "museum" only confirms that lice was the most lethal enemy inside the camp system and cannot be construed as evidence of genocide (and I saw it firsthand in December 1995), but only as evidence of trying to keep the prisoners healthy (and since both Communists and the International Jewish Community had declared themselves to being outright traitors at war with the NSDAP, both groups were incarcerated and forced to do honest labor for the war effort - something not part of the stereotype of Jews: doing honest labor - talk about a motive to slander those who forced you to earn callouses from physical/honest labor once that party and nation of honest workers was utterly destroyed so the carpetbagging parasites can personally profit from dishonest laborings).  I also remained agnostic about the actions of all sides, pre-, post- and during the war as part and parcel to trying to ascertain historically verifiable facts from victor's wartime propaganda efforts because I wasn't even alive to possibly have any input or have acted for any side during the war (that I know of at least, maybe I had a previous incarnation that died in WW2 that I've never recalled?).  Having refused to even truly believe any actions took place that cannot be defended unless today's forensic sciences and mathematics can prove it with almost statistical certainty, the actions from WW2 that I think I can defend are those of the NSDAP and how they actually did everything they could to keep all the domestic enemies of state healthy and working for the war effort in the concentration camp system.  The vanquished were the morally and ethically superior state that only wanted to be freed of a parasitic class that made up about 1% of the total populace that had made the average/typical German endure not only economic losses but also the loss of life and limbs from WW1.  Not only was the NSDAP about honest work and merit over tribalism and cronyism, but German culture had produced the greatest achievements and accomplishments the world had known (philosophers, artists, scientists, architects... the definitions of "greatness" in all positive aspects of human culture and civilization had their pinnacles by German speaking peoples for a few hundred years, and no one today would ever consider "the Jews" as being so smart today if they didn't influence the negative thoughts, feelings and reactions to the pinnacle of European culture: the Germanic tribes).  Spinoza is about the only Jewish philosopher worthy of mentioning, but he pales in comparison to Nietzsche and Hegel - to only name two for brevity's sake, this is already long enough.

Some of the reasons why I cannot stomach the Allies' claims anymore are specifically because of actions taken that I cannot morally or tactically/strategically defend, let alone cannot defend because I had no say or role in committing the actions on Dresden and all the civilian firebombing of NSDAP cities, the war crimes of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Eisenhower's Death Camps where over a million Germans who were drafted by their government to fight for survival starved to death in vastly inferior conditions to what the sickest of Jews had in a concentration camp (let alone the camp currency used as payment for war labors performed for commissary and brothels in the SS ran camps), and the kangaroo court, dominated by Jews, that used testimony from tortured victims of the vanquished side to pour concrete around the house of cards we call the Holocaust to keep that house of cards from toppling over at the slightest touch or breeze of scholarly skepticism that any real historian should apply as a force to see what can withstand the scrutiny that a house of cards built on lies/flawed assumptions could never withstand.

So, as you can see, if Sam Tripoli would really apply his own Rules of Ronin to a topic his girlfriend may have already threatened to bite his dick off if he ever discusses on his Tin Foil Hat Podcast (as well as knowing he might never be able to book another comedy gig - at least in clubs owned by Jews/Zionists - for even broaching the topic), he shouldn't be so willing to Pavlovianly bark out his unquestioned (and apparently unquestionable), indoctrinated and conditioned belief in the Holocaust narrative.  Is there a better way to use positive and negative reinforcement/Skinnerian conditioning than for a Jewess refusing her goyfriend any sex if he dares question the Holocaust/Zionism?  If she gives him head for every time he shuts down any possibility of discussion with his curt statements to end discussion like  "The Holocaust really happened!" - may be a paraphrasing and not require the quotation marks - then he would have a very conscious bias and motivation to avoid the topic entirely!!!  So, I don't think he's a "Jew shill" as he's been called in the comment section, but I do believe he has a Jewess as another master in addition to his being a slave to a language he demonstrates about an 8th grade vocabulary mastery.  Sure, Sam might try to argue about his girlfriend’s relatives being people he knows and will defend, although all it would take would be a defense attorney attitude to argue speculation and hearsay for all the supposed eyewitness testimony (let alone the torture used on the Nuremberg defendants), and could he defend actions committed or claimed to have been witnessed by someone he might have met/know today about things said and done decades before he was born?  Is there an inherent logical fallacy amongst his rules that can allow for one to know someone who may appear honest about everything they've seen and done while knowing the other one, but still be seriously in error to defend a person you might know about things they claim to have seen almost a century ago?
If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything.
This epitaph seems to simplify Sam Tripoli's Rules for Ronin and, so long as truly followed -especially concerning one's own subconscious biases, beliefs and prejudices being questioned should never result in the conflicts between these rules as I have exposed above.  I hope Sam doesn't take any of this personally if he were to actually read after I warned him off above: if so he should spend more time and read up on how I dissect others to find the few needles of "truth" spread in the haystacks of bullshit most people believe because they've never seriously questioned anything.  Considering I think Ryan is the one with the above average intellect (and not suffering from cocaine-induced brain damage), if I were ever invited to blow Sam's mind on any topic to his podcast, I might have to ask for his microphone to be turned off and Ryan and I have a conversation at least 25-30 IQ points higher than Sam's and he can just listen and not interrupt with his idiotic proclamations like how many times he says "Wow" an episode that seriously cuts into the limited time they have for the podcast.

