The Dissemination of Information in Technological Society: Part 1
Why people believe official propaganda, and the construction of meta-narratives
Continued from Introduction: Part 1 and Part 2…
This section argues that only those who are low status can think freely because those with high status are constrained by their social circles and fear of losing wealth and status. The establishment requires those who imbibe its messages not just to accept their framing but to actively play-act it out to others. Because the public is dumb, they can only pay attention to one “meta-narrative” of establishment lies at a time. These meta-narratives, which follow one after the other in an unending stream, are used to further establishment objectives at the expense of the public.
HOW IS INFORMATION DISSEMINATED, AND WHY IS IT BELIEVED?
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” - William J. Casey, Director of the CIA from 1981-1987 in a confirmed quote
The United States has a sophisticated propaganda apparatus which offers multiple streams of approved information to the public. These include the mainstream media, cultural outlets such as Netflix /Hulu/Disney+, movies and television (whose shows are called “programming” for a reason), official government organs (FBI, CIA, the DOJ, the CDC, etc.), properly credentialed “experts”, and through government mandated educational materials from preschool to university.
Disfavored information from non-official sources is smeared by the establishment with vitriolic terms to convey its low, unapproved status — “fake news”, “conspiracy theories”, and other Pavlovian trigger labels. These labels convey an implied threat to people’s social status, which is very important to most people to protect. The threat is: “If you listen to and believe alternative streams of information you risk losing your job, your source of income, and you may be ostracized by your friends and family.” As a result, most people rationally shut down their minds to unofficial information sources. They need to make a living and survive in society; why risk one’s livelihood for so little gain? The risk-reward ratio is skewed. This is assuming that non-official information is even possible to receive; in the past establishment-disapproved authors were unpublishable, dissident figures were thrown in prison or murdered (such as former Nuremberg prosecutor Frances Parker Yockey) or in recent times many social media figures have been banned, shadow-banned, have had their websites removed for wrong-think, or one may even be criminally prosecuted (see Douglass Mackey).
A good rule of thumb is that the more status a person has, the more sensitive they are to the dangers of being labeled low status, which could risk their careers and preferred place in society. Using the amount of education as a proxy, consider the over-conformity of doctors, lawyers, and other working professionals to government propaganda. Why would these people risk losing their jobs, with degrees costing hundreds of thousands of dollars plus years of training, with many carrying enormous debt loads, for listening to disapproved views? It would be ridiculous. The safe course of action for well educated individuals is to consume only officially mandated information within the narrow (and ever narrowing) range of acceptable public discourse, called the Overton Window.
The corollary is that the less status a person has in society, the more free they are to speak their minds, to not be conditioned, and to have independent thought. A relatively debt-free high-school educated truck driver is not likely to lose his job when he speaks his mind, and even if he did, without a politicized licensing board looking over his shoulders he would likely be able to find another quickly.
Consider your Pavlovian emotional, instinctual response to the phrase “black men are more violent than white men on average.” If you are properly conditioned/educated by western society, your emotional reaction will likely be immediate and overwhelming: “No, they’re not!” “I need to end this conversation.” Even though the evidence behind this argument is extremely strong with extensive FBI crime statistics over decades (American black men commit 8x the rate of murders as whites, for example), to speak of it is verboten; this is an argument outside the Overton window; it is dangerous; it cannot be said in public without social ostracism. Most people will not engage on the merits of such an issue either publicly or, to a lesser extent, privately as well (even though these self-styled “anti-racists” almost always live in white neighborhoods, shy away from black neighborhoods, and want to send their children to “good schools”, a euphemism for mostly white schools: they practice what Lawrence Auster called unprincipled, hypocritical exceptions in their own lives, virtue signaling while avoiding personal costs). See the below Twitter thread for more details:
Or consider another example: what is your emotional response to the phrase “democracy”? If you are properly conditioned by the media, government, and schooling, then it likely makes you think of wonderful, shiny things: equality, justice, apple pie, white picket fences, flag waving, freedom. It is considered an intrinsic good, it cannot be questioned, we must spread “democracy” worldwide to give this wonderful virtue to everyone!
But this response is also Pavlovian. Democracy is only good insofar as it is a vehicle to increase the quality of life for its citizens. If democracy ceases to increase their quality of life, should it still be considered “good”?
