pretzelogik

I rarely encounter anyone that knows the first thing about the dominant narrative, much less why they believe it. My experience with those who have not taken (and likely never will take) the time to deconstruct the official narrative have a worldview that can be characterized thusly: I trust authority. Media (TV news, newspapers, magazines, any part of the 6 conglomerate mega-source that delivers all of the perception management narrative - let's throw in government institutions and academia for good measure) is an authoritative source of factual information. Therefore I believe the narrative presented by the media. Ironically, these same people may also poke fun at those with religious beliefs.

Just curious, what is your evidence for Assad using chemical weapons?

The MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) and domino narratives are fiction and were invented to facilitate the implementation of the Grand Chessboard ideas promoted by the likes of Zbignew Brzezhinski. The same for ISIS and everything that has happened since the 9/11 television spectacular. The fear narrative is about engendering conformity and obedience in the host populations through various mechanisms: education, entertainment, culture creation, media (infotainment). The goal is total control over all populations with no possibility of challenge to the ruling elite (the elites of all corners of the world that are in collusion to exploit the non-elites. Wars are for show. They call it theater for a reason). Nothing of consequence is grass roots. The responses to most of the threads here are proof that the narrative is secure and that populations will continue to invest their time and energy in support of systems that are in place to exploit and enslave them. As physical intimidation and control has proved to be economically less viable over time than engendering voluntary servitude, more effort and resources are used to build narratives that enslave the mind rather than the body. Funding for narrative creation is diverted from programs (NASA, nuclear bombs) that don't exist other than as fronts,, to create a false version of reality that encourages people to give theirs hearts and minds to the system. University student bodies and philosophy oriented sites that are focused on the political system are evidence of the success of this program. Much has been written about the real purpose of academia, news media and the creation of culture, in many cases from the purveyors themselves. But as Nixon famously said: "The American people don't believe anything until they see it on television." Say what you will, TV still rules. The authority of the mainstream has yet to be challenged in the least when it comes to the big picture.

That is the most specific definition available. Damn eugenicists always taking the piss.

Meanwhile 666 miles from Alamogordo, bathroom tiles were mysteriously less grimy.... Regarding video evidence (apparently this bears repeating, heaven knows why), the movie Ghostbusters is evidence that a giant Staypuft marshmallow man once attacked New York city. But you see, those A bomb videos were clipped from actual footage shot at the test sites. That were rendered at a fully equipped Hollywood style movie studio: http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2015/02/23/lookout_mountain_secret_film_studio_in_laurel_canyon_hollywood.html Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired. - Jonathan Swift (perhaps attribution is in question)

Has Stefan (or anyone for that matter) ever provided an unambiguous definition of the word "race"?

The (insert media source of choice) says it, I believe it and that's all there is to it.

Youtube account is closed so potential viewers will now need a description to share any outrage or indignation that may have been experienced by watching the video.

If you are really worried about nukes, (the nuke narrative held children of the 60s in abject terror for decades, they have toned down the official narrative since that time, these days it's mostly reinforced through entertainment) you may want to spend some time researching their authenticity. The "Nuke Lies" video by Jessie Waugh is a good place to start. The Daily Bell ran a nice synopsis article on the anniversary of Hiroshima: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/on-this-atom-bomb-anniversary-youre-being-lied-to-about-hiroshima-and-much-more-to-make-you-fearful/ I was very fearful of nuke in years past, but no longer worry that any such doomsday device is remotely possible. It has been a huge relief. Also, keep in mind that Phil Donahue has had survivalists on his show (it ran from 1970 to 1996) who said they had bunkers with food, ammo and silver in remote places during the 1970s. This was in response to stagflation, the oil "crisis", etc. Fast forward to today and these survivalists start to look a bit like fundamentalists waiting for the rapture. 40 years is a long time to wait for a societal melt down. I went through a similar period of panic during the 2008 housing "crisis" after listening to Alex Jones for a while. It had very deleterious effects on my disposition and the relationships with those closest to me. I keep in mind that if the powers that be are astute enough to have the entire world trading goods and services for "money" (i.e., paper in the best case, computer digits more commonly), make the public think that politics matters (it doesn't) and shape the world view of the public and what they know of as "reality" through media, they are astute enough to not shoot themselves in the foot by creating a dystopian nightmare of a world that they themselves wouldn't want to inhabit. The outcome of WWIII, if there will be such a thing or if it is not already underway, will be predetermined and it will follow the course set out for it by those with much higher pay grades than anyone ever lauded on TV or in a history book. That said, I live in Florida where we are always subject to the threat of hurricanes and always have a couple of months store of clean water, food, extra gas, and other essentials, so am certainly not suggesting that preparedness is not a good idea. Just that getting caught up in any doomsday OCD activity is maybe not the healthiest and happiest way to live.

