In my immediate family, I have: one husband, two parents, one grandparent, six aunts and uncles (plus their partners), 15 cousins, and then many more cousins of various stripes and tiers (2nd, 3rd, removed, etc., and no, like everyone else on the planet, I don't know the difference).
Great article to read on a dismal evening Miri. Thank you. Also a very sensible framing of the Aisling, Iain, James and Abi debates and not forgetting your ball earth falling flat inimitable throwaway comic lines.
Thank you, Trevor! I'm very fond of all of the people you mention, because they are all such unique, unrepeatable, and bold characters. So of course I know that from time to time they'll disagree - sometimes explosively! It doesn't make me like them any less or respect them any less. As that great philosophical genius, Groove Armada, said: "if everybody looked the same, we'd get tired of looking at each other".
I’m with you on all this, Miri. I automatically disbelieve the MSM’s version of events and certainly ask, what are they trying to get us to believe now and why? It’s quite a difficult world to live in where things are upside down and back to front, a true Alice in Wonderland world. My trouble is that I’ve always tended to trust people and am probably rather naive - I know that my grandchildren take great delight in tricking me as I tend to fall for their tricks every time (though I am getting better at sussing them out now!). I perhaps too quickly accept people at face value when I should question first…. This Montgomery Toms who Charles Malet of UKC interviewed seems a great guy to me but then a friend wondered where he’d sprung from, who was behind him, etc? Is it never possible for someone genuine to just pop up? It’s a very disillusioning and dark world!
Thanks Priscilla, I don't think it's naive to trust everyday people (except maybe one's mischievous grandchildren!), because most people are genuine and honest other than in exceptional circumstances. It's exclusively people given prominent roles in the MSM that I automatically distrust.... But there's no harm in asking questions about anyone. As we know, the truth doesn't fear investigation!
There’s also the possibility of people being totally invented. And there is now the technology to generate any number of fake faces. So, to take this to a Philip K Dick type extreme, a totally controlled media could theoreticallly invent any number of people and alternately raise the suspicion that people who DO exist may be imaginary!
Admittedly the latter possibility may be inadvisable but all the media has to do when someone accuses them of inventing people is to brand the accuser a nutty conspiracist for long enough for the story to blow over.
“ …it's far more likely that the media is lying than they are telling the truth, for the simple and obvious reason that they lie all the time.”
Thank you for this quote. This is exactly how I’ve come to think over the past few years (it actually started in 2016 with the Brexit fiasco that, I suppose, was the beginning of my awakening). I don’t pretend to know the truth but I’m absolutely sure of who is not telling it.
A timely assurance that being sceptical of official narratives is a safe and sensible premise to live by. Ironically, Richard D Hall’s invariable video sign-off is to state: Don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.
"I'm taking my ball earth and going home! (That's a joke, by the way, sorry if it fell a bit flat.)". An unintended joke? I think not. Well done for the humour! (i.e pun on flat earth)
Dr Naomi Wolf may have some views I don't share but she is a woman of definite integrity. It has cost her dear and doubtless also Miri too.
Too many stop at how awful things are without being able to see that (as Blum says) they are worse than you know.
On a very trivial note, second, third and fourth cousins as opposed to once-removed, twice-removed, etc is not that complicated. Without "removed" it's cousins at the same level so to speak so the daughter of my mother's first cousin is my second cousin whereas the daughter of my second cousin is my second-cousin once-removed and I am her second-cousin once removed. My mother's cousin is my first-cousin once removed and I am her first-cousin once removed. "Removed" is like aunt/uncle/nephew/niece in the cousin world except whether it's the aunt-niece relationship or niece-aunt relationship it's still called the same.
My mother who was born in the 1920's , lacked emotioanal intelligence , and would normally kill any conversation with a one liner, ( said through twisted lips, having drunk several gin and tonics , at lunch time )
Here here. On January First I'm gonna toss a coin. Heads I get rid of my TV & all the junk it spews, tails I keep it. I'm too weak to make the call myself, the coin will decide!
--- In addition to the excellent reasons you give for people not being killed, there's also the fact that they love to dupe us, they love to make us believe things that aren't true. It's easier to control people when they believe lies so if there's a choice between doing for real or fakin' it they will fake it. If they don't want to kill people but only want us believe in their deaths then they won't kill them ... if they wanna kill them though as they're doing now well, they will.
The basic rule of psyops is: they do what they want for real and fake the rest ... which only makes the most perfect sense of course. They simply wouldn't conceive of a psyop where they really wanted to kill people in a scenario where it would be problematic such as the Manchester bombing. They know they can kill people with the jab on the basis of 200 years plus of medical and scientific fraudulence so their psyop is framed around that.