As the range of acceptable discourse narrows and the range of disallowed discourse increases, the gulf between those who accept officially mandated information, and those who have grown to distrust officially mandated information has widened. One may gingerly, with great trepidation, cross the first informational threshold of disallowed thought/belief in their lives, quivering and sweating, realizing that the official dogma on a particular topic is full of lies; then perhaps the second topic, and the third, the fourth and the fifth, each one easier to accept than the last. Eventually the skeptic may reach a place where he looks back into the distance and, if he squints, he can see where he started, where the vast majority still are, and the question becomes how does he communicate with them?
If this gulf grows wide enough, one may see and feel their interactions with most people as containing an unbridgeable gap, a chasm filled with alien beliefs about life and values, too far apart to bridge by mere conversation. Sure, one can engage on child rearing and the latest Netflix shows and what the latest so-and-so is up to in their lives but such conversations are shallow and lack a real sense of connection that people need in their lives. As Oscar Wilde said, "A bore is someone who deprives you of solitude without providing you with company.” To bring up topics with “normies” outside of the currently-allowed, presently-socially-acceptable, ever-narrowing band of discussion is to risk being perceived as odd or unpopular; and as one brings up a disallowed topic, one can instantaneously see their eyes flash with:
“this is an unacceptable thought”;
“if I listen to this my social status be at risk, which is unacceptable” (a remnant of human history where, in small hunter-gatherer societies, to be cast out of the group into the wilderness alone was akin to death); therefore
“I need to bow out of this conversation as quickly as possible so my social status is not eroded.”
IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO BE SILENT, ONE MUST PERFORM
Adding to this problem is that the imbibers of official propaganda are strongly encouraged to evangelize that dogma onto others. The American system of so-called “democracy” demands active participation on behalf of its citizens, even though the average citizen has no power outside of a single vote once every two years and little knowledge of issues outside of what they’ve been told by the media and approved experts. The media saturates the airwaves with propaganda and the populace absorbs it; the highly educated adopt the approved “high status” positions as their own and then perform for their family and friends as if their opinions mattered.
We can see this in countless examples, from COVID hysteria to Roe abortion hysteria to Ukraine hysteria and Black Lives Matter hysteria to anti-Trump hysteria to gay pride hysteria (everyone with rainbows on their faces on social media). It was not enough to believe that Trump was “racist” and “sexist” and “the next coming of Hitler”; it had to be publicly stated on all of one’s social media; it had to be talked about with family and friends incessantly and with an urgency and dramatic sense of impending doom unless one DOES SOMETHING (does what? Be hysterical to anyone who would listen, I guess). Same with gay marriage. To not be passionately pro gay marriage on social media, and to not have discussed it relentlessly, meant that one was, at best, an unenthusiastic supporter of such policies and hence on some level a low status enemy.
This process allows the powerless citizenry to assuage their feelings of powerlessness by aligning themselves with the system’s authority and wielding it against others. As Aldous Huxley said, "The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats."
We can contrast this American governance style with a model that does not rely on the play-acting of its citizens to maintain its power: post-Soviet Russia. Russia’s relationship with its population is alien to the western perspective. While it has television and government stations and pushes a party line and has elections, generally the attitude of Putin and other leaders is that the government has the power, Russian civilians have no power and citizens are not privy to official deliberations, decisions or even basic explanations; just do what the government tells you to do - stick to your job, mind your own business and avoid taking political positions. Just do what you’re told. See here and here and here if you want further details on this.
Comparing these systems, the post-Soviet Russian perspective is more honest and proper because in both systems the average citizen has essentially no power, but in the former the expectation is that one must play-act as if they do. Unfortunately, many confused, pitiful people actually believe the official propaganda, getting angry or hysterical over their performance, to an astute observer’s dismay.
THE CRAFTING OF META-NARRATIVES
The active participation and performance by American citizens in society is a fickle thing; it’s attention span is short, having been eviscerated by social media, quick-cut television and film, and from being pulled in too many directions. There is only so much time someone can stay hysterical about allowing gay marriage or wearing a pussyhat or frightened about the dangers of COVID before getting bored and moving on. But if the masses are not being led from panic to panic, keeping them in a heightened state of adrenaline and fear, then they might start questioning narratives and going off in unapproved directions. Thus, the establishment has the media push long-term stories called “meta-narratives”, crafted in conjunction with governmental and transnational agencies, lasting anywhere from multiple months to a year or longer, one after the other to further their agendas. Each meta-narrative involves various sub-narratives and contingencies ready to morph into the next meta-narrative if the politics of the moment require it. That way the public’s attention will be manipulated into officially approved directions even as other important events are occurring and de-emphasized or unreported.
