This is also my work https://write.as/epithet As yet uncensored
On the Entropy of fusion
Worth future reference Why the hell did they take so many states of undress in her interrogation. Bizarre!
Oxford. Richard Dolan On the concept of conspiracy theory. "The United States comprises large organizations – corporations, bureaucracies, ‘interest groups,’ and the like – which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behaviour. ‘Conspiracy,’ in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.
I blame Milles Mathis for the nudge that sent me over the deep end. A surprisingly consequential cascade proceeded from a subtle insight. Consequently, I realize the explanatory inevitability of very large scale intelligence operations which guide and manipulate us. to defer to their otherwise unacceptable ambition.
The bull headed skepticism of the conspiracy theory opens your mind to possibilities you’d otherwise write off. The rejection of the obvious, in a curious way, feeds off the readiness to at least contemplate the unlikely
In North America, conspiracy theorists, particularly white ones, have been cited as a primary nexus of domestic violent extremism. Attacking white conspiracy theorists is not just a convenient way to burnish anti terrorism credentials without political costs as among Muslims,it pleases the great SJW Racially can’t afford this liability indefinitely.
However, there is something to be said for claiming conspiracy theory is dangerous. It represents a willingness to discard gate-keepers. Things “everyone agrees on” are often the most important assumptions to discard. It seems more risky to get rid of premises everyone else agrees on. To that I’d post the question: Is the official narrative particularly reliable because it is taken for granted?
Mathis helped me explicitly look at the intuition that it’s more parsimonious to avoiid making additional assumptions. I realized that it is not necessary to assume that the official narrative is the center of epistemic gravity, as it were. To the contrary, in many cases we can identify both why and how lies are introduced as a premise. Without needing to prove it is a lie [in our politics, it’s more the rule than the exception that lies are a central dogma. ], the plausibility of a hypothesis is unaffected.
New readers grimly have introduced the idea that white supremacy is the most dangerous violent extremist. From the outset, the assumption that ethnic self-preservation is extremist. Here we see the lie: It is exclusively whites who do not have a right to self-preservation. This has been assiduously cultivated by jews.
This belief is affirmed by federal law enforcement in both America and Canada. If I recall correctly, conspiracy theory was mentioned in both cases. This is no co-incidence. Some might argue it is not most parsimonious to suppose actual coordination. Media organizations have long been a primary target of intelligence operations. It would beggar belief if this is not the case here - particularly because the government is financing them and are ideological dopplegangers.
The coordination of covid narratives is exactly the same story. Although commonalities in education are a possible explanation, they are also the vector by which intelligence agents are introduced.
Establishing enforcing shared narratives doesn’t strictly require a conspiracy
Evidently, both America and Canada’s law enforcement are having trouble drumming up examples of white ideologues being motivated to political violence. As I insinuated, this is a shame, but the fact remains that America’s federal law enforcement was obligated to creating an example to support their claim. Therefore, Michigan FBI agents and lawyers launched a fairly large entrapment operation involving the kidnap of Michigan governor whitmer along with the alien in her head. Over the course of several weeks, a crew of plainclothes FBI agents sought out young men and tried to persuade them to help kidnap the governor and the gestating alien. Eventually they and extracted enough to arrested the men. The very small number of patsies was obviously illegal entrapment, but the FBI legal team prepared a favorable venue,had unlimited financial resources and political backing. These guys don’t seem to have been pretty perspicacious, but it was grossly unjust. Instead of terrifying society playing pool and swapping theories, they were locked in for hard time. Society was safe again.
This was widely and repetitiously reported, often in discussion with the phony imbroglio - also involving incitement by government agents. Even with all those FBI agents and their legal team and supports, they wouldn’t be able to cope with the rapes, assaults, robberies and murders in Detroit that weekend. Without critical analysis or dissent, the apparent magnitude of events are vastly exaggerated.
The public has neural connections primed to react in the desired manner: If you notice conspiracies and you are violent and dangerous. The viewers were expected to overlook that these were actually sinister conspiracies, demonstrable and admitted. Using a conspiracy to discredit conspiracies was audacious, but so long as news stations remained on script, it is extremely effective.
Here is another reason it is so important to pay attention to conspiratorial angles: Common messaging is a massive red flag. It’s also what makes it effective. Those who reject conspiracies broadly will be duped and unaware of how obvious it is..
