My thanks to Peter Duke of The Duke Report for his most enlightening post, Rewiring Beliefs: Spotting The Patterns That Shape Your Reality. I will cite a few of the introductory paragraphs but highly recommend reading the post first before you read this one.
It's the latest example of atrocity propaganda at work.
Another example is the Tiananmen Square massacre, which even the mainstream admits was fake:
"There were hundreds of troops in the square, many sitting cross-legged on the pavement in long curving ranks, some cleaning up debris. There were some tanks and armored personnel carriers. But we saw no bodies, injured people, ambulances or medical personnel — in short, nothing to even suggest, let alone prove, that a "massacre" had recently occurred in that place."
Thanks for that, Jane, it's very helpful to have a recognised label for what's going on. I've included mention of Atrocity propaganda and Tiananmen Square in patterns of response 4. and 5. above (Redefine Terms and Counterexample).
Just to note that the journalist says "But there's no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it," but this just strikes me as more propaganda - whenever the MSM "admits" to anything you can be sure it will not be a 100% truthful admission.
Yeah, they always give partial truths at best. I anticipated that they'll still sell the rest of it as real, so this doesn't surprise me. But even when they promote the rest of it as true, they quietly admit there's no exact reliable estimate for the dead due to conflicting and dubious casualty reports. To quote:
"In his official report on the upheavals, Chen Xitong, Beijing’s hard-line mayor, claimed that 200 civilians were killed and more than 3,000 were wounded. “Several dozen” soldiers died, he said. His figures for civilians are almost universally dismissed as outrageous underestimates. On the day of the crackdown, Chinese Red Cross sources told reporters that 2,600 people died and 10,000 were injured, although the organization later denied it. Amnesty International and some of the protest participants put the number of dead closer to 1,000.
Outside of official circles in Beijing, however, no one will know the true cost in human life that day until China gets a leader with enough courage to throw light on one of the country’s darkest episodes."
One way to tell if a story doesn't add up is if there's no thorough, credible accounting of figures included, especially if the problem still persists years after the fact.
And, more importantly, if it has admitted hoaxes like the Tiananmen Square massacre, it makes things even simpler, because we have now have strong grounds to question everything else, too. Who's to say they aren't lying about the rest if they were caught lying about a key detail of a seminal event?
there was no "mASSacre" most so called attrocities etc are faked. but the beatings of anti covid protesters was mostly real. as this was ofc ourse a threat to tptb and shows that poLIEce are still as indoctrinated to serve to state even beating up old people at peaceful marches... (a bit OT)
There were a lot of fakeries in Bosnia where I am from. All sides were producing fake photographs and videos. One such video was shown in the US Congress after which Congressmen voted to bomb the Serbian side. But that does not mean that people were not being killed. It only mean it is difficult to make an effective video of real killings.
What is even worse, there were instances when armies were killing their own people to stage good videos.
Yes it doesn’t mean that people weren’t being killed … as it doesnt in Gaza - one very good reason they don’t show us real killing and maiming is it is simply too horrific - probably the reason so many soldiers end up with PTSD.
Killing their own people? Nothing would surprise me. I loved the film by Danis Tanovic, No Man's Land, which I saw twice, both times the effect being very different - the first time I laughed and the second time I found it tragic.
This is my analysis of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre which the evidence indicates was staged with an additional analysis of a fake story by ABC Australia aired in 1993.
yes another war started by false flags... it just puzzling that the sheeple do not meanwhile notice all this crap. as it has not stopped, they are always using the same tricks etc
Reality = everything they want us to believe is real is actually fake while at the same time everything the majority think is fake or a lie is actually true.
Great article Petra. Phil's work is quite the shocker. I've still not fully forgiven you for trash talking about flat earth but this article nearly makes up for it :-)
A "virtual" reality implies computer simulation or "pretending." Which can be convincingly altered to mislead. Lacking a spiritual, moral intention of programming, any AI system is suspect to present any truth. This technology challenges humans to refine their discernment of what's real. Everything observed in the material world is dying. That's a fact. If routinely focused on can become a huge distraction because it distorts what's real.
In comparison, a human soul has the ability to morally imagine and can retain the existence of the species flower after it "disappears" into the soil after its fruit blooms into seeds (preparation for rebirth). Build up and rely on divinely-based clairvoyance. There is an objective divine plan for human angelic evolution. The playbook does call for right now a material manifestation of our spiritual essence, so a phase of our development can be accomplished.
I thought of a good sort-of-analogy argument with regards to all this fakery issue. You'll like this one because it's logical and philosophical and it illustrates the faulty reasoning/cognitive fallacy quite well.
Imagine you and me are standing outside a warehouse, and I tell you that there are 5,000 pieces of fruit inside. To prove it, I go inside and return shortly after with 100 apples.
Now, the real sleight of whatever here is not, actually, in you doubting whether there are indeed 4,900 other pieces of fruit inside the warehouse, but it's in your thought that all of those remaining 4,900 are also apples. Stated differently, the error in thinking that 'all fruit is apples' - simply on the basis of identifying 2% of fruit as apples. Obviously 'apples' = 'fake photos' in this analogy.
This fallacy is of course a psychological one. And surprisingly it's not, in fact, about humans innate tendency to trust. Human brains function in a heuristic way. That's to say they work with 'efficiency', not necessarily 'thoroughness'. So it's easy to manipulate a human into believing a general, universal rule by showing them enough examples of a thing, so then they will assume that every subsequent incidence of that thing is going to match their previous experience. So in the above example, if I say I'll fetch you another piece of fruit, you are going to assume it's going to be an apple, because it would fit the pattern. But for all you know, the other 4,900 could be oranges. And face it, you are not going to stand there like a lemon whilst I fetch you - one at a time - another 4,899 pieces of fruit, eh?
Hopefully you can see the logical point I'm making here. 'A handful of fake photos' does not an event disprove. All it proves is that some fruit is apples. Or 'some photos are faked'. It only says something about the fake photos themselves, nothing else. Obviously it is an important question 'why are there fake photos', but for this to lead to the sweeping conclusion 'it was all faked' is a clear fallacy of thinking. The answer to 'why is there fake evidence' is something different, IMO. They just want you to think the answer is 'because the event was faked'. The real answer comes from thinking directly about the people who created the fake evidence. Don't concentrate on the apple, concentrate on the person telling you not to eat it. Because that person definitely has questions to answer.
You're definitely not getting a like for this one, Petra. Although I am going to remain calm (or try to).
So let's try this one on you. Take just one further step back. Now ask the following question: 'why are people using sleight of mouth to claim that the Israel genocide of Gaza is fake?'
Does it not occur to you in the slightest that this might just incy wincy be trying to detract or distract you from the blatantly obvious 'Israel is a monstrous, murderous, anti-human, racist, pure evil demonic entity'? Is it trying to get you to believe that 'oh, Israel (and thus Zionism) isn't really as bad as people think?'
Does it not occur to you that this is propaganda!!!
