Anonymous ID: 765d86 Aug. 23, 2023, 9:45 a.m. No.19412125   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2133 >>2210 >>2226 >>2636

Not even Elvis Presley or The Beatles did what Oliver Anthony has done, charts wise.

 

Culturally, anon predicts he will outdo Bob Dylan as the voice of a generation of people. Dylan was a genius, but his was limited to the pre-awakening op mockingbird 'hippie' clown operation.

Anthony's by contrast is open source digital.

 

And the pedo cult is IMMEDIATELY smearing and slandering him with the exact same "1943 communist playbook".

 

"I wish politicians would look out for miners, and not just minors on an island somewhere"

 

And they PANIC by smearing him with their own psychological projections of division.

 

The communists and fascists at Google are clearly extremely busy manipulating, censoring, and promoting narrative to smear and slander Anthony with the same 1943 playbook.

Anonymous ID: 765d86 Aug. 23, 2023, 10:14 a.m. No.19412271   🗄️.is 🔗kun

https://www.newsweek.com/oliver-anthony-9-11-antisemitic-jewish-conspiracy-1821632

 

>Campaign groups say such narratives contribute to antisemitic tropes.

 

WHICH 'campaign groups' exactly? Newsweek doesn't say.

 

>Conspiracy theories about Jewish people's role in 9/11 have persevered since the attacks. Such theories are often "a continuation of centuries-old antisemitic tropes about Jews supposedly manipulating world events for their own benefit," according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a group which aims to end antisemitism.

 

The ADL is one of if not the world's largest SOURCE of 'anti-semitism' narrative.

 

By labelling information objects that are references to SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS by their actions, as information objects having ANYTHING AT ALL to do with an entire ethnicity of people, those labels are themselves the source of anti-semitism, because it collectively groups all jews into one group who painted as guilty.

 

It's not anti-semitic to question whether specific individuals at mossad were involved in the 9/11 attacks, nor is it anti-semitic to reference the dancing Israelis, nor is it anti-semitic to say Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell's father was mossad.

It's never 'anti-semitic' to question or criticize or reference SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL'S ACTIONS.

 

What IS anti-semitic is to do what the ADL and Newsweek are doing. THEY are sourcing the very 'anti' ethnicity content where there isn't any in the original information objects that are references to specific individuals.

 

All information objects are either true or false based on ratiocination, logic, evidence, and fidelity with reality. No information object is proved this or that by unmasking the background of the author.

 

Even if an atomic bomb scientist is 'motivated' by genociding people based on race or class or nation, the science itself is either true or false.

 

The more Newsweek and the ADL label criticisms of SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS as attacks on an entire ethnicity, the more they themselves are SOURCING anti-ethnicity narrative.

 

And what's more, EVEN IF there is one instantiation of a class of information that is 'specific individuals at mossad were involved in the 9/11 attacks', EVEN IF the individual author of that object was motivated by hatred or bigotry or whatever, THE INFORMATION OBJECT IS STILL EITHER TRUE OR FALSE INDEPENDENT FROM THE BACKGROUND OF THE AUTHOR.

 

The more the ADL and Newsweek introduce labels of references of specific individual people with 'this contributes to anti-semitic tropes', the more they are talking about their own psychological projections. The 'this' is that very statement they are making that to criticize one individual who is jewish because pf their actions, is somehow a criticism of all jews with a guilt by association fallacy.

 

One big reason why the fake news cult attacks this board, and anons, is because with ANON, there are no backgrounds or ethnicities to weaponize. They are forced to engage the messages with tools they are not good at using, namely critical thinking, logic, evidence, and questioning/engagement. They're not good at it because they got lazy from 'winning' arguments through censorship, and 'group' slanders and smears. They didn't have to think critically because economically the costs of truth outweighed the gains from deception extending from their own solipsistic 'philosophy' of dialectic projections.