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.

I actually gave you a plus one on this comment! It doesn't really matter and people will believe as they do, and it is probably not worth taking the time to argue the point one way or another. If there is any worthwhile takeaway form the NASA extravaganza it's that the media is in lockstep with the state apparatus and is used as a way of manipulating what we think of as "reality". The "news" is no more real than movies or other network television programs and Apollo is one way of illustrating the manipulation. It's still a bridge too far for most; everyone gets to things in their own time. Actual reality awaits! I will take my own medicine and hereafter will spending more time under the sun and stars instead of wondering why NASA has never bothered to take a photo of them from space. Adieu!

I would be one of those who remembers. It wasn't until recently that I began to wonder why they would essentially interrupt entire school days (iirc, it seemed to be interminable as I found the broadcasts boring as a eight year old) and roll the TV cart into the classroom to make sure everyone in the public school of the small town I grew up in (50 students per graduating class) bore witness to this event. To my mind this is much more similar to subjecting North Korean school children to videos of KJI shooting a miraculous hole in one than anything to do with science. I've seen the launches, too. Which is to say I have seen objects lift off of the ground and disappear from view.

Let's just cut to the chase prior to additional submissions regarding the ridiculous imagery, references to the genealogy, the dubious backgrounds of the NASA founders, the fact that NASA is nothing if not a grandiose expression of statism, the complete and total lack of anything of actual value ever to emanate from NASA and all the rest. Is there anything, anything at all, that could be added to this thread that would move Apollo believers an iota toward adopting a bit of skepticism about the claims made by NASA?

We may be in the middle of the collapse depending what a "collapse" is actually. The debt (and money for that matter) are infinite. For practical purposes, there is no difference between one trillion and ten trillion. It will take a while to run out of exponents. There is still a phenomenal amount of excess capacity and labor in the system as it is, government boondoggles, the military., corporate inefficiency. Unemployed people are necessary for the corporate oligarchs as leverage to suppress wage increases, so unemployment will be a fixture. Not Dark Yet offered a realistic summation in that the noose of virtual "debt" will continue to tighten around the necks of the producers so they have less and less capacity to ever escape the work mill. As long as agri-business can continue to increase the ratio of feeders to providers of feed, the debt figures are meaningless and can be managed the way they have been for some time, with tricks of accounting. If people get wise to the fact they have accrued nothing when they attempt to liquidate their "savings" for actual stuff and there is potential for unrest, they can invent another war, reset the economy and perhaps demolish some sacred structures to make room for malls in the process.

Pardon me for being so presumptuous as to flatter myself in thinking the above remark was this way directed, but being one of the flies in the proverbial statist/NASA boot-licking ointment so prevalent on this site I'll make the assumption. By making an effort to be moronic (not an argument, BTW, as Stef is often wont to remark), I assume you mean acted in opposition to sitting dutifully in my state funded university chair, absorbing without criticism or question every morsel of ordained science presented by the clergy academics and later faithfully regurgitating it back to them in exchange for their approval in the form of an acceptable grade. So, in answer, yes it probably takes more effort to consider whether the the weight of the earth can be extrapolated from a couple of lead balls (brass would have been more appropriate) than marking 5.972 X 1024 in the "What's the mass of the earth?" blank. With this sort of proof of accuracy a science nerd with a few empty brief cases and a couple of BBs on a piece of thread could make a mint dealing "drugs". I'd spend a bit of time nailing down the presentation first, though. Anyway, since this thread is actually about NASA, one of the most vivid expressions of the state and state largess , how is it that all the NASA fanboys here are completely oblivious to the massive conflict of interest involved in seeing NASA as an expression of science rather than one of politics? Okay, we are going to found an institute of science: how about we get Aleister Crowley? No? Okay, next best thing, Jack Parsons. And L. Ron Hubbard, Walt Disney and Hollywood. Voila! It's science!

Well, at least they are not being set on fire for coming up with the wrong number of dancing angels on the pinhead. That should be cause for relief and some measure of progress. Good thing Cavendish wasn't plagued by a vibrating air handler, which is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the earth may appear to have put on a few pounds. "Does this frequency make me look fat?"