Put simply, part of human identity is bound up with their cultural or social group identity. For the Palestinians, this is their thousands of years old cultural identity which is inseparable from the land on which they and their ancestors live. After that much time, a human being is genuinely connected to that land, it's like a part of their own body. I am guessing you might not feel that because you're a first or second generation immigrant to Australia. No offence meant there, by the way. You may 'understand' it conceptually but you don't feel it. Palestinians, however, do feel it. Thus, the very idea that any of them would willingly agree to be 'resettled' is not only absurd, it's abusive in the extreme.
Do you think the Australian aborigines would willingly agree to resettlement? Obviously not.
One of the things you should probably bear in mind about Duke is that he presents as a 'Christian'. You should know perfectly well by now that the monotheistic ideology is evil and employs the very same NLP, 'sleight of mouth', gaslighting, coercive control, abuse, indoctrination, psychological manipulation, bullshit historical narratives, and propaganda which he purports to criticise! FFS!!! Knock knock Petra. Please wake up.
Although here is another question for you along the same lines. I'm not going to take any stance on it either way, but I was just wondering if you believe in the holocaust (the ww2 one I mean)? If so why, and more importantly if you do have you applied the same 'doubt' or 'thoughts about fakery' to that particular narrative? Or is this a no-go area? Obviously in some countries (like mine) it's not even legal to do that sort of analysis, and I don't know what the law says in Australia, but I am interested to know whether you think there are 'limits' to questions about possible fakery (and if so, what is the explanation for those limits). I know, for example, that the Miles Mathis Committee seems to think that most of ww2 itself was fake, which strikes me as beyond absurdity - thus one has to question whether they really do think it was fake or whether they are just fucking with people again. But these are all important questions regarding 'levels of fakery' - if we believe that 'some events are fake' where do we draw the lines? Why are we 'selective' about it? That's my point. If I bring up a subject like the holocaust then this is because I am pointing out the importance of what you might call 'emotional attachment (to a narrative)'. Like, if we don't care about Palestinians then it's much easier to think about it possibly being faked. And I also admit that because I do care about them, I am at least slightly biased against any suggestion that it might be faked. Hopefully you get my point. Empathy goes a long way, in the end.
1. Peter Duke had nothing to do with the Palestinian Sleight of Mouth, it was just from him that I learnt of the technique. The Palestinian Sleight of Mouth comes directly from me.
2. I think it's monstrous that Gazans are being expelled from their homeland ... my point is that it should be recognised that they are being expelled rather than killed - at least according to the fake images. Can't you see how showing us these very emotive images is a kind of distraction from the straightforward expulsion that really is happening? Yes, I understand "homeland" even though I'm half-Scottish/half-Italian and was born in Australia so have a very poor sense of it myself.
3. I think Jews were massively vilified and killed in significant numbers in WWII, however, I have doubts about a Holocaust per se ... and lots of other people were killed too. My father could have easily been killed when his Italian navy boat was torpedoed by the British - something I didn't know until after his death.
I've left my response this long so I've had enough time to calm myself down from the obvious trigger. I did, however, touch upon it in my original comment, which is quite simply you are denying that the Israeli monster is committing genocide. It's like a weird kind of pro-Zionist propaganda, making excuses for evil. And that's unforgiveable - which is a very tame word amongst the many others I could use. Fortunately, because of the utter absurdity of your assertion that there is no genocide being deliberately committed against the Palestinians, you are not going to be persuading many people at all. In fact, I would imagine that crossing this sort of line will alienate a lot of people.
Do you also deny, for example, the 10,000 Palestinian hostages being held in Israeli torture (concentration) camps? Do you deny what's been done to them?
How about basic psychology contradicting what you say. Normally you would expect a fight or flight response - so for your fakery argument to hold you'd have to show that someone must've cast a spell on the Palestinians so they don't resist this ethnic cleansing - remember it's been going on for 75 years already. You would also have to prove that they are 'in on it'. They would have to be, if your assertion is correct.
And yet you do believe that 'Nazis were evil and killed lots of people'. Why don't you deny that? Surely if you did that would at least make you logically consistent? Why do you believe one, but not the other? It's dissonant.
See that's what confuses me about you sometimes. The sheer lack of consistency. I am now wondering what your belief is about when was the last real event in history. Was it 1945? (The moon landing being the exception that proves the rule, so to speak).
How about the genocide in Iraq. Did that happen? Both times? Libya? Syria?
How about Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos? Korea? The list goes on. How about the 30 million excess deaths caused by neoliberal shock treatment in Russia during the Yeltsin years? Real, or fakery?
Vaccine deaths? And so on.
The other glaring psychological anomaly I notice is that despite your alleged scepticism you NEVER question the source of these fake images. Like, you take them all at face value. You blindly believe in the entire intention of the purveyors of the fakery without ever questioning THEM!
Their intention clearly being to convince you that 'Event X is fake because fake images'. But you don't question that. You don't question them, you don't ask 'who are they'. And so it never occurs to you that these intelligence services types might have an agenda (unless of course you are possibly the weirdest Aussie cognitive infiltrator in the history of weird Aussie cognitive infiltrators. I mean, the cognitive dissonance is enough to make one turn to drink.).
The MM Committee is a bit like this sometimes too - like on the one paw MM will readily say 'they fuck with the genealogy records' and then in the next breath he's using the same records to prove something. It's absurd. This is a marker of the arrogance of that committee and the opinion they have about not just normal people, but conspiracy theory people. 'They must be dumb as fuck if they believe this shit!' says Miles number 5. 'Yeah,' says number 3, 'they are!'. So they start having competitions about who can come up with the dumbest thing and have people believe it.
Anyway - this response was much calmer than some of the ones I had going round my head earlier. I am not ashamed to admit that you touched a deep nerve with your genocide denial. I think it's shameful, and I do think you should think about the consequences - because you will lose supporters if you cross certain lines. Arguing that 'no one died on 9-11' is one thing, but trying to defend a genocidal monster like Israel is, what shall we say, beyond the pale. Yeah, that's a good term. Beyond the pale.
[p.s. - with regards to your comment about your father in the Italian navy in ww2 - here is something to get your conspiratorial teeth into - my grandfather commanded a ship for the arctic convoys, and he wasn't even 30 years old at the time. He was a freemason, which might explain it. Never talked to me about it, though. The arctic convoys, I mean...]
Waffle waffle Evelyn. I am not DENYING anything, I'm simply exposing fakery. I asked you to provide images that seem authentic if you had any and you haven't done that … I'm certainly not asserting they don't exist but it’s helpful if they could be provided. Have you got any?
The point of my post was simply to ask people to take a step back and recognise how those in power use images to press our buttons. Obviously, you haven't done that, Evelyn, you've responded emotionally and righteously ... exactly how those in power want people to respond ... if they're not responding emotionally and righteously to the fake Hamas hostage crisis, that is. DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Seriously, are you so blind, really?
