Those who hate America have a simple equation to take it down:
- Spread Lies
- Rely on Hypocrites to make them legitimate
- Stand back and watch the hate overwhelm America
The storming of the capital is a prime example of that formula:
Five people dead, the capital desecrated, America turned into a freak show, and all for what? What’s the lie that lead to the attack on the capital and cost 5 people their lives?
Lie = The election was stolen from the republicans by the democrats.
But how do we know that it wasn’t stolen?
Answer = Because multiple courts told us it wasn’t stolen.
But how do you know the courts were honest?
Answer = We trusted them when police were exonerated after violating the rights of blacks. Why not trust them now?
So when the courts said the election wasn’t stolen, that should have been that, but it wasn’t because they are hypocrites.
Try this another way:
Ask any of them to show you the proof that the election was stolen and all they have are anonymous YouTube videos. YouTube is the smoking gun?
- What about evidence?
If there is so much evidence why can’t we see it? Where is it? Why can’t anyone get it listed at any court house?
Think about the sheer scope of this lie:
- The court system (local, state, and supreme) must be in on it.
- The police guarding the voting process must in on it.
- The republican vote counters must be in on it.
- The two separate companies that made the equipment must both be in on it.
- The FBI must be in on it.
- Republican congressmen must be in on it.
- Republican state representatives must be in on it.
- Everyday hard working people that are staff employees for everyone listed above must also be in on it.
- The most powerful man on Earth (US President) with the most aware and connected spy agency in the world (NSA) backed by the most powerful military machine ever created by man (DOD) can’t produce any evidence
- Every news agency in America must be in on it since not one has provided evidence to a court or the name of someone who has evidence. (not even Fox?)
- Every YouTuber who supposedly has evidence can’t find it after they make a video, refuses to testify in court and no one knows their real names (even though we know exactly who they are since they own the YouTube channels)
So when the evidence never surfaced that should have been that!
Try this yet another way:
They claim to want to save the election process! But not one word to support people actually disenfranchised in the voting process by real, documented, court cases of voter suppression based on race.
The hypocrisy is so rampant that you have to see it to believe it for yourself!
The Lies are so sick that we can’t ignore it anymore.
The hate so obvious that the entire world can see it.
AS ABOVE, SO BELOW. THIS IS SATAN’S REALM AND THE SHOW IS PLAYING OUT WHILE NIBIRU THE DESTROYER GETS CLOSER AND CLOSER AND CLOSER. READ MY BLOG.
“My spiritual armor surpasses all magic.” THE ASCENSION DIET – EATING TO ASCEND raises frequency and intention of body, spirit and soul [eatingtoascend.com](https://eatingtoascend.com/)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
I think the answer is replace them all with honest men, if there is such a thing!
LikeLiked by 3 people
I honestly miss the days before smartphones, Internet and 24 hour cable news. Life was so much better then.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Stated — “Life was so much better then.”
My Response — Not better for the victims of violence and terror at the hands of groups like these Nazis.
The cameras are the only reason we know the truth. Those cowards will spin lies all day. They have already made several outrageous lies that don’t get anywhere close to what we saw on camera.
Thank God we have smart phones everywhere filming or we would never know the truth.
With this level of tech we can shut them down from air travel and hunt them down via social media.
These Nazi terrorist would destroy us all if they had the chance. Technology is our best tool to find and stop them and 24/7 coverage helps keep us informed.
The only thing the good ole days provided was cover for monsters in human clothing.
Hopefully one day we will have even more tools that can look back in time and see what REALLY happened throughout history. We will most likely coin the phrase one day “Fake History” after we start seeing the truth.
Just a thought
I don’t deny that there is injustice in the world, but your response illustrates my point: the MSM and social media feed on cynicism, fear, outrage and negativity. Turn them off, put the smartphone away and then go out and interact with real live people in real live time doing non-tech-related activities. I guarantee that once you disconnect from the fear-porn merchants your outlook on life will improve a hundred-fold.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Stated — “MSM and social media feed on cynicism, fear, outrage, and negativity. ”
My Response — Social media doesn’t kill people… people kill people.
Without social media, we wouldn’t see almost any of the real story from what they did to the capital.
Instead of wishing for the end of social media why not wish for the end of the hate mongers trying to destroy America.
Let’s keep the phones and cameras and get rid of the nazi’s.
The MSM are the hate mongers destroying America. That’s why I said turn them off and go live in the real world.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m still not convinced it’s social media since the Nazi’s and Klan were there before social media and I watched them storm the capital with Confederate flags.
