If It Feels Like You’re Being Manipulated, It’s Because You Are
Posted by freedomforall 3 years, 1 month ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"If you’ve got a gut feeling that your rulers are working to control your perception of the war in Ukraine, it is safe to trust that feeling.
If you feel like there’s been a concerted effort from the most powerful government and media institutions in the western world to manipulate your understanding of what’s going on with this war, it’s because that’s exactly what has been happening.
If you can’t recall ever seeing such intense mass media spin about a war before, it’s because you haven’t.
If you get the distinct impression that this may be the most aggressively perception-managed and psyop-intensive war in human history, it’s because it is.
If it looks like Silicon Valley platforms are controlling the content that people see to give them a perspective on this war that is wildly biased in favor of the US narrative, it’s because that is indeed the case."
"If you’ve got a gut feeling that your rulers are working to control your perception of the war in Ukraine, it is safe to trust that feeling.
If you feel like there’s been a concerted effort from the most powerful government and media institutions in the western world to manipulate your understanding of what’s going on with this war, it’s because that’s exactly what has been happening.
If you can’t recall ever seeing such intense mass media spin about a war before, it’s because you haven’t.
If you get the distinct impression that this may be the most aggressively perception-managed and psyop-intensive war in human history, it’s because it is.
If it looks like Silicon Valley platforms are controlling the content that people see to give them a perspective on this war that is wildly biased in favor of the US narrative, it’s because that is indeed the case."
and cannot get past that hate
part of why i want real evidence of who did what
i refuse to accept at face value pictures and what people say on and off camera
we've all heard way too many lies
Every war (police action, defense of democracy, etc) that the US has fought since 1945 has this in common.
Its stated openly that “you’ll own nothing and be happy”, well I think they are planning for us to all lose our jobs and homes. The writing is on the wall, we just need to read it…
Destruction of your ability to earn a living - The vaccinee mandate that failed would have cause over 30% of the employees that work for woke companies to be laid off. This without severance or unemployment insurance, which I have paid for. This would have been disastrous to many in this country. That plan failed but I’m sure more is to follow.
Destruction of personal property - California passed a law enforcing all forecloses purchased for rental income to comply with a laundry list of conditions. This would make it impossible for anyone wishing to purchase investment property as the requirements are open ended. The law is worded in a way in which they can change the teams after you purchased the property, the fine for non-compliance is heavy. Furthermore, the state of California is given the ability to purchase the home if no one else wants it. This seems like a method to transfer home ownership out of the hands of the people into the hands of the government, with our own money. Guessing other blue states have similar laws?
Dollar is a scam – Our dollar is worthless, it’s a fiat currency and printing more of it devalues what you already have. Through factional reserve lending, the banks can loan out 70% (from memory, not positive of the value) of all assets the bank owns. What they don’t tell you is that the banks consider unpaid loads as an asset. Let that sink in for a minute… They just only need a small fraction of what they lend out and every time they lend out it adds to the asset column.
My point about non-compliance is simply that everyone involved in this plan is a traitor, I will not comply to a traitor’s demands. When I’m triggered, as in losing my job, I’m going all in and not paying taxes or mortgages. I will not leave my property and when we organize, I’ll help you protect your property. We need not comply, and we need to assist our neighbors in their non-compliance.
We are smarter than they are, only that they have been planning, preparing, and grooming for a long time. As long as we don’t become the sheep they wish us to be, we will win.
Q: What country has been the aggressor in many countries in the past 30 years, using the CIA/NSA to stage color revolutions?
A: the United States
Aggression is rarely the answer, but on occasion it is the only effective action to tyranny and corruption.
Today the situation is reversed. Russia is not strong, and the threat to freedom is the US government, imo.
I think that if JFK was president today, Russia would not have felt the need to act militarily against Ukraine.
I was not a supporter of JFK at the time, but in retrospect I think the administrations in the past 30 years have been much much worse.
The current administration and the GOP neocons are directly at fault for Russia's reaction in Ukraine.
JFK could (imo, would) have prevented the situation from ever occurring (unless he was assassinated.)
As for the presidents since JFK, only Trump acted in a way that might have averted the current Ukrainian situation.
In Ukraine there should be independent elections to see what happens. whatever parts of ukraine want to be independent, so be it. If they want to give in to russia, then so be that too. Personally I dont care, its up to the ukranians.