As soon as I heard of the Oct 7 event I thought, "That'll be staged." Did you? However, I didn't think further than that ... but then OF COURSE something had to follow, didn't it? Something had to follow the FAKE HAMAS HOSTAGE CRISIS ... and that would be RETALIATION BY THE ISRAELIS. OF COURSE. This doesn't mean bad things aren't going on ... it's just not the bad things they're spraying all over the media ... but they tell us the truth underneath the propaganda. They always tell us, it's their rule.
They TELL us they're faking it as illustrated by the AP article in my post. I repeat the title of the AP article that you have obviously glossed over:
Fake babies, real horror: Deepfakes from the Gaza war increase fears about AI’s power to mislead ... which leads us to an obviously AI image
And then we have Trump HIMSELF promulgating the AI video of Gaza beachfront being taken over. You know what that's called, don't you, it's called PREDICTIVE PROGRAMMING. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OlfbrOUBl7M
Ok - I'll tell you what my point really is here. Although you don't say so explicitly, you are creating the impression (intentionally or not) - or means for the reader to insinuate - that these images of fakery etc. are being created by the Palestinians, to make it look like the Israelis are committing genocide and other atrocities. This makes the Palestinians look like the bad guys. It reinforces the entire Israeli (and Western media for that matter) propaganda about Palestinians and Khamas being nasty and evil and liars and so on - which any fool knows is simply typical projection.
This is equally what I mean about questioning the source (and intentions) of the fakery. The most likely source is, in fact, the Israelis and the western propaganda machine, and the obvious intention is to make people doubt that the Israelis, and their supporters, are committing atrocities. It is about making people think 'they're not really as evil as we thought'. It's giving them an excuse, or a defence, or a get out card. When the truth is extremely simple - it's genocide and atrocities.
The Palestinians do not need to create fakery, because it's all happening and they can just disseminate real evidence.
Sometimes I do wonder what it must be like to believe you live in a world in which nothing real ever happens, and it's all just some virtual simulation. If that were true then we'd know about it, especially in such a massive situation like the destruction of Gaza. There would be thousands upon thousands of witness statements saying 'people aren't really being murdered', and 'these images are fake'. The absence of such counter-evidence proves the point, and is extremely telling. This is basic psychological and intelligence analysis.
With regards to October 7, this is more likely to be a LIHOP than a fake event. It's not really possible in practice for 'Hamas' to be fully under the control of Israel and to be complicit in the final solution to the Palestinian problem. This is not, really, the same, as, for example, the British intel services using Unionist proxies to carry out bombings and blaming it on the IRA. Because that's a far smaller context.
Anyway - whilst I accept your point that some images of fakery are being disseminated (partly for the reasons you suggest), I do not accept that 1/ it's the Palestinians doing it, or 2/ that means one has to take a massive leap and conclude 'the whole thing is fake and there's no genocide'. Because that's absurd. Both - in other words - can be true. Fakery, and real atrocities. The fakery is in part there to make you doubt that atrocities are taking place. Which they are, because psychologically, we are dealing with monstrous, murderous evil here - and to say the whole thing is fake is to provide cover for that evil. If you truly understood evil, if you actually had some personal experience of it, then you would readily understand what I'm saying.
So perhaps what I'm saying is that you need to be more circumspect and you need to make that very distinction - the existence of fakery doesn't give them a get out clause and it doesn't mean they are not also committing atrocities and 'I don't mean to insinuate that'. Otherwise - as I have - people are going to get seriously upset with you and you will not succeed in sufficiently getting your point across.
Besides, I don't need for there to be a genocide to be as angry as I am about what is happening to Palestinians. I was no less angry before October 7. So none of what has happened since has emotionally manipulated me in any way. That's the awful thing perhaps, the whole thing doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I have been used to the existence of evil, and what evil does, for a very long time already.
I found Duke's post rather disturbing, not because the subject was new to me but because it wasn't, and I've had a taste of where it goes. It seemed interesting at first, 40 years ago, but it left me with a bad taste.
People can dream up all kinds of things to do, and they can do what they can get away with. Some of those things might be beneficial, but they all have consequences. Messing with somebody else's mind has consequences which can be quite unpleasant for all parties involved. The organization that I learned these things from subsequently self-destructed, some years after I left.
I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're saying, CM. What kinds of things are you referring to with "dream up all kinds of things to do" and what do you mean by "might be beneficial, but they all have consequences." When you say "messing with somebody else's mind" what are you referring to?
It's a bit difficult to explain, and I hesitated to even write about it. To be aware of what Peter Duke wrote about is valuable when employed defensively. I doubt that many are aware of themselves to the point of being able to monitor and examine their own thoughts as he describes.
As the article progresses, it becomes a dual-use introduction to either defending oneself or learning how to influence others who have not developed such defenses. As someone who has been on both sides of that, it began to trigger alarms for me.
I don't know how much a person might be able to learn from simply reading material like this. I guess it would depend on the person. What I learned was not exactly the same thing and it was not taught using the same terminology, but it functioned the same way, and it was taught interactively in classes, by trained instructors. They taught about the mind and how it operates, and how to make use of that understanding to influence others.
I found what I learned to be very useful for self-defense, and I still use it that way to a limited degree, but the applications didn't stop with defense. I began to use them in other ways to influence people, as was the intention of the training, and it became a problem.
I won't say more about that other than that this all occurred some four decades ago and I had the benefit, from a distance, a few years later after I had left, of watching that organization self-destruct, and I didn't wish the same for myself. Although I came close. And while that organization is gone, it had its roots in others that are still around, and it produced a number of "consultants" that are still going too.
I meant "dreaming up things" to describe actions of people who learn these techniques and then proceed to find ways to use them to influence others -- messing with the others' minds. It can become a kind of calling, for the influencer, but who or what is doing the calling?
Whatever the technique, it can always be weaponised because people's emotions and biases get in the way of clear thinking. It's so ironic. There are two people who put out loads of material on critical thinking, Dr Bob Bennett, who's published books and has the website www.logicallyfallacious.com, a kind of forum-site where people discuss whether specified claims contain logical fallacies and Jesse Richardson who has sites on both logical fallacies and cognitive biases - see https://www.schoolofthought.org/projects - and is also part of a team who produced the test for "conspiracy theorists" to help guide them to see their delusional thinking, www.conspiracytest.org.
Bob Bennett banned me from his site for challenging the covid narrative despite the fact that I always put forward material in a perfectly rational and civil manner. You cannot get anything more AGAINST objective, critical thinking than simply banning someone with no discussion.
Jesse Richardson and the rest of his team of critical thinking experts weaponised silence by simply not responding to my perfectly rational and civil critique of their test. Jesse sings the praises of "intellectual humility" but shows precisely ZERO in his complete lack of response to a perfectly valid critique.
Ah, paradox. When what we think we see doesn't reflect what we think we know.
I learned something interesting beginning when I was 18, in early 1969. I had just finished my first semester of college, and there were some classes that really didn't go well, and I was not expecting that. Obviously something was wrong, but what? So I turned to the college's counselling center and began working with a psychologist. He ran a few tests on me, and then more tests, and then even some X-rays, concluding finally that something was seriously wrong.