Did they shoot Larry Hagman when JR was written out of the Dallas script? But in answer to the question in the title of the post: YES! IT should be a a bullet proof plexi bubble (even staged managed fake assassinations have a margin for error) with hair spray spritzers built into the top to keep his coif immaculate.

So, these individuals who identify themselves as "government" and will cage people for having a plant, shoot someone for driving while black, bomb brown people (fuck no, not brown ELITE people) all over the world and are funded through extortion and intimidation will be absolutely above board when it comes to counting votes? And when the votes are tallied will honor the political promises that were made during the campaign when they have a history of lying about everything else? Somehow the idea of being concerned about the outcome of an election makes it seem like the poor chumps pulling the levers actually have some influence over politicians. I have zero evidence that voting changes anything, and a 200 years plus program of theft and oppression that says that it doesn't. Oh, except single mothers - they control everything. Politics, like the news, is a stage managed show. It sells advertising. It creates reality (perception management). Donary Trumton will occupy the PR spokesperson, mascot position of Gain/TIde - Coke/Pepsi for a time while the people who actually set the agenda continue with their plans that have been set in motion long before Jefferson was pissing his diapers.

It is a matter of why people believe what they believe. When a story is presented by the media, we can accept it as fact or discard it as fiction. In my experience, most accept the stories presented as fact simply because they are presented by the media as fact. It makes no difference that the media apparatus is typically engaged in presenting fiction most of the time or that its prime directive is to sell advertising (a directive that never changes, as the most dire narratives can be interrupted by commercials). I posted an article I wrote about the topic of conspiracy a while ago here. It bears revisiting, now that another story has been presented that most are accepting as fact on the authority of the media, as opposed to weighing the evidence and attempting to reconcile the contradictions, which is a challenge considering the breadth and depth of the anomalies. When people dismiss conspiracy theorists, the "truthers" as it were, they are attempting to discharge the discomfort of the cognitive dissonance that has resulted from being exposed to information that contradicts the pillars that support their reality. Telling people taxation is theft has a similar effect. If new information causes a reevaluation of a current event that has been accepted as true, the subconscious draws the inference that other events that have been accepted as historical fact are suspect. If 9/11 was not as we were told, perhaps George Washington did not chop down the cherry tree and Jesus did not walk on water. Much easier to dismiss the contrarians as tin foil hatters and return to business as usual. Ultimately, a continued disregard of reality cannot be a net positive, regardless of the discomfort of the realignment. Living without fear of nuclear annihilation or being a victim of some random terror attacks are two benefits of media skepticism that come to mind. Knowing that I am a victim of the ever tightening noose of government oppression is another matter, but it is still much abstract (thankfully) at this stage for the most part, at least in the US.

Followed the Youtube link and clicked: Show More. Lyrics are underneath. i agree they are hard to distinguish at first listen, but not necessarily hard to find.

The video footage of the 9/11 hoax was created in advance and aired as "live". Any and all takers who wish to contest this fact please visit the link referenced below and offer your best explanations for the impossible to reconcile conflicts in the imagery that was presented as "live" but can only be rationally explained as digital compositing, layering and editing: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=961 The entire 9/11 media narrative has been so thoroughly debunked in thousands of posts at Clues Forum that any claim to knowledge about 9/11 that does not address that body of research is akin to claiming knowledge about Charles M. Schulz while being totally unfamiliar with Charlie Brown.

Millions of joules that didn't cause the buildings to sway even a fraction of an inch from the impact, the vibration of which neglected to shatter hundreds of adjacent windows. Joules that allowed aluminum wings to slice through multiple floors of four inch poured concrete like knives through hot butter. Nothing to see here folks, move along.