Totally do not understand why the US would prosecute Assange, unless it is for child molestation or something. Trump should have pardoned him.
Apr 14, 2020 3:50:43 PM EDT
Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 ID: c618f4 No. 8792104
INFORMATION WARFARE.
Q
What else is there to know about Ukraine and Russia really. Russia invaded Ukraine and the ukranians are fighting to maintain their independence.
Russia is worried about Ukraine will join NATO, but NATO has repeatedly denied their membership . So whats the problem.
Ukraine had nucear weapons and gave them up in trade for security guarantees from US AND RUSSIA. Russia, through invasion, doesnt seem to remember that.
Its a pretty clear cut case to me.
Shouldn't the people of the Donbass region be able to have independence from Ukraine (and to ally with Russia) when the majority there wishes it ?
Isn't it wrong for Ukraine to use military forces against the Donbass people?
Q: What else is there to know?
A: Knowing the truth is required before making a rational judgement.
we did liberate kuwait. we should not have invaded iraq though
Imagine what would happen if Texas wanted to secede today? It would be attacked and destroyed before it would ever be allowed to leave the ""divided states of america"
personally I think the usa civil war was a bad thing, and preventing texas from seceding today by force would be an equally bad thing. but thats me....
We can also look at it from modern day. Can anyone really say that the breakup of Yugoslavia was a positive thing? What about the occupation of Cyprus? What about the Kashmir region in India which Pakistan claims? Should someone invade China on behalf of the Uighers? (sp?)
I'm not saying Russia is right. Russia exterminated millions of Ukrainians in the 1930's through starvation and confiscation of their farms and properties. I'm not saying that the current leaders in Russia are responsible, only that Russia doesn't exactly have a history of benevolence. Putin is certainly no exception to this, as he ran the KGB for decades before assuming power. He knows where the bodies are buried and probably has a few of his own.
So the reason a region wants to become its own country matters. If it is with good reason - such as the seventeen enumerated on the Declaration of Independence - then independence may be justified. If it is solely because of political differences I'm not sure that's a real solution.
imo, Lincoln was a war criminal regardless of the South's reasons for secession.
I think the reasons were all economic and that included the "peculiar institution" but that institution was not being immediately threatened. The entire economy of the South was being immediately threatened by the tariffs that Lincoln promised northern manufacturers - corrupt looters using corrupt government to steal from others , specifically from southern farmers. If this happened today, we would oppose it as corrupt thievery, but since the North controlled everything after the war the entire blame was placed on the south instead of the true culprits.
Yes, slavery was wrong, but it was economically accepted in that era. In every other country it disappeared without war because it became economically inferior - as it would have in America. Lincoln had a history of waffling on the subject of slavery and even suggested sending all the blacks back to Africa as a solution (after buying them from their owners.) It was no reason to Lincoln to go to war according to his own speeches and writings.
However, when Lincoln had the chance to resolve the disagreement with the southern states by meeting with southern representatives, he refused and chose war instead.
Lincoln was a politician like the people running the current administration. He wanted power; he represented himself above all and used any means to gain power and to repress anyone who criticized his actions.
Today there is censorship on the internet of opposing voices and we cry foul against the administration and media. Lincoln put opposing voices in jail to stop them.
The Southern states HAD good reasons to secede, and Lincoln had no authority to stop the states under the constitution.
Lincoln skillfully manipulated propaganda against them and grabbed power as the Bush administration did to go to unnecessary war for power and wealth.
There was no "good" side in the US Civil War, a war that should never have occurred except for politicians' need for power and corrupt manufacturers need to loot farmers.
Jefferson elaborated well the reasons for the American Revolution. Since it was a success, we are able to hear those reasons.
Those reasons would have gone to the dustbin of history if the revolution had failed, just as the reasons justifying the secession of the southern states have in a torrent of propaganda raising Lincoln to sainthood.
1) a timeline of relevant decisions leading up to the hostilities which would eventually become known as the Civil War: https://www.historians.org/teaching-a...
Of note: Nov 10, 1860 - a day after the Presidential election - South Carolina issues a call for a convention with the intent to secede.
Dec 20th: South Carolina votes unanimously to secede from the Union.