--- I agree we should be allowed to believe what inclines us to believe whatever we believe, however, I make the claim that I think is irrefutable fact: the perps NEVER put forward any evidence that convincingly supports or favours their story over the psyop hypothesis. The irony is that they are much more scrupulous in the execution of their psyops than we are in analysing them. You will not find a single piece of evidence for Manchester that favours real over fake - not one. I've posted quite a few comments on Aisling's posts on the subject and she does not reply - I can never get over the way people do that even though they do it all the time. She is simply anchored in the belief that people really died and is immune to any argument that challenges that belief.
--- In about 2018, I put forward a $5,000 Occam's Razor challenge for three psyops: Sandy Hook, Manchester and 9/11 (three separate aspects - planes, WTC-7 and dead/injured). I made 10 points favouring the psyop hypothesis and invited those who believe in real death and injury to put forward 10 points favouring the other way. No one could respond to the challenge ... and that is because the perps are scrupulous. They don't pull punches, they always stick to their Revelation of the Method technique and they ALWAYS let us know underneath the propaganda that they are fakin' it. So I'm afraid I absolutely think it is a matter of fact that no evidence favours real death over fake ... which isn't to say people don't die one way or another ... but in terms of the EVIDENCE, it is absolute fact that there is none that favours real ... and I defy anyone to provide any.
I realise now that I will have to change my page on WTC-7 ... because only in the last couple of weeks have I realised that the footage of all the building destructions is fake ... even though Simon Shack et al on the cluesforum.info site worked it out yonks ago around 2009.
Thank you, Petra, and I agree: no evidence that Manchester was real. But as we learned so well through "Covid", people are often quite impervious to evidence and far more responsive to appeals to emotion. There was of course no evidence Covid existed, let alone that people needed aggressive pharmaceutical treatment for it, but people lined up in their hordes for it anyway because of emotive propaganda about "not killing granny" and so on.
As the old saying goes, "you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into". Nobody who believes in these hoaxes was swayed by reason, evidence, etc., but purely by media appeals to emotion. So that is why we fail to convince them when presenting evidence. Presenting evidence simply provokes an emotional response ("vile ghouls" etc) rather than a rational one. So I agree, Aisling hasn't provided any evidence the Manchester bomb was real. But I still stand by her right to believe it was, even though she's wrong. Voltaire and all that...
And yes, you're right in terms of another key reason why "they" fake things - Voltaire again - "those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities".
Oh yes, great reason from Voltaire. I believe this is the best quote to explain psyops and their Revelation of the Method technique and it ties in with Voltaire. It is said about political correctness and communist propaganda but it applies to how we have always been propagandised across the world by those in power - my emphasis.
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
Yes, exactly. That is why they have used Manchester as they have. They've made it obvious it was a hoax (they could have made it much more convincingly real had they wanted), but then used RDH to pass a law ("Eve's Law" which apparently will "protect survivors of tragedies from conspiracy theories") that says we're not allowed to point out the obvious without risking legal trouble. Literally Emperor's New Clothes stuff (just as Covid was the Emperor's New Virus!).
I know. People think the Emperor's New Clothes is a fairy story.
Although I knew the basic narrative I read it when I realised that's what psyops are and I was interested to find the following:
"[They] let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid."
I also found it interesting to read a comment by someone who was from the Philippines and said they only had vague acquaintance with the Emperor's New Clothes story and weren't really interested in "stories" but as they listened to the words from government and media every day they were reminded of this tale they barely knew.
One man's honest words about reality is an opinion
Two man's shared opinion about the reality is two men's truth
Three men's shared opinion is the truth that is enough for a court of law as an evidence
Twelve men's shared opinion is the truth as close as it can get to The Truth
The Truth is in man's silence. The Truth is not in man's words. Therefore The Truth is never reachable as a shared opinion, but by sharing and agreeing opinions we can come to The Truth as close as it can possibly get.
Just to say that while sometimes it may be a case of "genuine" Duper's Delight so to speak a lot of the time it's too OTT for that, they're laughing or smiling inappropriately as a form of Revelation of the Method.
Great article to read on a dismal evening Miri. Thank you. Also a very sensible framing of the Aisling, Iain, James and Abi debates and not forgetting your ball earth falling flat inimitable throwaway comic lines.
Thank you, Trevor! I'm very fond of all of the people you mention, because they are all such unique, unrepeatable, and bold characters. So of course I know that from time to time they'll disagree - sometimes explosively! It doesn't make me like them any less or respect them any less. As that great philosophical genius, Groove Armada, said: "if everybody looked the same, we'd get tired of looking at each other".