The public’s energy can best be harnessed by concentrating it on a singular point of focus like that of a big, dumb animal, so only one meta-narrative runs at any particular time. When a meta-narrative is running, there are an endless number of media stories on it, often using circular reporting where unnamed sources are quoted and rumors build off each other. It will be among the top stories day in and day out. The narrative will be made simple for the public to follow. Action items will be issued by the media for the public’s active participation on both sides, pro and con. Approved public figures will be highlighted and personalized so the public knows who they are. The coverage will be wall-to-wall and simple mantras repeated per the propaganda rule “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”. Because the meta-narrative is false, once it has served its political purpose the media adroitly pivot to the next one, leaving no time for reflection or understanding that the public was fooled because that could lead to unpleasant consequences for the perpetrators. It is rare for the establishment to confirm that a meta-narrative scam the public fell for is false; the most recent one that comes to mind is the Iraq war WMD deception.
A rare peak into the media’s narrative collusion processes was the brief reporting on the 2007 private google groups forum JournoList where 400 liberal journalists and academics colluded on media talking points and synchronized arguments for maximum political effect. Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, discussed JournoList, stating, "... hundreds of journalists have gotten together, on an online listserv called JournoList, to promote liberalism and liberal politicians at the expense of traditional journalism.” JournoList ultimately closed down due to unwanted public scrutiny and many of its members joined an offshoot called Cabalist until it too was revealed and then shut down. Whatever unreported follow-up of Journalist and Calabist continues to exist, though, as the media continues to parrot not just the same talking points, but even the same phrases in order to generate a hypnotic effect:
Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting under Obama, gave a rare look into the process of creating media echo chambers, bragging about how adept the administration was in building a circular reporting echo chamber to increase support for the 2007 Iranian nuclear deal:
“We created an echo chamber. They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say,” he admitted in the Times interview when asked about the plethora of “experts” praising the deal in the press. The Times article, which will appear in the paper’s Sunday magazine, notes Rhodes, who has a writing degree from NYU, was skilled as a “storyteller.” “He is adept at constructing overarching plotlines with heroes and villains, their conflicts supported by flurries of carefully chosen adjectives, quotations and leaks from named and unnamed senior officials,” reporter David Samuels writes. “He is the master shaper and retailer of Obama’s foreign-policy narratives.”
Asked about his misleading version of the deal, Rhodes said, “In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this. “We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like [the anti-nuke group] Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked. We drove them crazy,” he said of Republicans and others who opposed the deal, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Rhodes bashed the media for not properly reporting on foreign affairs and revealed how he fed information to reporters such as Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, a respected “Beltway insider,” as the Times called him. “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” he said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. “Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.” Rhodes’ assistant, Ned Price, gave an example of how they would shape the news by feeding a narrative to their “compadres” in the press corps and letting it echo across social media. “I’ll give them some color,” Price said, “and the next thing I know, lots of these guys are in the dot-com publishing space, and have huge Twitter followings, and they’ll be putting this message out on their own.”
This strategy is routinely used by those in government to build and promote false narratives; most are just not as egotistical as Rhodes in demanding public credit and revealing methods.