Unless you are saying general lee had a smartphone Oo
Look up Operation Mockingbird. The big media corporations have been airing state-sanctioned propaganda since the ’50s. And now they’ve launched into a full-on “balls to the wall” campaign to shut down any and all independent mey.dia sources that run counter to their carefully-crafted narrative.
The real not-sees are the media tech giants (Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo, YouTube, etc.) at Silicon Valley who unabashedly censor everything and everyone they disagree with. The Trump administration’s greatest failure was neglecting to enact legislation that prevents them from censoring dissenting opinions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will look it up
LikeLiked by 1 person
While you’re at it, look up the “Smith-Mundt Act of 1945” and “The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012” which authorize the U.S. Department of State to conduct propaganda activities. Then look up who controls the media empires across the globe. It’s a very close-knit family of rich and powerful special interests.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I will look it up,
I looked into it (Operation Mockingbird)
To date it would appear that it has never been confirmed as being real. There is no direct evidence of that operation and no court case proving it’s existence. The accusations made by conspiracy theorist haven’t provided any information above what was already publicly known.
The CIA does in fact fund organizations throughout America and that’s public knowledge. They use that funding to promote American agendas and organizations have the free right to reject their cash input.
Please share any data validating it’s legitimacy, since I haven’t found any.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Stated — “The real not-sees are the media tech giants (Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo, YouTube, etc.) at Silicon Valley who unabashedly censor everything and everyone they disagree with.”
My Response — I was told that businesses have the right to deny services to Gay people because they are private business and that it wasn’t an assault on rights.
Are you saying that was wrong and private organizations should be forced to provide services even if they disagree with the positions of those using the service?
My answer would depend on whether you are asking for my view based on a moral perspective or from a legal perspective.
From a moral perspective, I maintain that no one has the moral right to compel others to do anything against their will (save for compelling someone to refrain from physically harming others against their will).
But from a legal perspective, things are a bit more tricky, so my opinion is not quite as resolute.
The first amendment prevents others from forcibly denying you the right to say whatever you want but does not grant you the right to demand that others provide the means with which to do so. IOW, there’s no legal right to demand that others grant you accommodation to express your opinions.
However, the bakery case involved a collision of intersecting legal rights: freedom of religion vs. anti-discrimination laws pertaining to customers of a protected class. The state courts upheld the second right, whereas the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the first. So in this instance, I’m inclined to side with the latter, but only because it comports with my moral perspective that no on has the right to compel others to do things against their will (even though I’d personally have no issue adorning your cake with whatever message you desire so long as I receive compensation for my services). Otherwise, I deem all anti-discrimination laws that arbitrarily privilege one group over others as immoral and unconstitutional; because we are all equal as individuals and I see little practical difference between refusing to serve someone based on their skin color or religious views (protected class) and refusing to serve someone based on their hair color or political views (non-protected class). Why is discrimination against those possessing one set of physical attributes and/or personal beliefs outlawed while discriminating against everyone else is permitted?
And normally, I would hold the same opinion when it comes to big tech. But I can’t do so because big tech enjoys a government-sanctioned advantage denied to the rest of the marketplace: a monopoly control over the public square plus legal protections against liability arising from what appears on their platforms. IOW, they want their cake (the right to censor views they disagree with) and eat it too (the right not be held accountable for what they publish) — a right not enjoyed by print and other news media. So in my opinion, it’s either one or the other: they either relinquish their right to censor others, or they relinquish their right to legal immunity from what appears on their platforms.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You Stated — “My answer would depend on whether you are asking for my view based on a moral perspective or from a legal perspective.”
Morality is relative so your answer would only be as valid as mine if we choose to use morality (a waste of time).
Legality is more relevant since it can be forced by society on those that resist or disagree.
You Asked — “Why is discrimination against those possessing one set of physical attributes and/or personal beliefs outlawed while discriminating against everyone else is permitted?”
Mu Response — It’s not, there is no such thing as discrimination being outlawed and there is no absolute of discrimination against everyone that is permitted. The question even goes as far as to have conflict with itself.
You Stated — “And normally, I would hold the same opinion when it comes to big tech. But I can’t … legal protections against liability arising from what appears on their platforms… they either relinquish their right to censor others, or they relinquish their right to legal immunity from what appears on their platforms.”
My Response — I’m against taking rights away so I disagree with you. Instead of taking rights away, why not just create your own platform and provide information and products to your audience.
Morality is doing what’s right regardless of whether or not it’s deemed legal. Legality is doing what you’re told regardless of whether or not it’s right. (For instance, slavery and spousal abuse were once deemed legal.) As such, a legal code with no moral underpinnings is arbitrary and unjust.
