But I'm assuming there are at least a few people who read here who realize that there is way too much contradictory logic associated with many of these items for them to ever be true even in the slightest or be accurate reflections of real and actual events as they really and actually ever occurred!
I'll mention one blinder that has been repeated very liberally across numerous media platforms and branded outlets, and it is this one: 'cases are continued in courts when the main witnesses are long dead, just look at murders; murderers are still prosecuted long after their victims are dead...'
A 'Yellow Jacket?' LOL |
Sort of true enough, murderers ARE still prosecuted and the hearings continued long after their victims are dead, but that is because the crime IS the death; namely - a murder. What if the 'murdered victim' were still alive? They have to be dead, that is the whole point of that crime! D'you see what I mean?
But this stuff simply doesn't matter in today's media - they will say anything and they are forcing people into beliefs and assumptions which simply are not available from any of the facts present. Things we have inherited as advanced civilized societies from institutions of law like the code of evidences of Justinian, and the maxims of Cicero have been cast aside by the part-time stringer from the Sydney Morning Herald whose name not even you can remember off the top of your head and whose name doesn't even always appear in the newspaper column byline.
So if you want to abandon thousands of years of juridical procedures this easily because you have been inflamed, for example, by the obvious abhorrence of the nature of certain accusations made by absolutely nameless and faceless forces acting in concert - go for it. Hot political causes are hot because they are bullshit designed to have you worked up so that you will go the way they want to lead you...
And they are specifically designed to attract special interest groups who are vulnerable to being 'un-enfranchised' let's say.
You can imagine of course the other recent 'hot news story' about Trump's lawyer Cohen, whose evidence exclusively consists of his relating third party hearsay... Now what if he died? There would not be the opportunity for him to recant under cross-examination, and admit that he was lying all along. And yet one could imagine his death almost being evidence to today's media that his stories could not now be disavowed by him and therefore we must assume they cannot be proven fully untrue either... No worries there. You know what they will 'run' with.
You know, here's the other thing about this specific case - Michael Cohen says he does not have direct evidence that Donald Trump ever colluded with 'the Russians.' Oh, does he not? Well I'll tell you right now he's utterly lying about that - there absolutely is direct evidence and he must know it, because he was right slap bang in the middle of those New York social circles which included Trump and half a dozen Russian government operatives. So why is he saying he doesn't have evidence? What, was he so oblivious of those around him? What is he, a fucking moron??!
These things - what makes it as the leading news items - are all planned and 'placed.'
See, what the media does is quite sinister, and it's not actually 'word salad' although it often does sound like it. They successfully impute guilt via utter gibberish. Which is still a very clever thing if you think human beings are intelligent.
When underhanded people are successful at inventing 'truth' and making reality out of fiction and then forcing people into actions based on this kind of mischief, then society has become terminally damaged, out of control, unable to be repaired.
And it's very much more sophisticated than you know... Some of the supposed 'perpetrators' are in on the secrets, and you and I are not. Or at least not meant to be.
Bloody R Murdoch and his phone tapping of Diana And Dodi
ReplyDeleteIt's called gaslighting. It is literally a civilizational shit test.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature_of_intelligent_life_to_destroy_itself
ReplyDeleteIn its nature to destroy itself - we must explore this in upcoming articles and considerations(?) (is that even a word? Dunno...) - but in the immediate next article, some "late breaking 'news'."
ReplyDelete