An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s.
Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people. (Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump)
- the attackers described in Part 1 need only target the dominant group within the large society
- this conserves resources
- once the target group within the large society has been selected, attackers need only target one of its genders, either male or female
- best case for the attackers is they simultaneously are able to convince the non-targeted gender to attack the targeted one
- reasons for the non-targeted gender to attack the other make little difference since the goal is primarily to weaken and destabilize the society to prepare it for takeover
If we observe these signs in any society in the world, we would be right to suspect that a plot like the one described in Part 1 could be or is unfolding.
- there may be more than one group engaging in this strategy now or in the past
- one group may have taught others to use similar tactics
- best if these groups do not seem very much connected though they may share general ideals
Anything that can choose is conscious to that extent, to the extent that it can choose.
In this respect, “that which chooses” has cognition of its options and also tends to make anti-entropic choices, choices that go against the entropy of itself. (If it did not do this or stopped doing this, it would not survive long. Its anti-entropic choices take energy from the environment, of course.)
Choosing and going against entropy does not mean always doing this correctly or in the best way.
It can be argued that matter also chooses or participates in some overarching principle of choice or selection. Matter’s very common cause-and-effect relations with itself must be based on something besides matter itself.
Consciousness, thus, can be defined as that which:
- has cognition of options
- is anti-entropic for itself
We can also say that this same consciousness as just defined:
- chooses though not always well
- has cognition though often mistaken
- is anti-entropic in limited ways that are often counter-productive
Matter itself conforms to principles—the laws of physics—though these do not appear to apply or apply well to chaos, radiation, quantum fluctuations, black holes. Nor to themselves in the sense that they do not reveal where they come from.
This suggests that matter itself persists under unknowable conditions much as we do.
What we do not know does not just include metaphysics but also anything we can imagine. At some point, we just won’t know anymore.
Socially, we rarely know the motives of others. Psychologically, we often cannot be rational about our own motives. And even if we are being rational we often base our decisions on bad data or incomplete or unknowable data. We often do not understand or even know what our own motives are.
When there are many factors, we become confused. Our minds feel chaotic. We become anxious, indecisive. emotional. This is a form of consciousness trying to make choices, struggling to choose, to select.