Anonymous ID: d77e58 May 9, 2019, 10:42 p.m. No.6460682   🗄️.is đź”—kun

The government has been manufacturing tragedies year by year for decades, and we are now up to several a month, just to keep the patient properly traumatized. It used to be that one fake serial killer every couple of years would do the job, but in this as in everything else, the patient develops a tolerance.

 

After 911, the audience became more difficult to startle. In addition to your daily dose of shootings, maulings, rapes, suicides, crashes and molestations (most of them also manufactured for your viewing pleasure by the Intelligence agencies), you are now privy to at least one mass shooting or bombing every two or three months. It was found that the serial killer story took too long to unwind, so they ditched that. You don't get serial killers much anymore. It is mass shootings instead, since they happen all at once.

 

The American public no longer has the attention span required to follow a serial killer. Think about that, please. Don't you think it is convenient that crazy murderers decided to quit the serial thing and go in for the mass thing instead? So nice of them to change with the times, scripting their madness to fit the demands of the media!

 

The question remains, why would Intelligence be interested in faking a serial killer? Simple: to create instability and fear. This was one of the prime goals of Intelligence at the time, and of course it still is.

 

by the late 1960's, the Government had domestic problems to deal with, including an ever-increasing resistance to the Vietnam War.

Communism had been destroyed domestically—everybody knew that—so they needed a different way to create general fear. One of the ways they decided to do that was with manufactured bogeymen of the Manson/Bundy type.

 

Manson's bogeyman was created as a hippie in order to destroy the hippie movement, and he was incredibly successful in his role. But by 1975 the hippie movement was also dead, so the bogeymen no longer needed to be of that mold. They now wished to demonize the good- looking white guy. Why? Several reasons. First of all, the charismatic, college-educated white guy was still the most dangerous person in the eyes of Intelligence at that time, since in 1975 he still had the most real power. The good-looking white guy had been the biggest thorn in their side during the hippie movement and the war protest movement. They had been the high-profile speakers with the most bravery, tenacity, and the greatest ability to sway a crowd. Therefore, Intelligence wanted to recruit all the charismatic white guys they could into their agencies, and hog-tie the rest

 

Intelligence also wished to create as much sexual dissatisfaction as they could, because they found it helped sales in all areas. The dissatisfied bought more drugs, more liquor, more guns, more magazines, more newspapers, watched more TV, and were generally easier to propagandize on all issues. And this time, the focus was on women. If Intelligence could make women fear all men—especially the good- looking ones—they would immediately create huge levels of sexual dissatisfaction. These women would then watch soap operas and read pulp romances and join feminist groups, where they could be further propagandized. They would suffer from a thousand forms of anxiety and all the mental and physical effects of that anxiety, which would require a million forms of drugging and therapy, legal and illegal. And as the women went, so did the men. If the heterosexual women could be driven nuts, the heterosexual men would be taken down with them. The sexual relationship is like that: if you destroy one half of it, the other half falls as well.

Anonymous ID: d77e58 May 9, 2019, 10:59 p.m. No.6460754   🗄️.is đź”—kun

The amount of evidence required to convince the average TV-hypnotized American is almost zero. However, in the rare historical moments where actual independent journalists and politicians exist, a modicum of evidence is required. From the invention of the Gutenburg Press onward, the boldest of lies could be made palatable by dressing them up with a few witness statements and anecdotes. Actual evidence was never required; even court proceedings could be invented out of whole cloth, using phantom "special prosecutors" and other imaginary personages.

 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, having been staged from the very start, never required any evidence. Israel was designed as a series of closed set compounds, with timid soldier-settlers crouched in fear within and special forces setting off explosives without. The journalists simply documented the play-by-play. The Palestinians were happy to play along, with the prize being a visa out of that hell hole. The Israeli project has amassed huge fortunes for the top families, and they are using seasonal Intifadas to keep real estate prices low as they transform the area into their world headquarters.

 

Other staged dramas, from the Moon Landings and the JFK assassination to Waco and 911, required more evidence due to the open nature of society and changing media technology. With so much ham-handed fakery accompanying the World Wars (the most obvious being created by the Soviets) media consumers became more skeptical. Western media responded by screening newsreels and by fielding action reporters "on the scene". Autopsy photos and other manufactured evidence began to "leak" into the hands of "independent" journalists. Conspiracy theories and conflicting narratives were inserted into the earliest scenes in order to contain and direct civil discourse. Political groups formed overnight in order to paper over plot holes or further distract an increasingly suspicious public mind as the economic noose began to tighten.

 

In the Post-Sandy-Hook World, hamhanded fakery is again very much in evidence. This time they are relying on rapidly-improving video editing software, the rapidly-eroding public attention span and the 24-hour newscycle to keep Western audiences feeling threatened. The sky is not the limit these days, and there is much more to come. Once computer graphics become indistinguishable from reality there will be no more crisis actors required. There will be no more accidental admissions during interviews, no more video glitches to analyze. At some point in the very near future pre-determined plot lines will be inserted into live streamed recordings without any risk of detection. At that point we will have to rely on our common sense and our knowledge of fakery throughout history in order to keep our feet flat on the ground.

 

On a more positive note, the fact that Youtube is censoring channels is a sign that the mass media has lost control of us. As Hillary lamented, "We are in an Information War, and we are losing that war."