That process led to me learning that my parents had withheld vital information from me about my birth and what went wrong, as they waited year after year to see if maybe my peculiar problems would go away on their own, while failing to notice or acknowledge symptoms of several kinds of major damage. I'd think they might have noticed when my puberty half-failed, but no.
But that's not the story I want to tell, although it might offer a clue or two as to how some people develop critical thinking skills -- as a matter of survival! And having brain damage from birth can help sometimes too.
Among the early tests that the psychologist ran were several puzzles. There was one in particular that stands out still, that I think consisted just of some shaped puzzle pieces that could be slid around on the desk and assembled into a particular larger shape. It was designed so that there was an "obvious" solution that, unfortunately, didn't quite work. I went with that solution, saw that it didn't work, and without giving it much thought, took it apart, tried fresh another time or two, and solved the puzzle. If only my college courses had been that easy.
But the psychologist told me that it was common for people to go for an obvious solution that didn't work, fixate upon it, and keep trying to make it work!
I don't know if that was true, or if he was just saying that as part of the process, but it taught me about something to look for in people, and I have noticed it again and again in many people ever since. It could do your head in. Or you could accept that many people think that way, and then look to see what else that implies.
When I reach this point I diverge in my thinking and begin to attempt to apply biblical principals to the problem, looking for anything that might match. And I've found plenty, but not without difficulty. I grew up in a conservative Christian world within the U.S. military. There I learned not to go questioning the teachings, and I learned even more when my mother kind of flipped out and became involved with a Christian cult that specialized in criticizing the practices of other Christian traditions.
In my early 20s I reach a point where I had had enough of all that nonsense and I joined the "unchurched". This was the early 70s, and it turned out that a lot of other people were heading that way too. I found my way back, with help, but only after a long winding journey stretching over decades and involving a variety of practices that good Christians aren't supposed to ever go near. Out there, I learned a bunch.
Food for thought: A while back I started to write an article I called "What is a Christian?", examining the meaning of the word itself. It's still in draft form, unfinished, but you can peek at it if you wish, here: https://www.far2go.net/p/fcd10cd7-305a-4418-828b-6e330011e482
I'm a part of this thing that calls itself Christianity, and I hold orthodox beliefs, but there is a lot of other add-on tradition, not to mention outright syncretism, to which I do not subscribe. So when I say "biblical", I don't necessarily mean the same thing that someone else might take it to mean.
When I (with the help of others, such as in the above draft) dig down to discover what the Bible texts actually say, I begin to see many match-ups with the things I see happening in this mess of a world we live in. And I see the warnings that say not to do what we are doing, and the predictions of consequences if we do it anyway, and I see those predictions coming about as predicted.
What I've just written isn't likely to cause the world to suddenly make sense, not for most readers, but I have seen that the world at least _can_ make sense when approached differently. It's enough to keep me going. And as I go, I encounter others here on Substack and elsewhere that are seeing things quite similarly to what I see, and that is downright reassuring.
It would be very sad if this world were one big accident that happened to happen, with no particular purpose or hope. For many years I believed something similar to that -- that it was created and then abandoned and left to die on its own -- but there is plenty of hope for those that can shuffle the puzzle pieces and try again until they finally fit.
Though the holocaust as described never happened in the numbers given, there were a lot of deaths from disease and malnourishment. And no... Hitler was a pawn, not a "good guy."
I'm wondering whether part of the reason for this post (the original, and the ones claiming fakery in Gaza) is to provoke people into saying stuff like yours and the previous comments (i.e. 'holocaust didn't happen' kind of statements). I'm also guessing neither yourself nor CK live in a country where saying that is illegal and could end you up in prison. I live in France and we're not allowed to say such things here. Even on social media (they recently updated the law on that count - previously you were allowed to say it in such context, private group chats sort of thing, but not anymore).
Maybe. But I will say that My in depth research on that topic showed many anomalous things - like the number of Jews in that area at that time were about 1/2 of 6 million (3ish million) and that many of those survived, one way or another.
Like a "gas chamber" with windows...
And several other things, including a large number of earlier publications talking about how 6 million Jews needed to do this, or would endure that.
So, yes, I place high probability that the claims of 6 million gassed by the Nazis is false.
And if any controlmind is interfering with free speech, I can't imagine why anyOne would consent to it. When We stop consenting in large enough numbers They will have no power.
If We keep looking at it as Us "being allowed" to do things, We will remain slaves.
A 'like' is about as much of a response as I'm going to allow myself here. I do know what you mean about not consenting to censorship etc. but there is also the strategic consideration of not giving your enemies ammunition. I guess ultimately it depends entirely on what kind of position one is in vis a vis the authorities - if they consider you a threat, or might be a threat in the future, then it's obviously best to take Sun Tzu's advice. Not consenting when one is faced with the very real threat of being stuck in a cage is far easier said than done, especially if one would achieve precisely zero effect by one's actions. I do, however, have a very strong faith that at some point in the distant future, what's left of humanity will know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about their entire history. It's all in the galactic archive, after all.
Perhaps we should all do well to read the Thirty-Six Stratagems (a Chinese essay used to illustrate a series of stratagems used in politics, war, and civil interaction), although there is an old Chinese saying that amounts to "none of the thirty-six stratagems is as effective as running away." Or, as Mr Miyaji said to the Karate Kid, "Remember, best block, no be there."
If you are living in a county where you are not allowed by law to say what you feel you need to say, not being there may be the best option, considering that the other options are keeping your mouth shut and feeling frustrated, keeping your mouth shut and modifying your thinking so that you are OK about that, or opening your mouth and facing the consequences.
But not being there requires one to be somewhere else, and there may not be anywhere else you want to go. These days, most countries have taboos on freedom of expression of some kind or another that people break at their own peril. And we are living in a time when authoritarian and even totalitarian tendencies are on the rise in many places. So not being there isn't necessarily a great solution.
Yeah - I know exactly what you mean. And of course not-being-there is easier said than done. Put in crude terms it requires a certain amount of money. Which yours truly does not possess.
Then again, 'he who possesses little is so much the less possessed'.
[p.s. love the Karate Kid reference - I love that movie. Must watch it again. That and 'Big Trouble in Little China'.]
It's the latest example of atrocity propaganda at work.
Another example is the Tiananmen Square massacre, which even the mainstream admits was fake:
"There were hundreds of troops in the square, many sitting cross-legged on the pavement in long curving ranks, some cleaning up debris. There were some tanks and armored personnel carriers. But we saw no bodies, injured people, ambulances or medical personnel — in short, nothing to even suggest, let alone prove, that a "massacre" had recently occurred in that place."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/there-was-no-tiananmen-square-massacre/
Thanks for that, Jane, it's very helpful to have a recognised label for what's going on. I've included mention of Atrocity propaganda and Tiananmen Square in patterns of response 4. and 5. above (Redefine Terms and Counterexample).
Just to note that the journalist says "But there's no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it," but this just strikes me as more propaganda - whenever the MSM "admits" to anything you can be sure it will not be a 100% truthful admission.