Okay.... Let's have a look at the Gravitational Constant. From Wiki: "The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy" "The gravitational constant appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation, but it was not measured until seventy-one years after Newton's death by Henry Cavendish with his Cavendish experiment, performed in 1798 (Philosophical Transaction 1798). Cavendish measured G implicitly, using a torsion balance invented by the geologist Rev. John Mitchell. "The accuracy of the measured value of G has increased only modestly since the original Cavendish experiment." Below is the Cavendish experiment, the results of which are still in use today: "The apparatus constructed by Cavendish was a torsion balance made of a six-foot (1.8 m) wooden rod suspended from a wire, with a 2-inch (51 mm) diameter 1.61-pound (0.73 kg) lead sphere attached to each end. Two 12-inch (300 mm) 348-pound (158 kg) lead balls were located near the smaller balls, about 9 inches (230 mm) away, and held in place with a separate suspension system.[8] The experiment measured the faint gravitational attraction between the small balls and the larger ones. The two large balls were positioned on alternate sides of the horizontal wooden arm of the balance. Their mutual attraction to the small balls caused the arm to rotate, twisting the wire supporting the arm. The arm stopped rotating when it reached an angle where the twisting force of the wire balanced the combined gravitational force of attraction between the large and small lead spheres. By measuring the angle of the rod and knowing the twisting force (torque) of the wire for a given angle, Cavendish was able to determine the force between the pairs of masses. Since the gravitational force of the Earth on the small ball could be measured directly by weighing it, the ratio of the two forces allowed the density of the earth to be calculated, using Newton's law of gravitation." Of course, you are free to believe that density of the earth could be calculated using a couple of 2 pound balls spinning on a contraption concocted by a clergyman, but I will reserve judgement for the time being. It's totally fitting that much of what we know of as science today was instituted by the clergy of days gone by. deGrasse Tyson's apple has not fallen far from Newton's tree, as it turns out. Those who claim to know the mass of the earth would have been right at home making determinations about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. The epistemological significance of both are equivalent in terms of the value they have added to the human experience. Oh, and did I mention that escape velocity was calculated by Jules Verne in 1865 and was surprisingly accurate? Who knew?

Yes and no. It matters insofar as they rely on the producers to be invested in the system. As far as enactment of agendas the hypothetical above is exactly what has happened historically since the inception of the "government". People vote against war, they get war. They vote for no new taxes, they get new taxes. (Taxes are a complete misdirection, BTW. They are merely a tool for mitigating hyperinflation by removing excess currency from the system so it can't be used to bid up goods and services) The entire system is devoted to subverting the will of the majority, otherwise it could just be a market economy and preferences would be known by where the money was directed as it is in every other endeavor except government. Voting is a black box and no one has any idea (other than what the government controlled media tells them) about how polling results shake out. The very idea of a majority opinion on anything and voting in general is laughable on its face. The totally corrupt and violent gang known as "government" will extort you at gunpoint, throw you in a cage for having a plant in your pocket, and lie and kill with impunity, but when it comes to the vote they are little old church ladies, dutifully counting all the ballots faithfully and using the unadulterated results to enact laws that they too will follow to the letter. Sure. A vote is a public supplication of prayer to the god democracy that shows the controllers their subjects believe. Make no mistake, it is important to them that voters believe their vote can effect change. A good voter turnout is a guarantee of four more years of uncontested pillaging. Public (and private) schools propagandize children into believing they have civic responsibilities and that the vote is powerful and can effect change. This programming runs very deep and is constantly enforced by the media, a virtual onslaught. That in itself should be enough of a clue to anyone paying attention that it should be avoided at all costs. Politicians are not dictators. They are actors, con men, celebrities. Much is made of government's corporate entanglements. Of course, what is overlooked is the fact that the governments themselves are corporations. City, County, State and Federal corporations that are heavily invested in indexes of funds. The Koch Bros. are vilified for putting money into government coffers but it's likely the other way around. Does anyone who has given this more that 2 seconds of thought actually think these powerful people, who have trillions of dollars invested and trillions more at stake are going to sit back and watch as some upstart comes into office like a bull in a china shop and wrecks the economy? Have a look at Trump's issues: More military spending, blaming China for currency manipulation (ahem, Federal Reserve?) support of Israel, continuing the drug war - how novel. Rock the vote people! Winston has to believe there are five fingers...

The system is a jumbled mess of irrational nonsense that falls apart when subjected to the most cursory scrutiny. Through control of the money system, taxation, regulation, nepotism, (the list is practically endless) the rulers siphon off the lion's share of the productive capacity of those who actually produce. Government (or the idea of it, since it is merely an idea) is the tool that is used to extract resources, but in order to maximize the productive capacity of the producers, it must maintain the pretense of legitimacy. That is the purpose of the vote. To give the system the air of legitimacy. There may be some data that is harvested through the polls, like facebook or probably even this site is used, but to labor under the illusion that voters have any say in choosing the direction of the ship of state is ludicrous in the extreme. So long as people place value in the farce of voting a great number of them will do whatever their puppet masters command, particularly killing brown people, there seems to always be a bit of that.

I have no way of knowing whether voting affects which personality effects the title of "president". I strongly suspect not. I strongly believe that the powers that be are very interested to know that people are invested in the system as it is, and are content to punch a button every few years as their way of voicing discontent. It would be analogous to the interest retailer takes in his suggestion box when his sales are increasing exponentially year after year. The retailer cares about his receipts, the powers care about participation.