Reliance on “conspiracy theories” is unnecessary for this argument. According to the Swiss Propaganda Research group, 63-90% of geopolitical coverage in nine leading European newspapers relied on just three global news agencies for reporting - the American Associated Press (AP), the quasi-governmental French Agence France-Presse (AFP), and the British agency Reuters. These newspapers had no investigative research on their own, and their commentary was almost always in favor of the US/NATO position (82% positive, 2% negative coverage), while the agency stories were not checked by the newspapers for any propaganda. The power deriving from such a concentration of narrative sourcing is obvious.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE MOST RECENT META-NARRATIVES
As of 2023, the most recent meta-narratives pushed by the media for political gain have been:
2017-2018: "Trump is a Russian stooge!” The media reported on this with wall-to-wall coverage and over-the-top hysteria for two years.1 Every Trump administration figure was personalized and profiled in depth and their every action and statement held aggressively under a microscope. This is a common Saul Alinksi “Rules for Radicals” tactic.2 This narrative led into…
2018: “Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist!” An attempt to prevent the ideological balance of the court from shifting toward Republicans.3 Leading into…
2019: “Get him out! Get him out!” Trump’s first impeachment on the basis of Trump attempting to look into Biden’s questionable Ukrainian dealings.4 This led into…
2020-2021: “Global pandemic!” Two years of media hysteria over COVID with an intensity rivaling the worst of the Trump-is-a-Russia-stooge meta-narrative.5 Leading into…
2021: “Insurrection!” Trump’s second impeachment because he spoke at the 1/6 election protest where FBI informants instigated disturbances, capitol police opened doors to let attendees into the capitol and the only death was a Trump supporter.6 Leading into…
2022: “Putin is evil!” Russia/Ukraine war and major inflation. If you want details on this, see here. Leading into…
Each of these meta-narratives were pushed so aggressively and uniformly by the media that they distracted the public’s attention away from other stories. People felt that each update in the unfolding of the current meta-narrative was vitally important, that to turn away for even a second could mean missing out on critical information that might personally impact them. Other issues occurring at the time such the wide open southern border with millions of entering illegals, endless monetary theft by the Federal Reserve and the major banks, the lack of job opportunities for Americans, stagnant wages, spying by the NSA and social media companies, the sabotage of food production facilities and farms causing massive degradation in the food supply (currently quietly underway; over 100 facilities were burned between 2020 to June 2022 with a major uptick in 2022); using 87,000 new armed IRS agents to shakedown middle America; and gradual erosion the 1st Amendment via “Hate Speech” exceptions7 were swept aside in the dramatic push for the meta-narrative and ignored. All anyone could talk about was the current hysteria. And that’s why it is so powerful.
FUTURE META-NARRATIVE CONTINGENCIES ARE QUEUED-UP DEPENDING ON NEED
The establishment has many meta-narrative contingencies queued up depending on political need. These include but are not limited to:
Cyber Polygon, which involves preparation for a cyber attack on key U.S. infrastructure, to be blamed on Russia but instigated by globohomo itself;
Restarting COVID hysteria, with Monkeypox used as a test;
Escalating the Russia/Ukraine war where even nuclear war is a possibility (the establishment leaders can hide in well stocked bunkers);
Steps toward North/South America integration via U.S. military intervention in Mexico;
War with Iran, or China over Taiwan;
Prosecuting Trump and more of his followers for 1/6, with the government prepared for the possibility of civil unrest which would give them an excuse to crack down;
Triggering a currency crisis caused by loss of faith in the banking system, the popping of the sovereign debt bubble and/or the end of the petrodollar system which would impoverish the west via hyperinflation; or
Ushering in tyrannical central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), perhaps initially in the form of welfare for desperate masses.
To help determine which meta-narrative to utilize next the establishment uses computer simulations, polling8 and artificial intelligence and attempts, in part, to pick issues that create a “shatter effect” among the right. A shatter effect results from applying pressure to right-wing wedge issues, creating intra-right infighting which squanders much of their limited energy. For instance, Steve Sailer and other human biodiversity (HBD) believers became hysterical over COVID and demanded immediate and extreme government intervention. This put them at odds with those who were anti-vaccine and anti-shutdown. The Ukraine war set elements of the pro-Ukraine and pro-Russia right against each other. The anti-abortion Supreme Court ruling set the religious right up against the secular right. One can expect future meta-narratives to continue taking into account the benefits of shatter effects with the goal of helping the establishment achieve its desired dialectical synthesis, discussed below.
Once you see and understand the concept of meta-narratives it becomes impossible to unsee. The more people become aware of how it works the fewer people will fall for it, which will ultimately make meta-narratives weaker and give time back to those poor individuals passionately but powerlessly acting out their Two Minutes Hate.
With that said, the rollout of each new meta-narrative, designed for shock and awe, is always disconcerting and unpleasant even for the most hardened dissident.
HEGELIAN DIALECTICS IN META-NARRATIVES
When a meta-narrative is being established, its creators spend considerable time not just on the official government approved pro-meta-narrative position, but also on the official government approved anti-meta-narrative position. It is the energy created by this dialectic — where citizens are given two binary “choices” and allowed to debate between these artificial choices, ignoring any other options — that gives the meta-narrative the energy to transform society and lead to a pre-approved “solution”.