Yeah, they always give partial truths at best. I anticipated that they'll still sell the rest of it as real, so this doesn't surprise me. But even when they promote the rest of it as true, they quietly admit there's no exact reliable estimate for the dead due to conflicting and dubious casualty reports. To quote:
"In his official report on the upheavals, Chen Xitong, Beijing’s hard-line mayor, claimed that 200 civilians were killed and more than 3,000 were wounded. “Several dozen” soldiers died, he said. His figures for civilians are almost universally dismissed as outrageous underestimates. On the day of the crackdown, Chinese Red Cross sources told reporters that 2,600 people died and 10,000 were injured, although the organization later denied it. Amnesty International and some of the protest participants put the number of dead closer to 1,000.
Outside of official circles in Beijing, however, no one will know the true cost in human life that day until China gets a leader with enough courage to throw light on one of the country’s darkest episodes."
https://time.com/archive/6715033/how-many-really-died-tiananmen-square-fatalities/
One way to tell if a story doesn't add up is if there's no thorough, credible accounting of figures included, especially if the problem still persists years after the fact.
And, more importantly, if it has admitted hoaxes like the Tiananmen Square massacre, it makes things even simpler, because we have now have strong grounds to question everything else, too. Who's to say they aren't lying about the rest if they were caught lying about a key detail of a seminal event?
there was no "mASSacre" most so called attrocities etc are faked. but the beatings of anti covid protesters was mostly real. as this was ofc ourse a threat to tptb and shows that poLIEce are still as indoctrinated to serve to state even beating up old people at peaceful marches... (a bit OT)
The whole thing seems like some kinda vast Truman Show
https://www.instagram.com/gazayoudontsee/reel/DGs8mdngXgI/
Thanks, Peter. Very interesting and I've added it to my article.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/i/149082350/from-gazan-instagram-gaza-you-dont-see-which-presents-a-different-picture-from-that-shown-in-the-media
There were a lot of fakeries in Bosnia where I am from. All sides were producing fake photographs and videos. One such video was shown in the US Congress after which Congressmen voted to bomb the Serbian side. But that does not mean that people were not being killed. It only mean it is difficult to make an effective video of real killings.
What is even worse, there were instances when armies were killing their own people to stage good videos.
Yes it doesn’t mean that people weren’t being killed … as it doesnt in Gaza - one very good reason they don’t show us real killing and maiming is it is simply too horrific - probably the reason so many soldiers end up with PTSD.
Killing their own people? Nothing would surprise me. I loved the film by Danis Tanovic, No Man's Land, which I saw twice, both times the effect being very different - the first time I laughed and the second time I found it tragic.
This is my analysis of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre which the evidence indicates was staged with an additional analysis of a fake story by ABC Australia aired in 1993.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/srebrenica-massacre.html
yes another war started by false flags... it just puzzling that the sheeple do not meanwhile notice all this crap. as it has not stopped, they are always using the same tricks etc
Reality = everything they want us to believe is real is actually fake while at the same time everything the majority think is fake or a lie is actually true.
Yep, that about sums it up.
Great article Petra. Phil's work is quite the shocker. I've still not fully forgiven you for trash talking about flat earth but this article nearly makes up for it :-)
A "virtual" reality implies computer simulation or "pretending." Which can be convincingly altered to mislead. Lacking a spiritual, moral intention of programming, any AI system is suspect to present any truth. This technology challenges humans to refine their discernment of what's real. Everything observed in the material world is dying. That's a fact. If routinely focused on can become a huge distraction because it distorts what's real.
In comparison, a human soul has the ability to morally imagine and can retain the existence of the species flower after it "disappears" into the soil after its fruit blooms into seeds (preparation for rebirth). Build up and rely on divinely-based clairvoyance. There is an objective divine plan for human angelic evolution. The playbook does call for right now a material manifestation of our spiritual essence, so a phase of our development can be accomplished.
I thought of a good sort-of-analogy argument with regards to all this fakery issue. You'll like this one because it's logical and philosophical and it illustrates the faulty reasoning/cognitive fallacy quite well.
Imagine you and me are standing outside a warehouse, and I tell you that there are 5,000 pieces of fruit inside. To prove it, I go inside and return shortly after with 100 apples.
Now, the real sleight of whatever here is not, actually, in you doubting whether there are indeed 4,900 other pieces of fruit inside the warehouse, but it's in your thought that all of those remaining 4,900 are also apples. Stated differently, the error in thinking that 'all fruit is apples' - simply on the basis of identifying 2% of fruit as apples. Obviously 'apples' = 'fake photos' in this analogy.
This fallacy is of course a psychological one. And surprisingly it's not, in fact, about humans innate tendency to trust. Human brains function in a heuristic way. That's to say they work with 'efficiency', not necessarily 'thoroughness'. So it's easy to manipulate a human into believing a general, universal rule by showing them enough examples of a thing, so then they will assume that every subsequent incidence of that thing is going to match their previous experience. So in the above example, if I say I'll fetch you another piece of fruit, you are going to assume it's going to be an apple, because it would fit the pattern. But for all you know, the other 4,900 could be oranges. And face it, you are not going to stand there like a lemon whilst I fetch you - one at a time - another 4,899 pieces of fruit, eh?
Hopefully you can see the logical point I'm making here. 'A handful of fake photos' does not an event disprove. All it proves is that some fruit is apples. Or 'some photos are faked'. It only says something about the fake photos themselves, nothing else. Obviously it is an important question 'why are there fake photos', but for this to lead to the sweeping conclusion 'it was all faked' is a clear fallacy of thinking. The answer to 'why is there fake evidence' is something different, IMO. They just want you to think the answer is 'because the event was faked'. The real answer comes from thinking directly about the people who created the fake evidence. Don't concentrate on the apple, concentrate on the person telling you not to eat it. Because that person definitely has questions to answer.
1. I do not say no one is dying or being injured in Gaza, I say what we are shown is fakery.
2. If you can point to images that show genuinely (recently) injured or dead people please point me to those images. I've added a heading with some to links to fakery using silicone dolls - https://petraliverani.substack.com/i/149082350/phil-cranes-rubber-doll-videos
3. Most people don't think it's fake, they think it's real.
You're definitely not getting a like for this one, Petra. Although I am going to remain calm (or try to).
So let's try this one on you. Take just one further step back. Now ask the following question: 'why are people using sleight of mouth to claim that the Israel genocide of Gaza is fake?'
Does it not occur to you in the slightest that this might just incy wincy be trying to detract or distract you from the blatantly obvious 'Israel is a monstrous, murderous, anti-human, racist, pure evil demonic entity'? Is it trying to get you to believe that 'oh, Israel (and thus Zionism) isn't really as bad as people think?'
Does it not occur to you that this is propaganda!!!