But, since I warned Sam not to proceed awhile ago out of respect for the unofficial Rule #4 of Never Trying to Inform One of what They Cannot Comprehend, his "white belt" in factual, provable "conspiracies" should have quit when he was warned he wasn't ready to learn the truth about a lie he believes wholeheartedly.  As much as he wishes his proclamation of having no masters were true, I think I have shown that he has a Jewess girlfriend as one master controlling topics he can discuss on his conspiracy podcast, just like his inadequate mastery of the English language dictates he be a slave to the language instead of its master.  But it also appears as though Sam Tripoli as being 100% enslaved to the Holocaust narrative to where he refuses to even allow any possible discussion on the topic; and he wonders why in the comment section he gets called a "Jew shill"?

If you did make it this far, Sam, I dare you to read the final link on this page, after reading that page to realize I'm not trying to pick on or bully you, just trying to bring you up to a level of scholarship and critical thinking that would make you a far better man/intellect (or at least prove like the early days of UFC/MMA that your Ronin skills aren't as superior as you believe them to be in a cage match).

Is Sam Tripoli a Ronin?  Or does he still have masters to whom he must submit?  Since he seems to affiliate as a Dodger's Fan, as well as a sports fanatic in general (violating rule #1), unless he's one of the few spectators who don't let the wins and losses of "his teams" effect, either positively or negatively (really violating rule #3 by allowing the people he doesn't personally know from #2 have any influence over his emotional state via his willful spectating), his endocrine production, attitude and mood, then his own bodily secretions, mood and attitude are controlled by something completely outside his sphere of influence/body: wouldn't that be having a master more in control over your own endocrine production than you are yourself?

I got seduced back into watching IU basketball a few years ago, but had to quickly give it up when I found myself standing and yelling at the TV that I knew more of the fundamentals of the game than the highest paid state employee at the time did.  Although, it is Indiana I am talking about, so every Indiana born and raised state employee should know at least the basic fundamentals of the game of basketball, the highest paid state employee was the, then, IU head basketball coach who was making far more than the governor of the state was, and about twice as much as the university president before bonuses.  I gave back up the only spectator team sport I have ever followed as an adult, and it wasn't the first time I had to quit watching IU basketball because I knew more about the fundamentals of the game than the head coach (obviously I am talking about after Myles Brand came to Bloomington with the backroom deal/conspiracy that if he fired Bob Knight he would be promoted to being head of the NCAA in Indianapolis from being university president in Bloomington).  I may still try and spectate World Surf League contests, but that's mainly because I miss the ocean and want to get back into surf shape again before I turn 50 in 2021 and I am watching others surf to try and trigger my mirror emotions into producing the neuro-chemical cocktail that is "stoke".  But, I can also spend hours on the sand watching waves roll in, even if no one is out riding them, and try to smell the salt and feel the sea breeze while watching live broadcasts from around the world and am only really emotionally involved in surfing, not in any pro surfer.

So, let's finish this excessive essay (have I had many short posts and pages?) with a listing of Sam Triploi's apparent masters and what topics they dictate not only his stance upon, but whether or not he'll even accept talking about why anyone would possibly deny something he apparently has never personally questioned with any serious intent.

1.  He definitely hasn't mastered the English language (he'd probably do better reading a dictionary for the next year than reading/watching any conspiracy theories online)
If you don't master your language you will always have a master.  

2.  His Jewish Girlfriend/"Practically married" wife seems to have control over his thoughts and whether or not he even discusses certain topics: i.e. the Gnostic/Nag Hammadi description and definition of the true nature and name of the "god" of Abraham, Zionism (more than just in passing like his Pavlovian barking that the Holocaust cannot be questioned), any questioning of the disproportionate influence of an extreme minority upon the majority (or even have Mel Gibson on to discuss the roles and actions taken by the Jews in Hollyweird, or even Joel Stein to brag about Jewish control of Hollyweird), and the one that might end up breaking his heart with him losing the Jewess he apparently loves if he ever truly exercises his own rules for ronin towards ALL the data to discern objective, and credible data from the propaganda, biases, speculations and hearsay.  [I wonder if he were "practically married" to one of the black strippers he says he loves more frequently, again from the limited shows I have seen completely, than the Jewish girlfriend that apparently controls to what extent he can apply his own Rules for Ronin.  (Not only does he affiliate with being a "couple" it seem obvious she is the master dominating at least a few areas of thought, and he breaks all his rules by affiliating with his girlfriend.)]

Belief is the antithesis of knowledge.

3.  He likely doesn't have mastery over his own endocrine system because of his addiction to sports (one of the greatest tools used by the plutocracy to dominate over those willing to give their emotional and mental energies, time and money to any team in any sport to spectate) - this may be the primary master that insures the discussion of the Nag Hammadi's archons and Demiurge never get brought up because if Sam were to discover how the Archons' food supply would be best exemplified as the conscious energy invested into any sporting event being spectated (or any other false, fictitious and/or unnecessary belief system), he would likely enter cognitive dissonance to keep watching sports over taking that energy to free himself from a mental rut that might possibly act as food for parasites feeding off of human consciousness.
If you don't question everything, you will know nothing and believe anything.
And, for one last time, if you think I am unfairly picking on you, Sam Tripoli, I implore you to read this page, then this page, most definitely reading the final link at the very bottom of the second page linked in this sentence, and then start browsing through my posts, especially on the ones concerning the Armageddon Conspiracy and you should discover that if we were to go head-to-head about the spectrum of occult and conspiracy topics, you would do as well as these "masters" of their "arts" in real combat:

I wish you could truly become a real Ronin, Sam, but you have at least 3 masters to whom you still have an undying allegiance which inhibit you from truly being a Ronin.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...