In such a dialectic, the media frames their articles with a pro vs. con approach, trotting out various officially designated “experts” to provide details and framing necessary for a controlled debate. This two-sided choice triggers primal instincts in humans where through evolution we are used to picking a tribe and going to war against another tribe. It’s the same instincts used for picking and cheering on sports teams. Nuance and subtlety are discarded; root for your team and shut up or you’ll be considered an enemy sympathizer. Goering commented on this general concept:
“…after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
An example of a small false dialectic was the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. On one side was the pro-conviction, pro-BLM position against the anti-conviction, pro-self defense position. Each screamed at and debated each other while a third position was basically ignored — that BLM was simply a front group of the United States government acting out rioting orders by its FBI handlers for political goals, see here, here and here for details. The true objectives were to portray Trump as weak on crime, to destroy small businesses already ravaged by COVID, and to strike fear in the hearts of citizens trying to defend themselves using firearms with the threat of criminal prosecution. The stakes for the public were relatively minor. Regardless of Rittenhouse’s defense verdict, the synthesis was a modest decline in the ability and willingness for gun owners to defend themselves from criminals.
Another small dialectic was the death of George Floyd. The trial was about whether Derek Chauvin and three other police officers on scene should go to prison for causing his death, but the synthesis of the trial and conviction was that cops nationwide would become less likely to police or even patrol in black neighborhoods. The facts of the case were irrelevant as the media hysteria led the way; the toxicology report showed Floyd had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system, he was on methamphetamine, had COVID, Chauvin was using an approved Minneapolis PD technique (and he was only 5’9” tall and thin), and, per the coroner, Floyd had extreme heart disease and no neck trauma. He was also a felon and arrested for robbing a woman in front of her toddler but none of that mattered. He is now hailed as a saint.
A large false dialectic was the COVID-19 pandemic, where the positions pushed by the media were: (1) COVID is a deadly pandemic, it’s origins are unknown, people sick with it should take Remdesivir and be placed on breathing machines if they are really sick, and we must lockdown society without economic impact studies in order to save the population, vs. (2) COVID is a deadly pandemic, its origins were Chinese biolabs, sick people should take HCQ and everyone should shelter and stay at home, but maybe total shutdowns aren’t totally necessary. Dissenting voices to this dialectic were banned from social media, squelched, and threatened with job loss and/or actually fired. An alternative position was a belief that COVID-19 was a difficult-to-differentiate flu equivalent with equivalent mortality rates, and it would not have been noticed without the media hype.9 Evidence for this position includes a John Hopkins analysis (later yanked for political reasons) stating total mortality was flat in 2020, also confirmed by Stanford research that was later banned; the incidence of flu in 2020 was zero; and there’s a question over whether PCR tests can even detect COVID-19 vs general cold/flu.10 The stakes for this dialectic were high and the enormous energy generated created a powerful synthesis: the ushering in of forced vaccinations and COVID vaccine passports (later placed on hold), with residual resentment for China in case the establishment decides to later treat them as an enemy (beginning in 2023).
Another dialectic involved being team pro-Trump vs team anti-Trump during his presidency as opposed to judging the man on his performance issue by issue. Too many people blindly chose a team and rooted for it like a sports match, ignoring the failings of their “side” because to recognize such failings during a tribal war would mean to weaken one’s team.11 The synthesis of the Trump movement and the hysterical anti-Trump reaction led to globohomo tyrannically cracking down on American citizens:
Historically, a major false dialectic was the Vietnam war, where one had to either be “pro war” or “anti war”. A third perspective - the perspective of Robert Welch of the John Birch society - was that our military rules of engagement were limiting to the point of incapacity and that we should either dramatically relax them in order to win or otherwise withdrawal if we wouldn’t fight properly. His analysis is worth reading here. This rational perspective was ignored by the establishment. The ultimate synthesis of this dialectic was the withdrawal from Vietnam after a tremendous loss of blood and treasure, including thousands of POWs ignominiously left behind, and a collapse in the public’s willingness to fight communism by direct U.S. military means. This was a major win for globalist, pro-communist sympathizers in the U.S.
Lastly, see the 1966 Cloward-Piven strategy where two prominent academics famously conspired to generate a national crisis in order to usher in a predetermined outcome drastically expanding the size of government.
….