I'll give you a basic psycho-social/cultural explanation for why the idea that the whole thing is somehow manufactured and faked or 'for another reason' ('resettlement' - i.e. 'final solution') is a monstrous calumny. You'd need to read Caitlin's latest post first, though: https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/i-envy-the-palestinians?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=159983301&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=2s9hod&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Put simply, part of human identity is bound up with their cultural or social group identity. For the Palestinians, this is their thousands of years old cultural identity which is inseparable from the land on which they and their ancestors live. After that much time, a human being is genuinely connected to that land, it's like a part of their own body. I am guessing you might not feel that because you're a first or second generation immigrant to Australia. No offence meant there, by the way. You may 'understand' it conceptually but you don't feel it. Palestinians, however, do feel it. Thus, the very idea that any of them would willingly agree to be 'resettled' is not only absurd, it's abusive in the extreme.
Do you think the Australian aborigines would willingly agree to resettlement? Obviously not.
One of the things you should probably bear in mind about Duke is that he presents as a 'Christian'. You should know perfectly well by now that the monotheistic ideology is evil and employs the very same NLP, 'sleight of mouth', gaslighting, coercive control, abuse, indoctrination, psychological manipulation, bullshit historical narratives, and propaganda which he purports to criticise! FFS!!! Knock knock Petra. Please wake up.
Although here is another question for you along the same lines. I'm not going to take any stance on it either way, but I was just wondering if you believe in the holocaust (the ww2 one I mean)? If so why, and more importantly if you do have you applied the same 'doubt' or 'thoughts about fakery' to that particular narrative? Or is this a no-go area? Obviously in some countries (like mine) it's not even legal to do that sort of analysis, and I don't know what the law says in Australia, but I am interested to know whether you think there are 'limits' to questions about possible fakery (and if so, what is the explanation for those limits). I know, for example, that the Miles Mathis Committee seems to think that most of ww2 itself was fake, which strikes me as beyond absurdity - thus one has to question whether they really do think it was fake or whether they are just fucking with people again. But these are all important questions regarding 'levels of fakery' - if we believe that 'some events are fake' where do we draw the lines? Why are we 'selective' about it? That's my point. If I bring up a subject like the holocaust then this is because I am pointing out the importance of what you might call 'emotional attachment (to a narrative)'. Like, if we don't care about Palestinians then it's much easier to think about it possibly being faked. And I also admit that because I do care about them, I am at least slightly biased against any suggestion that it might be faked. Hopefully you get my point. Empathy goes a long way, in the end.
1. Peter Duke had nothing to do with the Palestinian Sleight of Mouth, it was just from him that I learnt of the technique. The Palestinian Sleight of Mouth comes directly from me.
2. I think it's monstrous that Gazans are being expelled from their homeland ... my point is that it should be recognised that they are being expelled rather than killed - at least according to the fake images. Can't you see how showing us these very emotive images is a kind of distraction from the straightforward expulsion that really is happening? Yes, I understand "homeland" even though I'm half-Scottish/half-Italian and was born in Australia so have a very poor sense of it myself.
3. I think Jews were massively vilified and killed in significant numbers in WWII, however, I have doubts about a Holocaust per se ... and lots of other people were killed too. My father could have easily been killed when his Italian navy boat was torpedoed by the British - something I didn't know until after his death.
4. I do not read Caitlin Johnstone.
5. Check out this IG from gazayoudontsee that Peter Ross put in a comment - https://www.instagram.com/gazayoudontsee/
I've left my response this long so I've had enough time to calm myself down from the obvious trigger. I did, however, touch upon it in my original comment, which is quite simply you are denying that the Israeli monster is committing genocide. It's like a weird kind of pro-Zionist propaganda, making excuses for evil. And that's unforgiveable - which is a very tame word amongst the many others I could use. Fortunately, because of the utter absurdity of your assertion that there is no genocide being deliberately committed against the Palestinians, you are not going to be persuading many people at all. In fact, I would imagine that crossing this sort of line will alienate a lot of people.
Do you also deny, for example, the 10,000 Palestinian hostages being held in Israeli torture (concentration) camps? Do you deny what's been done to them?
How about basic psychology contradicting what you say. Normally you would expect a fight or flight response - so for your fakery argument to hold you'd have to show that someone must've cast a spell on the Palestinians so they don't resist this ethnic cleansing - remember it's been going on for 75 years already. You would also have to prove that they are 'in on it'. They would have to be, if your assertion is correct.
And yet you do believe that 'Nazis were evil and killed lots of people'. Why don't you deny that? Surely if you did that would at least make you logically consistent? Why do you believe one, but not the other? It's dissonant.
See that's what confuses me about you sometimes. The sheer lack of consistency. I am now wondering what your belief is about when was the last real event in history. Was it 1945? (The moon landing being the exception that proves the rule, so to speak).
How about the genocide in Iraq. Did that happen? Both times? Libya? Syria?
How about Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos? Korea? The list goes on. How about the 30 million excess deaths caused by neoliberal shock treatment in Russia during the Yeltsin years? Real, or fakery?
Vaccine deaths? And so on.
The other glaring psychological anomaly I notice is that despite your alleged scepticism you NEVER question the source of these fake images. Like, you take them all at face value. You blindly believe in the entire intention of the purveyors of the fakery without ever questioning THEM!
Their intention clearly being to convince you that 'Event X is fake because fake images'. But you don't question that. You don't question them, you don't ask 'who are they'. And so it never occurs to you that these intelligence services types might have an agenda (unless of course you are possibly the weirdest Aussie cognitive infiltrator in the history of weird Aussie cognitive infiltrators. I mean, the cognitive dissonance is enough to make one turn to drink.).
The MM Committee is a bit like this sometimes too - like on the one paw MM will readily say 'they fuck with the genealogy records' and then in the next breath he's using the same records to prove something. It's absurd. This is a marker of the arrogance of that committee and the opinion they have about not just normal people, but conspiracy theory people. 'They must be dumb as fuck if they believe this shit!' says Miles number 5. 'Yeah,' says number 3, 'they are!'. So they start having competitions about who can come up with the dumbest thing and have people believe it.
Anyway - this response was much calmer than some of the ones I had going round my head earlier. I am not ashamed to admit that you touched a deep nerve with your genocide denial. I think it's shameful, and I do think you should think about the consequences - because you will lose supporters if you cross certain lines. Arguing that 'no one died on 9-11' is one thing, but trying to defend a genocidal monster like Israel is, what shall we say, beyond the pale. Yeah, that's a good term. Beyond the pale.
[p.s. - with regards to your comment about your father in the Italian navy in ww2 - here is something to get your conspiratorial teeth into - my grandfather commanded a ship for the arctic convoys, and he wasn't even 30 years old at the time. He was a freemason, which might explain it. Never talked to me about it, though. The arctic convoys, I mean...]
Waffle waffle Evelyn. I am not DENYING anything, I'm simply exposing fakery. I asked you to provide images that seem authentic if you had any and you haven't done that … I'm certainly not asserting they don't exist but it’s helpful if they could be provided. Have you got any?
I guess all of these films must be total fakes too. And everyone in them liars.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/whats-oscar-worth-barbara-nimri-aziz/5882582
Oh well. Can’t trust reality anymore. I suggest surrender, in that case.