I’m with you on all this, Miri. I automatically disbelieve the MSM’s version of events and certainly ask, what are they trying to get us to believe now and why? It’s quite a difficult world to live in where things are upside down and back to front, a true Alice in Wonderland world. My trouble is that I’ve always tended to trust people and am probably rather naive - I know that my grandchildren take great delight in tricking me as I tend to fall for their tricks every time (though I am getting better at sussing them out now!). I perhaps too quickly accept people at face value when I should question first…. This Montgomery Toms who Charles Malet of UKC interviewed seems a great guy to me but then a friend wondered where he’d sprung from, who was behind him, etc? Is it never possible for someone genuine to just pop up? It’s a very disillusioning and dark world!
Thanks Priscilla, I don't think it's naive to trust everyday people (except maybe one's mischievous grandchildren!), because most people are genuine and honest other than in exceptional circumstances. It's exclusively people given prominent roles in the MSM that I automatically distrust.... But there's no harm in asking questions about anyone. As we know, the truth doesn't fear investigation!
There’s also the possibility of people being totally invented. And there is now the technology to generate any number of fake faces. So, to take this to a Philip K Dick type extreme, a totally controlled media could theoreticallly invent any number of people and alternately raise the suspicion that people who DO exist may be imaginary!
Admittedly the latter possibility may be inadvisable but all the media has to do when someone accuses them of inventing people is to brand the accuser a nutty conspiracist for long enough for the story to blow over.
They invented loads of people for 9/11, George - https://fakeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/9-11-9-the-Vicsim-Report.pdf. All sorts of AI-ish stuff has been going on for donkey's years. OK now it's more sophisticated but they've been doing it for a very long time.
“ …it's far more likely that the media is lying than they are telling the truth, for the simple and obvious reason that they lie all the time.”
Thank you for this quote. This is exactly how I’ve come to think over the past few years (it actually started in 2016 with the Brexit fiasco that, I suppose, was the beginning of my awakening). I don’t pretend to know the truth but I’m absolutely sure of who is not telling it.
A timely assurance that being sceptical of official narratives is a safe and sensible premise to live by. Ironically, Richard D Hall’s invariable video sign-off is to state: Don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.
Ha, touche!
"I'm taking my ball earth and going home! (That's a joke, by the way, sorry if it fell a bit flat.)". An unintended joke? I think not. Well done for the humour! (i.e pun on flat earth)
Dr Naomi Wolf may have some views I don't share but she is a woman of definite integrity. It has cost her dear and doubtless also Miri too.
Too many stop at how awful things are without being able to see that (as Blum says) they are worse than you know.
On a very trivial note, second, third and fourth cousins as opposed to once-removed, twice-removed, etc is not that complicated. Without "removed" it's cousins at the same level so to speak so the daughter of my mother's first cousin is my second cousin whereas the daughter of my second cousin is my second-cousin once-removed and I am her second-cousin once removed. My mother's cousin is my first-cousin once removed and I am her first-cousin once removed. "Removed" is like aunt/uncle/nephew/niece in the cousin world except whether it's the aunt-niece relationship or niece-aunt relationship it's still called the same.
My mother had " great cousins" .
There fore she was their great aunt ?
My mother who was born in the 1920's , lacked emotioanal intelligence , and would normally kill any conversation with a one liner, ( said through twisted lips, having drunk several gin and tonics , at lunch time )
The great cousins used to refer to her as Gratey.
Here here. On January First I'm gonna toss a coin. Heads I get rid of my TV & all the junk it spews, tails I keep it. I'm too weak to make the call myself, the coin will decide!
Do get a coin with two heads and make the only right choice.
Wonderful article as always Miri.
A couple of things I'd like to add:
--- In addition to the excellent reasons you give for people not being killed, there's also the fact that they love to dupe us, they love to make us believe things that aren't true. It's easier to control people when they believe lies so if there's a choice between doing for real or fakin' it they will fake it. If they don't want to kill people but only want us believe in their deaths then they won't kill them ... if they wanna kill them though as they're doing now well, they will.
The basic rule of psyops is: they do what they want for real and fake the rest ... which only makes the most perfect sense of course. They simply wouldn't conceive of a psyop where they really wanted to kill people in a scenario where it would be problematic such as the Manchester bombing. They know they can kill people with the jab on the basis of 200 years plus of medical and scientific fraudulence so their psyop is framed around that.