The Medically induced plagues demonstrates that our public has virtually no resistance to this process, even now.
Intelligence has been perfecting these practices for years. Considering unacceptable viewpoints requires the capacity to deal with more uncertainty, but I see no alternative to taking on that cognitive load.. Children are educated in a manner that makes consensus the center of our assumptions. When events are frightening, widely accepted nonsense creates perfect conditions for mass formation. Quite literally, in the absence of conspiracy theories, we will go insane.
Orientalism: A matter of national security [An entry from July 2021]
With the terms of art and doctrinal background, it is not hard to find detailed information about these organizations. Our leaders cannot or will not admit it. The only mention I've seen was in committee on Parliament, and by an individual who had already been retired from CSIS. He stated a key fact: specificity on the language of our enemy is a pre-requisite to forming effective countermeasures.
Bill Warner is probably the best resource on ideologically specific information. Stephen Coughlin approaches the topic from defense intelligence construction, also stressing that the element of knowing the doctrines and history are a matter of public moment. But for its application in Canada, much is unchanged in Jihad. Same old tiger, same old stripes.
S.K. Malik, "Reliance of the Traveller", Raymond Ibraham, Richard Spencer, all provide "milestones" the "bridges" where interfaith influence operations can be seen in action. It's not hard to find the organizational connections between "conservative" Muslims and active terrorist organizations. Once you know the terms of art and the objectives, it's trivial. Mohammed was nothing if not unambiguous on the eschatology of Islam.
Recognizing useful idiots on the subject of Islam: Their words will not trace both the esoteric and the facile meanings of the words simultaneously. Islam means the peace of total subjugation. Any other construction is A)incoherent or B)instrumental. The practical distinction between liar and fool narrows as the officeholder becomes more powerful.
Ignorance of Islam is resolute in Canada. The Polish mental band MGLA calls it the "style of total denial." I'm somewhat apprehensive at the public absence of orientalists, of Europeans who can understand these foreigners on their own terms. As I said, specific intelligence is impossible to come by without identifying the opponent.
Gender Affirmation gender affirmation is abuse perpetrated under the guise of kindness. The phrase is Orwellian gaslighting. It is, in fact, a rejection of gender identity. By using using hormonal and physical mutilation a mental problem becomes the locus of identity. This formerly rare disorder usually worked itself out with puberty. The use of puberty blockers prevents exactly the means by which a person can overcome this illness.
The rationale given, the ostensible frame, is to affirm people for who they are. It cloaks vile physical abuse in kindness. People are loathe to reject other people's sense of identity, so it has not been vigorously challenged.
Here are some analogies: If a person has a sprained ankle, we don't expect them to run races. To make them feel better, we paralyze them by breaking their spine. What, do you hate disabled people, bigot?
If a person has a paranoid delusion about people being out to get them, they are treated like outcasts. We see schizophrenics on the streets and the outcome seems unfair. Thus, we must accept their premise: we're all out to get them. We should tell them we want to implant nighmarish thoughts with a conspiracy of psychic demonism.
A child is sexually abused by an adult, thus develops unhealthy sexual habits, addictions and gets drawn into prostitution. The government must subsidize their pimps as a matter of compassion.
You see how insane it is.
I encountered a casual acquaintance at a coffee shop. I had only encountered him a few times a year ago. Neither of us were friends.
Around the time I knew him, another man- I'll call x - invited me to share his cell with him. A huge guy. The truth is, I declined because I thought we was such a fucking idiot, his ego was so implausibly big it wasn't even real, just a projection, a notational conceit. Thiiiiiis big, as it were. Lacking a reference space to reality, it would be projected on external situations, relating everything to himself. And he was an insecure, pathetic man who could not hide his weakness in brawn
Waiting in line for coffee, my former acquaintance complimented my instincts: "It turns out you were right about x. He was a cell rapist."
Question: What does their operating program have to do reason? A historical perspective may be the only meaningful one. However the decision was made, it is not what guides them anymore.
To argue about them may leave very little to squabble over. To argue with such a person is worthless. Suppose the NDP member of parliament made a communist out of a hardened old tory with a well reasoned speech with wide-reaching implications. Even if that jaundiced politician really came to believe, It's perfectly possible they can reliably carry out their tasks having entirely turned on their friends and renounced their cause.
A greater power will not restore them to sanity.