The point of my post was simply to ask people to take a step back and recognise how those in power use images to press our buttons. Obviously, you haven't done that, Evelyn, you've responded emotionally and righteously ... exactly how those in power want people to respond ... if they're not responding emotionally and righteously to the fake Hamas hostage crisis, that is. DIVIDE AND CONQUER. Seriously, are you so blind, really?
As soon as I heard of the Oct 7 event I thought, "That'll be staged." Did you? However, I didn't think further than that ... but then OF COURSE something had to follow, didn't it? Something had to follow the FAKE HAMAS HOSTAGE CRISIS ... and that would be RETALIATION BY THE ISRAELIS. OF COURSE. This doesn't mean bad things aren't going on ... it's just not the bad things they're spraying all over the media ... but they tell us the truth underneath the propaganda. They always tell us, it's their rule.
They TELL us they're faking it as illustrated by the AP article in my post. I repeat the title of the AP article that you have obviously glossed over:
Fake babies, real horror: Deepfakes from the Gaza war increase fears about AI’s power to mislead ... which leads us to an obviously AI image
And then we have Trump HIMSELF promulgating the AI video of Gaza beachfront being taken over. You know what that's called, don't you, it's called PREDICTIVE PROGRAMMING. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OlfbrOUBl7M
WTFU, Evelyn, for goodness sake.
Ok - I'll tell you what my point really is here. Although you don't say so explicitly, you are creating the impression (intentionally or not) - or means for the reader to insinuate - that these images of fakery etc. are being created by the Palestinians, to make it look like the Israelis are committing genocide and other atrocities. This makes the Palestinians look like the bad guys. It reinforces the entire Israeli (and Western media for that matter) propaganda about Palestinians and Khamas being nasty and evil and liars and so on - which any fool knows is simply typical projection.
This is equally what I mean about questioning the source (and intentions) of the fakery. The most likely source is, in fact, the Israelis and the western propaganda machine, and the obvious intention is to make people doubt that the Israelis, and their supporters, are committing atrocities. It is about making people think 'they're not really as evil as we thought'. It's giving them an excuse, or a defence, or a get out card. When the truth is extremely simple - it's genocide and atrocities.
The Palestinians do not need to create fakery, because it's all happening and they can just disseminate real evidence.
Sometimes I do wonder what it must be like to believe you live in a world in which nothing real ever happens, and it's all just some virtual simulation. If that were true then we'd know about it, especially in such a massive situation like the destruction of Gaza. There would be thousands upon thousands of witness statements saying 'people aren't really being murdered', and 'these images are fake'. The absence of such counter-evidence proves the point, and is extremely telling. This is basic psychological and intelligence analysis.
With regards to October 7, this is more likely to be a LIHOP than a fake event. It's not really possible in practice for 'Hamas' to be fully under the control of Israel and to be complicit in the final solution to the Palestinian problem. This is not, really, the same, as, for example, the British intel services using Unionist proxies to carry out bombings and blaming it on the IRA. Because that's a far smaller context.
Anyway - whilst I accept your point that some images of fakery are being disseminated (partly for the reasons you suggest), I do not accept that 1/ it's the Palestinians doing it, or 2/ that means one has to take a massive leap and conclude 'the whole thing is fake and there's no genocide'. Because that's absurd. Both - in other words - can be true. Fakery, and real atrocities. The fakery is in part there to make you doubt that atrocities are taking place. Which they are, because psychologically, we are dealing with monstrous, murderous evil here - and to say the whole thing is fake is to provide cover for that evil. If you truly understood evil, if you actually had some personal experience of it, then you would readily understand what I'm saying.
So perhaps what I'm saying is that you need to be more circumspect and you need to make that very distinction - the existence of fakery doesn't give them a get out clause and it doesn't mean they are not also committing atrocities and 'I don't mean to insinuate that'. Otherwise - as I have - people are going to get seriously upset with you and you will not succeed in sufficiently getting your point across.
Besides, I don't need for there to be a genocide to be as angry as I am about what is happening to Palestinians. I was no less angry before October 7. So none of what has happened since has emotionally manipulated me in any way. That's the awful thing perhaps, the whole thing doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I have been used to the existence of evil, and what evil does, for a very long time already.
Images are not the only fruit.
I found Duke's post rather disturbing, not because the subject was new to me but because it wasn't, and I've had a taste of where it goes. It seemed interesting at first, 40 years ago, but it left me with a bad taste.
People can dream up all kinds of things to do, and they can do what they can get away with. Some of those things might be beneficial, but they all have consequences. Messing with somebody else's mind has consequences which can be quite unpleasant for all parties involved. The organization that I learned these things from subsequently self-destructed, some years after I left.
I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're saying, CM. What kinds of things are you referring to with "dream up all kinds of things to do" and what do you mean by "might be beneficial, but they all have consequences." When you say "messing with somebody else's mind" what are you referring to?
It's a bit difficult to explain, and I hesitated to even write about it. To be aware of what Peter Duke wrote about is valuable when employed defensively. I doubt that many are aware of themselves to the point of being able to monitor and examine their own thoughts as he describes.
As the article progresses, it becomes a dual-use introduction to either defending oneself or learning how to influence others who have not developed such defenses. As someone who has been on both sides of that, it began to trigger alarms for me.
I don't know how much a person might be able to learn from simply reading material like this. I guess it would depend on the person. What I learned was not exactly the same thing and it was not taught using the same terminology, but it functioned the same way, and it was taught interactively in classes, by trained instructors. They taught about the mind and how it operates, and how to make use of that understanding to influence others.
I found what I learned to be very useful for self-defense, and I still use it that way to a limited degree, but the applications didn't stop with defense. I began to use them in other ways to influence people, as was the intention of the training, and it became a problem.
I won't say more about that other than that this all occurred some four decades ago and I had the benefit, from a distance, a few years later after I had left, of watching that organization self-destruct, and I didn't wish the same for myself. Although I came close. And while that organization is gone, it had its roots in others that are still around, and it produced a number of "consultants" that are still going too.
I meant "dreaming up things" to describe actions of people who learn these techniques and then proceed to find ways to use them to influence others -- messing with the others' minds. It can become a kind of calling, for the influencer, but who or what is doing the calling?
Is that a little clearer?
Whatever the technique, it can always be weaponised because people's emotions and biases get in the way of clear thinking. It's so ironic. There are two people who put out loads of material on critical thinking, Dr Bob Bennett, who's published books and has the website www.logicallyfallacious.com, a kind of forum-site where people discuss whether specified claims contain logical fallacies and Jesse Richardson who has sites on both logical fallacies and cognitive biases - see https://www.schoolofthought.org/projects - and is also part of a team who produced the test for "conspiracy theorists" to help guide them to see their delusional thinking, www.conspiracytest.org.
Bob Bennett banned me from his site for challenging the covid narrative despite the fact that I always put forward material in a perfectly rational and civil manner. You cannot get anything more AGAINST objective, critical thinking than simply banning someone with no discussion.
Jesse Richardson and the rest of his team of critical thinking experts weaponised silence by simply not responding to my perfectly rational and civil critique of their test. Jesse sings the praises of "intellectual humility" but shows precisely ZERO in his complete lack of response to a perfectly valid critique.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/intellectual-humility-test-for-the
The mental gymnastics people do to avoid confrontation of challenges to their thinking totally does my head in.
