Cognitive Dissonance: The Default State

Is it possible for DT supporters that can correctly see how openly malignant the Left has become to ever recognize the fraud, buffoonery and degrading aspects of DT himself? I think we’ll be getting somewhere should those people ever open their minds to the screamingly obvious.

Cognitive Dissonance Is The Default, For Almost All

The event in PA would seem to be obviously fraudulent, and both L&R camps appear to be its beneficiaries. Trump got his hero framing, and the Dems got the needed catalyst to replace their candidate. My guess is that this was an agreed to event, as…

As is true at all staged events, there are always some deal-breakers that necessarily mean that the event was not authentic, whether pure hoax, partial hoax, or false flag (and real). On 9/11, the main, unavoidable deal-breaker is the collapse of Building 7, which, by itself, necessarily means the event was a false flag. No way around that conclusion.

There were many deal-breakers at DT’s rally event – a cross between partial hoax and false flag – with perhaps the most stark of those being the combination of the lack of blood on his hand at any point after his ear was ‘struck’, neither when he pulled his hand away the first time, nor when he raised his hand while getting shuffled off the stage – his hand is obviously clean throughout – combined with his carnival barker telling of the story at the RNC, which is a brazen and unashamed lie.

It could not be easier to compare his words to the video, and to know, inescapably, that he is lying. There was no blood on his hand or “all over the place”. He didn’t, either, have time to contemplate what the “whizzing sound” might be, conclude that it could only be a bullet, nor was he hit “really, really hard” or he’d have been killed or rendered unconscious. If he was hit by a bullet at all, he was lightly grazed, and there was hardly any ‘blood’ at all as a result. Moreover, his tone is clearly insincere, a blowhard fisherman’s tale of exaggeration, and in which he’s clearly taking some smug satisfaction telling.

How is this not obvious to DT’s supporters? Why the steadfast adherence? He’s definitely lying, yet they still support him, still think he represents a remedy to all the fraud and corruption we forever live with? On what basis? That position cannot be maintained in light of this tall tale alone, which is fraud itself of the highest order.

Beyond that most profound aspect, he’s also not remotely a statesman, using petty insult nicknames for Democrat politicians, like ‘Gavin Newscum’, and thus he reflects horrendously on Americans and American society. He is the epitome of the Ugly American, and his is the personage many people want heading the state? A blustering, lying huckster, at best? It’s astounding.

Moreover, and in general, will it never finally register to these people, most people, that there is an ownership class, to which the major political parties and players are both and all in service, that they are completely captured? If not, then why not? How much proof is needed?

JFK was enough by itself. But then there were three more famous state assassinations in the late 60’s, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, The October Surprise, Iran/Contra, 9/11, the derivatives and real estate finance crisis of ’08, c19, the Nordstream pipeline destruction (a very major event which the U.S. carried out, and promised to beforehand), and along the way since WWII all the overt and covert warring and coups, the many staged events, the endless macro harm done all around the world in our name, environmentally, politically, financially, and societally. It’s a runaway freight train of harm, and Donald Trump is NOT planning to derail it (nor likely could he).

The event in PA would seem to be obviously fraudulent, there’s a strong probability of that, and both camps appear to be its beneficiaries. Trump got his hero framing, and the Dems got the needed catalyst to replace their candidate. My guess is that this was an agreed to event, everybody wins, with the SS Director getting scapegoated for appearance’s sake, as someone had to pay a public price for this, as gross as the security ‘failure’ was.

Whatever the ‘truth’ movement is or might be, it surely hinges on the ability of people to accept verifiable facts, greatest plausibilities, strong probabilities, and likely possibilities, and without attachment or reference to any ideology or bias of prior position.

DT supporters, though they can see the ills of the Left clearly and accurately, and seem to an extent concerned with truth and freedom, are entirely unable to do this, and thus are neither truthers nor libertarians (generically speaking), though many perceive those camps to be one big, happy family. They aren’t.

Most truthers either start out as or become philosophical libertarians as a result of their inquiries, and so the two designations are very much intertwined and overlapping. Trump supporters are neither, nor is their idol. The two camps share a revulsion of the modern Left, and both have occasion to refer to the founders and founding documents of the U.S., and so get lumped together, erroneously, but Donald Trump’s following is fully a cult of personality by now, and the cult always wins, regardless of facts or likelihoods.

Trump’s speech at the RNC about his ‘harrowing moment’ was a spectacular lie. No one actually interested in truth or liberty can avoid that, nor would be inclined to support it once apprised of it.

It’s very simple. Championing DT as an advocate of freedom and truth is delusional, and whatever allows that to happen in the hearts and minds of people fully exposed to the legitimate case against him is precisely the problem in human society at base, in general.

If that ever goes away, or even tilts the other direction, I think that would be a very hopeful marker. In the meantime, what is this devotion and ignorance all about? Are people mostly just thoughtless imbeciles?

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.