Chemtrails & Cognitive Dissonance

An Established Fact ….And A Conspiracy Theory, Both

This topic is a clarion example of cognitive dissonance, with the scientific community openly implementing, discussing, describing and studying the phenomenon that’s plainly been happening over our heads for 25+ years, at a minimum (I recall clearly…

This topic is a clarion example of cognitive dissonance, with the scientific community openly implementing, discussing, describing and studying the phenomenon that’s plainly been happening over our heads for 25+ years, at a minimum (I recall clearly watching crossing trails being laid across the sky above Lake Tahoe while on a ski lift around 1998-99), while news media and the general public deride the whole topic as fantasy. Until lately, anyway.

I will expect that will change now, with the latter two groups about to, beginning now to (though the shared video was posted to YouTube 11 years ago already:, switch over to acknowledging and accepting the reality of the trailing, which will, of course, not be accompanied by any admission of its relentless denial until this point (nor will it have any affect on the next thing these same parties aren’t ready to accept), and will be heralded as a fine and needed thing, in any case.

It will be another case of Oceania having ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia, never with Eastasia. It will always have been true and accepted, it will be said.

It’s amazing. Happens over and over again with every major topic. People are completely averse to unsanctioned information, however factual or obvious.


About ‘Next Time’ and Reaching People

I received an email this morning from a list I’m on asking for advice from the group about how to best reach people still adhering to the sanctioned c19 narrative (and including this creepy, if clever graphic – not Safeway’s own):

“WARNING! from a cousin of mine
Would Love Your Help!!!
MAY 28

Among my many emails this morning came this WARNINGCovid will still be here this summer. – My internist recommends that I continue to get COVID vaccinations every six months. (Thanks Nurse Dee Dee for the graphic.) When I replied with a list of links, he replied that they must be QAnon Conspiracy Links.

What would you send someone to show the latest developments in a way that they couldn’t simply brush it off as Q conspiracies? Thank you for helping. I think there are still many people in this camp who could use some info that could get a crack in their defensive door?”

About this topic of ‘reaching people’, there are endless reasonable things the cousin (and any people of that mindset) could be shown, were he curious and at all skeptical (and aware) of all that has happened the past 4 years, but his mind is made and closed, he has indicated that clearly, and he is content with his position. I wouldn’t ever spend my time or energy on such people again, and it’s always immediately obvious who they are (and they are most everybody). Not as to persuasion to the alternate position, anyway.

There is, however, another, different position we who seek to see behind the curtain (and who accept that there is a curtain to see behind) could, and will likely need to, adopt with such people when this situation replays next, as it surely will, as Bill Gates has promised it will. An offensive position, no longer a pleading, ‘back on our heels’ defensive stance. The position these people take is one that condoned and approves of force to see it implemented and observed by all, that’s baked into that cake. They are sure they are right, and that the info they consume is entirely correct, and they assume without evidence that the state and the media are not corrupted, which they both fully are, and long have been, maybe always have been.

But, at least about much of what they believed, they were wrong, and the positions they supported caused direct harm, LOTS of it, worldwide, and which is ongoing, and there is no quantifiable value difference between a harm caused by a random pathogen or one caused by human action or social policy. Harm is harm, and they chose to definitively inflict it, cause it. It wasn’t a dice roll. The harm of lockdown was guaranteed. They chose to cause a myriad of harms to possibly avoid another, very minor, and potentially fictitious one. These are super dangerous, thoughtless people who should not be placated or appeased in any way, ever again. 

Such people have to be told bluntly that they erred, that they didn’t know anything certainly (none of us do or can), and do not have any authority to impose their will on others, and were not on the moral high ground. That they were lied to and given both faulty and fraudulent information, and that there was and is another mountain of legit research and anecdotal evidence that supports there being another valid side to the story, one which should at the very least give them pause, preclude ever again such certainty of belief and comfort in exercising sweeping coercion against others. They have to be told to back off, not remonstrated with in perpetuity. Their position is ultimately one of force and violence, and that should be acknowledged and accepted as a baseline anytime such people are engaged with.

We have to accept that some people cannot be reached – and don’t want to be. We can’t be pleading with such people further. That’s a futile waste of time and energy. Occasionally one sees someone with a light in their eyes, and one can spend one’s good energies on them. The rest, next time and from now on, I imagine we’ll have to get pretty hard with. 


Time To Accept Certain Things

On the topic of ‘reaching’ people, I think the linked video is probably a reasonably accurate gauge of how likely that is:

The night Osama Bin Laden was killed and Phillies and Mets fans came together as one

ESPN doc on the night that Osama Bin Laden was killed and announced during the Phillies-Mets game on Sunday Night Baseball. The night was May 1, 2011 and the heated rivals and their fans came together to celebrate.

An entire baseball stadium that nearly to a man, apparently (I will assume there were some non-conformists there), unquestioningly believed everything about the official story of 9/11, haven’t the slightest inkling that it didn’t happen that way, nor the slightest inclination to wonder if it did, and would never want to know, anyway. Just want to high-five, pound another brew and feel superior in perfect ignorance. That’s most people (and we all know it).

A repellent piece of propaganda and example of common human nature, I think the liberty and truth communities should take this info under permanent advisement with respect to how to spend one’s time and energy. There are occasional people exhibiting a different demeanor, civility in their tone, a light in their eyes, an open and inquiring mind. Occasional, and enough, is my guess, and those people should be sought out, radars tuned to ID them. The rest can never be reached and do not want to be. A pointless fight that should not be sought or fought unless unavoidable (being trespassed against, which will happen often enough on its own).