Ah, paradox. When what we think we see doesn't reflect what we think we know.
I learned something interesting beginning when I was 18, in early 1969. I had just finished my first semester of college, and there were some classes that really didn't go well, and I was not expecting that. Obviously something was wrong, but what? So I turned to the college's counselling center and began working with a psychologist. He ran a few tests on me, and then more tests, and then even some X-rays, concluding finally that something was seriously wrong.
That process led to me learning that my parents had withheld vital information from me about my birth and what went wrong, as they waited year after year to see if maybe my peculiar problems would go away on their own, while failing to notice or acknowledge symptoms of several kinds of major damage. I'd think they might have noticed when my puberty half-failed, but no.
But that's not the story I want to tell, although it might offer a clue or two as to how some people develop critical thinking skills -- as a matter of survival! And having brain damage from birth can help sometimes too.
Among the early tests that the psychologist ran were several puzzles. There was one in particular that stands out still, that I think consisted just of some shaped puzzle pieces that could be slid around on the desk and assembled into a particular larger shape. It was designed so that there was an "obvious" solution that, unfortunately, didn't quite work. I went with that solution, saw that it didn't work, and without giving it much thought, took it apart, tried fresh another time or two, and solved the puzzle. If only my college courses had been that easy.
But the psychologist told me that it was common for people to go for an obvious solution that didn't work, fixate upon it, and keep trying to make it work!
I don't know if that was true, or if he was just saying that as part of the process, but it taught me about something to look for in people, and I have noticed it again and again in many people ever since. It could do your head in. Or you could accept that many people think that way, and then look to see what else that implies.
When I reach this point I diverge in my thinking and begin to attempt to apply biblical principals to the problem, looking for anything that might match. And I've found plenty, but not without difficulty. I grew up in a conservative Christian world within the U.S. military. There I learned not to go questioning the teachings, and I learned even more when my mother kind of flipped out and became involved with a Christian cult that specialized in criticizing the practices of other Christian traditions.
In my early 20s I reach a point where I had had enough of all that nonsense and I joined the "unchurched". This was the early 70s, and it turned out that a lot of other people were heading that way too. I found my way back, with help, but only after a long winding journey stretching over decades and involving a variety of practices that good Christians aren't supposed to ever go near. Out there, I learned a bunch.
Food for thought: A while back I started to write an article I called "What is a Christian?", examining the meaning of the word itself. It's still in draft form, unfinished, but you can peek at it if you wish, here: https://www.far2go.net/p/fcd10cd7-305a-4418-828b-6e330011e482
I'm a part of this thing that calls itself Christianity, and I hold orthodox beliefs, but there is a lot of other add-on tradition, not to mention outright syncretism, to which I do not subscribe. So when I say "biblical", I don't necessarily mean the same thing that someone else might take it to mean.
When I (with the help of others, such as in the above draft) dig down to discover what the Bible texts actually say, I begin to see many match-ups with the things I see happening in this mess of a world we live in. And I see the warnings that say not to do what we are doing, and the predictions of consequences if we do it anyway, and I see those predictions coming about as predicted.
What I've just written isn't likely to cause the world to suddenly make sense, not for most readers, but I have seen that the world at least _can_ make sense when approached differently. It's enough to keep me going. And as I go, I encounter others here on Substack and elsewhere that are seeing things quite similarly to what I see, and that is downright reassuring.
It would be very sad if this world were one big accident that happened to happen, with no particular purpose or hope. For many years I believed something similar to that -- that it was created and then abandoned and left to die on its own -- but there is plenty of hope for those that can shuffle the puzzle pieces and try again until they finally fit.
Hitler was a good guy and the holocaust never happened.
Though the holocaust as described never happened in the numbers given, there were a lot of deaths from disease and malnourishment. And no... Hitler was a pawn, not a "good guy."
I'm wondering whether part of the reason for this post (the original, and the ones claiming fakery in Gaza) is to provoke people into saying stuff like yours and the previous comments (i.e. 'holocaust didn't happen' kind of statements). I'm also guessing neither yourself nor CK live in a country where saying that is illegal and could end you up in prison. I live in France and we're not allowed to say such things here. Even on social media (they recently updated the law on that count - previously you were allowed to say it in such context, private group chats sort of thing, but not anymore).
Maybe. But I will say that My in depth research on that topic showed many anomalous things - like the number of Jews in that area at that time were about 1/2 of 6 million (3ish million) and that many of those survived, one way or another.
Like a "gas chamber" with windows...
And several other things, including a large number of earlier publications talking about how 6 million Jews needed to do this, or would endure that.
So, yes, I place high probability that the claims of 6 million gassed by the Nazis is false.
And if any controlmind is interfering with free speech, I can't imagine why anyOne would consent to it. When We stop consenting in large enough numbers They will have no power.
If We keep looking at it as Us "being allowed" to do things, We will remain slaves.
The GentleOne’s Solution (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/the-gentleones-solution
Just Stop Consenting! (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/just-stop-consenting
AND
Join Me as a Sovereign Here on Ethical Ground (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/join-me-as-a-sovereign-here-on-ethical
A 'like' is about as much of a response as I'm going to allow myself here. I do know what you mean about not consenting to censorship etc. but there is also the strategic consideration of not giving your enemies ammunition. I guess ultimately it depends entirely on what kind of position one is in vis a vis the authorities - if they consider you a threat, or might be a threat in the future, then it's obviously best to take Sun Tzu's advice. Not consenting when one is faced with the very real threat of being stuck in a cage is far easier said than done, especially if one would achieve precisely zero effect by one's actions. I do, however, have a very strong faith that at some point in the distant future, what's left of humanity will know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about their entire history. It's all in the galactic archive, after all.
Perhaps we should all do well to read the Thirty-Six Stratagems (a Chinese essay used to illustrate a series of stratagems used in politics, war, and civil interaction), although there is an old Chinese saying that amounts to "none of the thirty-six stratagems is as effective as running away." Or, as Mr Miyaji said to the Karate Kid, "Remember, best block, no be there."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Six_Stratagems
If you are living in a county where you are not allowed by law to say what you feel you need to say, not being there may be the best option, considering that the other options are keeping your mouth shut and feeling frustrated, keeping your mouth shut and modifying your thinking so that you are OK about that, or opening your mouth and facing the consequences.
But not being there requires one to be somewhere else, and there may not be anywhere else you want to go. These days, most countries have taboos on freedom of expression of some kind or another that people break at their own peril. And we are living in a time when authoritarian and even totalitarian tendencies are on the rise in many places. So not being there isn't necessarily a great solution.
Yeah - I know exactly what you mean. And of course not-being-there is easier said than done. Put in crude terms it requires a certain amount of money. Which yours truly does not possess.
Then again, 'he who possesses little is so much the less possessed'.
[p.s. love the Karate Kid reference - I love that movie. Must watch it again. That and 'Big Trouble in Little China'.]