Jan 9th, 1861: Mississippi votes to secede from the Union
Jan 10th: Florida votes to secede from the Union
Jan 11th: Alabama votes to secede from the Union
Jan 19th: Georgia votes to secede from the Union
Jan 26th: Louisiana votes to secede from the Union
Feb 1st: Texas votes to secede from the Union
Feb 8th: Delegate from the Southern States adopt a provisional Constitution - in full rebellion from the United States.
Feb 28: The House passes a measure supported by President-elect Lincoln which prohibits the federal government from interfering with slavery in states where it exists.
Mar 4th: Lincoln's inauguration
April 6th: Lincoln dispatches a State Department employee to inform South Carolina Governor Francis Pickens that the federal government will re-provision Fort Sumter. The president makes it clear that no additional troops will be sent to the fort if supply ships are allowed to land. (South Carolina refuses to allow the ships to land.)
April 12th: South Carolina opens fire on Fort Sumpter. The Civil War begins.
The timeline clearly shows that seven Southern States had already voted to secede from the Union and formed their own government prior to Lincoln taking office.
2) South Carolina's Letter of Secession: https://www.humanitiestexas.org/sites...
Of note is South Carolina's justification which centers around the alleged non-enforcement of the Fugitive Slave laws. Not a word is mentioned about proposed tariffs as other justification for secession.
3) Mississippi's Letter of Secession: https://www.jhwolfanger.com/uploads/2...
Of note is Mississippi's unfeigned attachment to slavery as noted in the second sentence of the document: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery--"
The timeline of history is quite clear: the secessionist leanings of the Southern States had not only been evident prior to Lincoln taking office, but acted upon. If you want to continue to grind your axe against Lincoln, that's your choice. But the history is quite clear - and it does not support your assertions.
Yes, states acted on secession because of Lincoln's election. However that was a legal act by the states. It was not rebellion except in Lincoln's propaganda that declared them as such in defeat.
(A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal.)
None of your 'history lesson' post addresses that. Had the American colonies lost there is no doubt that history would have recorded it as an illegal 'rebellion' not a legal action for independence.
Lincoln took dictatorial powers to stop that legal act of secession by the states.
Southern representatives continued to try to meet with Lincoln after the election to avoid war and Lincoln refused to meet. War ensued when Lincoln ordered the military to hold positions in southern territory and Lincoln refused to negotiate to avoid war.
Rebellions MUST have just cause to be morally sanctioned. The War for Independence had such sanction. The Civil War lacked any. One takes note of the efforts of the Slave States to influence the Caribbean, even agitating for a invasion of several Caribbean nations following the Mexican War for the express purpose of establishing slave-run plantations. The cause of secession was clearly enumerated in their own words: OFFICIAL letters they sent to the US Congress which were written, debated, and voted upon not only by their respective State legislatures, but by their People. How you choose to ignore the express declarations of millions in favor of one man's work of fiction 150 years later is a mystery to me.
"Lincoln took dictatorial powers to stop that legal act of secession by the states."
What made it legal? Is there an Amendment to the Constitution allowing for secession that I missed? A Supreme Court case? No. At best it is a legal gray area. It certainly isn't legally sanctioned by any means. To argue it as such is disingenous.
Did the South petition to be heard by the Supreme Court - the Court which holds original jurisdiction in cases of suits by one State against another? (That Court was dominated by Southern-sympathizing Justices who had voted only three years earlier 7-2 in the Dred Scott case.) No. They did not.
Did they explore any other legal means to justify their case such as a general petition to Congress? No. They did not.
And contrary to your assertions, the South did NOT entreaty with Lincoln or his cabinet. In fact, they refused Lincoln's envoys. They were not victims, as you seem to want to portray them. They were given the chance to come to the negotiating table several times leading up to and including at Fort Sumpter and they refused, choosing instead to initiate the bloodiest conflict in US history.
Apparently you did not see DiLorenzo's notes to contemporary sources used and didn't read but a fraction of the evidence.
I don't have time to argue with you.
I don't believe that Russia is evil just because US propaganda (aka 'news') claims it is true.
If Russia is evil then the western leaders are more evil based upon past verifiable actions.
We Gulchers should not assign blame without verifiable evidence. I don't see such evidence in the case of Russia and Ukraine.