Communications Through the Ether
Many people have wondered - especially religious people, why I called my website Channeling Reality. Did I think I was Madame Zola with a crystal ball? Do I hold séances and speak to the dead? A quick read through my writings dispels any notions of spookery. The only thing scary about my website is the reality about which I write.
So why did I call my website Channeling Reality? For a long time I couldn't explain it to people because my explanation sounded like the Madame Zola thing. I'm a Systems Analyst and I was a computer programmer until about the year 2000. I spent twenty years of my life living in a world that was virtual and symbolic. Computers are physical devices but the programs and systems are logical creations. A Systems Analyst/Designer creates "worlds" within the computer. It might only be the world of Accounts Receivable department in a corporation, but it might also be the world of weather or the world of assets of a bank. The point is that the processes are logical workflow or simply logical flow, and the entities - people, places, things, etc. are represented symbolically.
Over my career, several of supervisors and co-workers said "Vicky thinks in code". By that, they meant that when I was listening to "users" (what we used to call the people we wrote systems for) I was doing an immediate translation of what they were saying into a virtual and symbolic world and I had the new design in my mind almost before they were finished speaking.
In that type of work, there were also psychological and environmental components that I never really appreciated because they were integral to the process of interviewing users, managers, all the "entities" who would become symbolic representations in the logical world I was going to build in the computer. The environmental had to do with "lay of the land". What was the nature of the organization, who were the power players, who could help me, who could hurt me (block my project), who wanted the new system, who didn't, etc. Essentially, the environmental considerations defined my navigation path through the organization that allowed me to successfully complete my project with the least number of problems.
The psychological aspect includes not just the organization but close observation of the people you are interviewing. I guess you could say that involves reading body language although I don't consider myself an expert in that, but by observing you can tell if people are holding back information you need. It's also relatively easy to discern people who understand the systems in which they work at a higher level than simply the performance of tasks that have no meaning beyond the task itself. It's the people who understand why they are doing what they are doing that you want to talk to because they can give you insights that are helpful.
In close listening to people, what they say and how they say it is important - but equally and sometimes more important is what they don't say. A good analyst through close observation and close listening can tell when to pursue a point and when to let it go. In other words, people "give things away" that they don't necessarily intend. In some cases, they "give things away" symbolically either intentionally or unintentionally. How you detect that and how you translate it, I couldn't begin to tell you. I just know that it's true and that it plays a significant part in analysis and problem solving.
Designing new systems was just part of the job. Sometimes the job was to find and fix problems. The problem was defined but the where, when, how and why of it wasn't. In the terms I've been using, that's like trying to walk into somebody else's virtual world to troubleshoot the problem. Put another way, you are logic walking through the minds of the people who designed and wrote the system. What were the people thinking when they designed this? It could be brilliantly elegant. It could be clumsy and inefficient. It could contain elements of both. The point is that a system itself is a logical representation of the way that person thought. Essentially you are entering their mind and their world when you examine their system. And if a system is a big system, when you've reached that level of understanding of the designers mind, you can then deconstruct their system to find and diagnose the problem relatively easily because you know how they think.
Analyzing the World
When I began my internet activism, I didn't set out to analyze the world. It makes me laugh to think about it. It just happened because I noticed some anomalous, seemingly random things going on in our country but perhaps instinctively I knew they were related and not good. Returning to symbolic thinking, they were like hearing random chords from a sitar from different sections in a symphony. The symphony continues to play as if nothing out of the ordinary happened but I heard the sitar and the symphony went to the background.
There was no discernable organization to the chords when I first began to look at the anomalies. It wasn't until I heard Thomas P.M. Barnett on C-Span give a presentation on Military in the 21st Century that I was able to put some organization to the chords. As I've said in other places, Barnett gave me the trailhead for my research. When he spoke, I connected with what he was saying... connected with his mind as it were. I was locked onto his channel so to speak. What he said was so important that I spent a couple of months transcribing his every word from the video - and in the process, studying everything he said in detail including the way he said it. After a decade of research pursing the important points of what he said, the following is my analysis of our situation incorporating some of the elements of what Barnett said according to my interpretation:
The key elements were (in my words) that the land army was finished. They were sent to the Middle East for attrition and that they were never coming home. He said the Navy was going to become the global force. He said the Marines were going to be the domestic policing force. He said that they wanted to split the military into the killing machine and a systems administration force. Effectively the Sys Admin force was "your Mother's military" and the killing machine was the young male marines. He said that if a military person wanted to be an officer (a flag), they would have to be "purple". Purple represents joint leadership - but by my analysis, they are the fifth column.
Systems Administrators are the management of IT hubs. The IT hubs are the inland port, Trojan Triangle constructs that I documented in other places on my website. The legal definition of an inland port making it international territory lifts the area out from domestic law. The IT systems are the Fusion Center systems - information and control hubs. Control of the critical infrastructure, consolidation of information about the population and control of communications is the means of control of the city officials and by extension the control of the population in and around the city. Regionalization - the slicing of city and county functions along horizontal lines reorganized across legal jurisdictional boundaries lifts the regions out from domestic, local law with no accountability and no visibility to the public.
The inland ports/Trojan Triangles are a global control construct. City by city, they've descended in teams who serve various purposes - like a military campaign without the guns (mostly) to install the components of the Trojan Triangle/inland port system. The dream weavers sell the vision of modernization and a connected world for the 21st century. The core team who understands the systems and the integration of those systems understand that what they are building is a control grid. The control grid will be managed at the global level and the capabilities of the systems will allow the populations to be controlled on an individual basis when the need presents itself. An example would be using the control systems within a vehicle to take control of a car to run it into a tree when the driver or passenger is a troublesome individual that they'd like to eliminate - hands off. "It was just an accident".
The use of technology in place of traditional military methods to control territory was the military strategy for global control. But technology and systems are a "game" that anybody can play. They underestimated the ability of "civilians" to be disruptive to the program and in fact, to co-op the program for their own control systems.
Outside the United States, USAID, the CIA and their NATO counterparts were installing the systems. Thomas Barnett was with USAID before he went to work for Adm. Art Cebrowski at the Naval War College. They may - or may not have known that while they were installing these systems outside the country, their NATO counterparts were installing them here. The 9/11 event was the wake-up call and/or announcement of the insurgency operating in our country. Because they were using the Trojan Triangles as a military control operation, it put them between a rock and a hard spot. To expose the foreign insurgency was also to expose their own operations and strategies for foreign countries for control of their population centers. My impression is that they lost control of the strategy and it's very difficult to discern who is on whose side and who has control of the controls - so to speak.
So here we are at the impasse. There are those of us on the Internet who understand many of the elements of the technological control grid and we've been sounding the alarm. The controllers of the global system know they are running out of time to lock countries and people into the control grid because every day, more and more people are becoming aware and are beginning to seek answers.
The Tea Party, 9-12 groups, the anarchists, Libertarians, etc. all represent a danger to the global controllers even if they don't know exactly what is going on. The groups on the left represent a similar danger to the global controllers even though the environmentalists among them are useful idiots to the global controllers. Public disruption of any kind alerts the public and that's not what the global controllers want because the control systems are a stealth weapon. If the public figures that out, it's game over. To strike en masse against the dissenters would only shock the sleeping public awake. To selectively strike will not scare the true activists who understand in part what is going on. In fact, that would just steel their resolve and the public would be wakened anyway.
So what happens now? I don't know but one can only feel sorry for the people who are oblivious in these most interesting of times.
Vicky Davis
November 6, 2013