--- I agree we should be allowed to believe what inclines us to believe whatever we believe, however, I make the claim that I think is irrefutable fact: the perps NEVER put forward any evidence that convincingly supports or favours their story over the psyop hypothesis. The irony is that they are much more scrupulous in the execution of their psyops than we are in analysing them. You will not find a single piece of evidence for Manchester that favours real over fake - not one. I've posted quite a few comments on Aisling's posts on the subject and she does not reply - I can never get over the way people do that even though they do it all the time. She is simply anchored in the belief that people really died and is immune to any argument that challenges that belief.
--- In about 2018, I put forward a $5,000 Occam's Razor challenge for three psyops: Sandy Hook, Manchester and 9/11 (three separate aspects - planes, WTC-7 and dead/injured). I made 10 points favouring the psyop hypothesis and invited those who believe in real death and injury to put forward 10 points favouring the other way. No one could respond to the challenge ... and that is because the perps are scrupulous. They don't pull punches, they always stick to their Revelation of the Method technique and they ALWAYS let us know underneath the propaganda that they are fakin' it. So I'm afraid I absolutely think it is a matter of fact that no evidence favours real death over fake ... which isn't to say people don't die one way or another ... but in terms of the EVIDENCE, it is absolute fact that there is none that favours real ... and I defy anyone to provide any.
I realise now that I will have to change my page on WTC-7 ... because only in the last couple of weeks have I realised that the footage of all the building destructions is fake ... even though Simon Shack et al on the cluesforum.info site worked it out yonks ago around 2009.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html
Thank you, Petra, and I agree: no evidence that Manchester was real. But as we learned so well through "Covid", people are often quite impervious to evidence and far more responsive to appeals to emotion. There was of course no evidence Covid existed, let alone that people needed aggressive pharmaceutical treatment for it, but people lined up in their hordes for it anyway because of emotive propaganda about "not killing granny" and so on.
As the old saying goes, "you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into". Nobody who believes in these hoaxes was swayed by reason, evidence, etc., but purely by media appeals to emotion. So that is why we fail to convince them when presenting evidence. Presenting evidence simply provokes an emotional response ("vile ghouls" etc) rather than a rational one. So I agree, Aisling hasn't provided any evidence the Manchester bomb was real. But I still stand by her right to believe it was, even though she's wrong. Voltaire and all that...
And yes, you're right in terms of another key reason why "they" fake things - Voltaire again - "those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities".
Oh yes, great reason from Voltaire. I believe this is the best quote to explain psyops and their Revelation of the Method technique and it ties in with Voltaire. It is said about political correctness and communist propaganda but it applies to how we have always been propagandised across the world by those in power - my emphasis.
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
Theodore Dalrymple aka Anthony Daniels
Yes, exactly. That is why they have used Manchester as they have. They've made it obvious it was a hoax (they could have made it much more convincingly real had they wanted), but then used RDH to pass a law ("Eve's Law" which apparently will "protect survivors of tragedies from conspiracy theories") that says we're not allowed to point out the obvious without risking legal trouble. Literally Emperor's New Clothes stuff (just as Covid was the Emperor's New Virus!).
I know. People think the Emperor's New Clothes is a fairy story.
Although I knew the basic narrative I read it when I realised that's what psyops are and I was interested to find the following:
"[They] let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid."
https://andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html
I also found it interesting to read a comment by someone who was from the Philippines and said they only had vague acquaintance with the Emperor's New Clothes story and weren't really interested in "stories" but as they listened to the words from government and media every day they were reminded of this tale they barely knew.
Thats so brilliant..thank you.
Somewhere, Jo (formerly known as Cox) is nodding knowingly and admiring how her sister took her place in parliament 😊
Reality is The Truth
One man's honest words about reality is an opinion
Two man's shared opinion about the reality is two men's truth
Three men's shared opinion is the truth that is enough for a court of law as an evidence
Twelve men's shared opinion is the truth as close as it can get to The Truth
The Truth is in man's silence. The Truth is not in man's words. Therefore The Truth is never reachable as a shared opinion, but by sharing and agreeing opinions we can come to The Truth as close as it can possibly get.
Thank you for the opinions, Miri.
The usual Miri stuff—precise and well argued. Thanks.
Thanks Molly, very interesting comment - I didn't know about the Smith-Mundt Act.
Just to say that while sometimes it may be a case of "genuine" Duper's Delight so to speak a lot of the time it's too OTT for that, they're laughing or smiling inappropriately as a form of Revelation of the Method.
The infamous Robbie Parker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JoeXAFBbpQ
Not to forget the head shaking...side to side for yes and up and down for no!