In Part 2 and Part 3, we will look at whether regular citizens have any power in American democracy, how media serves as a brainwashing tool via framing devices, the role of so-called experts and institutions in keeping citizens pacified, a critique of modern education, and a discussion of the “NPC” meme.
Trump was never expected to become president; the establishment brushed his candidacy off as a joke who would wreck the Republican Party with his brash, racist tactics and then lose handily. This is why the media gave him extensive coverage and why Bill Clinton encouraged him to run. He trailed by 3-6 points in almost every pre-election poll, to the point Hillary took off significant amounts of campaigning to relax and she failed to campaign in critical swing states.
Trump won, barely, by 107,000 votes across 3 states. Even he was surprised by his victory and possibly horrified. The reaction from the establishment to his surprising victory was over-the-top, nonstop hysteria, which continued without pause for the length of his presidency. The leaked Peter Strzok/Lisa Page texts showed the typical elite perspective: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40” and, in one particular message when Page asked if Trump would ever become president, Strzok reportedly replied, “No. No he won't. We'll stop it.” James Comey hit on this point as well in his book: “It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls. But I don’t know.”
The Russia Collusion and impeachment narratives was meant as a stopgap measure to prevent Trump from implementing any of his agenda and from rooting out any of the corruption in D.C. During the impeachment Colonel Vindman, appearing in full military uniform, had the approval of the pro-establishment Joint Chiefs of Staff for his performance, who were furious at Trump for advancing an anti-war agenda.
Alinski was Obama’s inspiration; he incidentally dedicated his book to Lucifer. The exact dedication quote from Rules for Radicals: "Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.”
“Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist!” was an attempt to subvert a new Republican on the Supreme Court who would tip the court’s balance of power, conducted by known liberal operatives and CIA assets - Christine Blasey Ford’s handlers were intelligence agents. One of the oddest subplots of this narrative was Ford’s home possessing two front doors which, she claimed, was due to the trauma from the incident - although she really used the second front door to illegally rent out part of her house to tenants or airbnb guests.
Trump’s first impeachment over Biden’s corruption was later proven conclusively by emails and documents found on Hunter Biden’s laptop — “10 for the big guy”. Also see Biden’s on-air confession where he stated, “"If the prosecutor's not fired you're not getting the money [$1 billion]. Well son of a bitch, he got fired, and they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”
The “Global Pandemic” COVID narrative provided political cover for instituting nationwide Democrat-favoring vote by mail and ballot harvesting measures, which would assist in pushing through an unenthusiastic Joe Biden against an incumbent Trump cruising to re-election on a strong economy. Additionally, the narrative advanced the Great Reset agenda via instituting mandatory vaccine passports, along with creating opportunities for theft of much of the $11+ trillion printed for the “emergency” by bankers, politicians and their allies.
The “Insurrection” second impeachment for a FBI and Capitol Police staged unarmed “coup attempt” where no one other than a Trump supporter died was pushed to sweep aside complaints about extensive election irregularities, to label half of America as extremists, and to punish any right wing American who has the temerity to protest in person against election theft.
As Thomas Sowell said, "Freedom is unlikely to be lost all at once or openly, it is far more likely eroded away bit by bit amid glittering promises and expressions of noble ideals. Thus hard-earned freedoms for which many have fought and died have now been bought and sold for words or money, or both.”
As Michael Malice said, "The claim 'hate speech is not free speech' implies 'free' is a type of speech, as opposed to how speech is treated in a free society.”
And as George Washington said, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
Polling is used either for information gathering purposes or to manipulate public opinion. Polling hacks the human herd-instinct to make politicians or issues appear more or less popular than they actually are.
Over 80,000 died from the 2017 U.S. flu season, for example.
To the extent there was an increase in total mortality in 2020, it is unclear to what extent it can simply be blamed on regular hospital operations, including surgeries, being suspended during the first year of the "pandemic". Increases in mortality post-2020 (i.e. when COVID was already circling for a year) can be attributed to the untested, experimental, dangerous mRNA vaccines.
Just came across your substack, really enjoying your writing, thought you might be interested in this article.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/we-are-all-pavlovs-dogs-now
The more I read your writing the more I feel like you’re reaching into my brain and pulling out all these concepts and arranging and ordering them better than I ever could. This is good stuff, I very much appreciate your ability to synthesize these disparate elements into a lucid and useful roadmap of the current clown show the west has devolved into.