Hollywood’s Propaganda Bludgeoning

The level and overtness of propaganda in entertainment media is an amazing tsunami now. Watching the final season of the original Walking Dead series recently I noted that, throughout the series, and with the pedal to the metal as it wound down:

  • ALL featured relationships were either homosexual, interracial or interethnic, or some combo of those (Yumiko & partner). In the rare instances where the partners were racially the same, then they were homosexual (Aaron & partner), if heterosexual, then the partners were almost always of different races or ethnicities (Maggie & Glenn; Negan and wife; Ezekiel & Carol; the daughter of Alpha & boyfriend; Eugene & the sister of Mercer; Rick & Michonne; Rosita & Gabriel/ Rosita & Abraham; Jerry & Muslim wife), or wholly untraditional, with the only Causasian hetero couple I recall being Daryl and the special-ops female badass who displayed skill sets and testostoronic personality tendencies at least equal to his own – not at all a traditional male/female dynamic. Obviously this isn’t remotely representative of any human societies or the general inclinations of most people, and they ran the table with this message.
  • After the departure of ‘Rick’ from the show, ALL strong white males were either bad or disturbed men: Negan; Beta; The Governor; Simon; the leader of the special forces group Daryl’s girlfriend was part of; the Chief of Operations at the Commonwealth; or gay (Aaron); or the unique character of ‘Daryl, a ‘lone wolf’: exceptionally strong, clear of purpose, capable and competent, ultimately ungovernable, but with no inclination to lead or govern other than by example, and willing, to a point, to be governed by women leaders. Rick himself, the initial lead of story, had constant and increasing crises of weakness and doubt, whereas the resolve and moral clarity of all the female leaders was almost always entirely clear.

Any other strong good men were non-white; Gabriel (who became increasingly strong, while also becoming increasingly ruthless and merciless towards any threats, after having been uber-weak while still a merciful person); Ezekiel & Mercer, both being black, and taking over the leadership of the rescued Commonwealth at very end; Morgan (another lone wolf); or subservient, like Jerry.

Most other ‘good’ white men were either dismissable, redneck hotheads, like Shane and Abraham, or spineless and vile, like the petulant white son of the Commonwealth’s female governor; or background beta males, with the lead beta character of Eugene, white and brainy, being a super-Beta; fat, super fearful, and crying and blubbering at the drop of a hat, completely unlike any man I’ve ever known, even the weak ones, constantly needing the saving and support of the women around him. Major message bringer, and a major theme.

  • After Rick left show, and Ezekiel lost the Kingdom, almost all leaders, good and bad, and whether of large community or small squad, were women: Maggie; Michonne; Alpha, the Commonwealth governor, the leaders of Oceanside; Deanna (the first leader of Alexandria), and Carol, a female lone wolf who nevertheless commanded the voluntary obedience of most men around her, and who ultimately took over the Chief of Operations job at the Commonwealth at end.

Then, checking out the first five minutes of one of the spin-offs, the very first major male character introduced is gay. Just a propaganda bludgeoning, which they really ramped up to close the original show down, and will obviously be hammering home with all spin-offs, and like the recent staged Thunberg arrest video, shamelessly in your face. No attempt to conceal any of it. Completely unembarrassed.

In summary: Men are bad, and weak, particularly white men; women are strong and clear of purpose, the natural leaders in human society; homosexuality is an esteemed state, and as likely as not; and most people choose to couple with people outside their own race or ethnicity (or should, if they don’t).

An amazing societal time. Incredibly uncivil, irrational, unreasonable, ugly and counter-instinctive. Things must be coming to a pivotal head soon, I would have to think.

The Mediating Media

Wolf Blitzer of CNN – the news station of record, certainly in the United States, and probably the world (certainly the most ubiquitous one) – calmly and nonchalantly asking Senator Rand Paul in 2016 if Paul considers halting the assistance of the U.S. executive branch (without any Congressional involvement) and American munitions makers to Saudi Arabia to conduct its bombing of Yemen at the time, and which created a humanitarian catastrophe and major refugee crisis in Yemen, to be more important than the money and American jobs that would be lost at the plants of the munitions makers if Paul were to get his way and the assistance to S.A. were ended.

A completely repellent and morally vacant question, and one that, in the way it was asked, and the major platform on which it was asked, normalizes the perspective, makes it sound like a reasonable, counter-balancing concern. To restate the question less prettily; ‘Is it wise or practical that we stop raining down mayhem & death on all these largely innocent people in that foreign land,’ – and in support of a known completely authoritarian state which we should not be allied with in the first place – ‘is your moral concern, Senator Paul, more important than the loss of income to the munitions makers and the loss of American jobs if those munitions don’t get made and used?’

The query of a remorseless person of no empathy, a sociopath, perhaps. Or, possibly, just a vacuous shill doing what he was likely instructed to do: Pit Paul’s appeal to conscience (and to the demands of the Constitution that Congress is the entity delegated with war making authority, not the Executive Branch) against the financial interests of Americans, thus making Rand’s hill to climb a steeper one. Or both (to do that job a person would likely need a stunted conscience, I would assume).

People should get bombed so Americans can make profits and have jobs? That’s a real question? We should talk and argue and debate about the subtleties and nuances of that? Blitzer surely did his part, his job, to make that calculus appear legitimate and rational to anyone hearing it.

Just peak scumbaggery. His own and his betters. Amazing that Paul did not call him on the obscenity of the question. To be governed by such people and the system that puts them in place is unacceptable, to put it blandly. I don’t consent to any of it. No one should.