To your second point, discrimination against those in a protected class is indeed outlawed. If you don’t believe, try putting up a sign that says “No Jews or coloreds or women allowed” in a store window to find out just how quickly it draws legal attention.
To your third point, alternate sites and platforms have in fact been set up and quickly “de-platformed” by those who brook no views contrary to their own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Stated — “Morality is doing what’s right regardless of whether or not it’s deemed legal.”
My Response — Incorrect. Morality is a self-interest from the perspective of the observer , to either enforce or excuse personal behavior in regard to projected actions, orders or requests.
Slave owners while raping children believed they were morally just because they were a supposed superior race but in fact they were not doing the “right thing” as you say.
You Stated — To your second point, discrimination against those in a protected class is indeed outlawed.
My Response — Discrimination against a protected class is not outlawed. There is no such thing as a protected class. If such a thing existed then there would be no discrimination.
You Stated — If you don’t believe, try putting up a sign that says “No Jews or coloreds or women allowed” in a store window to find out just how quickly it draws legal attention.
My Response — The KKK has postings and signs in towns all over America saying worse than that and I don’t see any outrage.
I’ve driven by worse myself just driving around. You are somehow disconnected from the actual reality experienced by many people of color on this thought. I’m not convinced that you have the personal experience to speak to this one topic.
You Stated — To your third point, alternate sites and platforms have in fact been set up and quickly “de-platformed” by those who brook no views contrary to their own.
My Response — Correct but they always have the option of creating their own platform here in America. So there is no true censorship.
On one level, I do agree with Ron (!) that I look back and ache for the “simple” days. People couldn’t dig up 9-year-old tacky Twitter messages a director made as a joke and get him fired from
a job because of it. People couldn’t get online and plan a massive attack on the Capitol the way they did last week.
But just like we enjoy watching Leave it to Beaver and Happy Days and thinking about those times, we do so with blinders on, not seeing/remembering/even caring (to a point) what was actually
going on in our country behind that pleasant suburban painting of quiet simplicity.
Especially with the use of cell phone cameras, we’ve gotten an inkling, scraped the tip of the iceberg, of what some authorities are REALLY doing, and online media, a cauldron of selfish, toxic anonymity mixed with some positivism here and there, oils the get-togethers of maniacs pretty easily, but also later helps to find said maniacs.
I think we’re in a state of extremism that will hopefully even out/die out later on…….? Hopefully cancel culture will be scorned one day soon and used for IMPORTANT things, like protesting corporations that use children to make their crap and pays them pennies, NOT digging up a joke or a cartoon or a blog someone created years ago and using it against them somehow today. NOT making Al Franken drop out because of a photograph taken when he was a comic. We have to get out of the extremism we’re in right now while still documenting real, serious injustices like cops kneeling on people’s necks until they die.
So unfortunately, or not, it’s a two-way street. I’d love to go back to the days of Little House on the Prairie, myself. But then again….Native Americans (and others) treated like sh**. Having to stumble in a snowstorm outside to use the outhouse? Pros and cons, pros and cons. I think justice always outweighs all. We just have to get away from the smaller, petty BS that nobody cares about, like whether or not to say Happy Holidays versus Merry Christmas. If someone’s saying that in a friendly, positive way that’s only meant to bring a smile to your face, what do you care if you don’t celebrate Christmas? A smile is not aggressive, happiness creates endorphins. I think right now we just have to take the bitter with the sweet, because there IS no going back to “simpler” times. I personally just want the petty BS issues to not be the soup du jour anymore.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You Stated — “We just have to get away from the smaller, petty BS”
My Response — I agree
With that said — We all have choices to ignore the BS. Use it
There are no “good ole days” there are just times when certain people in society had more power and now that’s coming to an end.
I used to watch “leave it to beaver” religiously. At the same time I watched men beat women like it was natural. People forget, but in the those days beating women was common practice and hanging blacks was celebrated at some churches.
If you want to know BS then just look back in time when men in America had way to much power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I mean, yeah, completely agree. The “good old days” were really only good for a certain section of the population. Definitely not all. I’m well aware of the fact. I’m mixed race, and during my lifetime, while I was a kid, it was still ILLEGAL in some states for interracial marriage!
But I’m also not talking about BS that you can just ignore. If someone digs up something I blogged five years from now and doesn’t like how I expressed myself and starts a campaign against my books on Amazon, my life, my livelihood will be interrupted, possibly ruined because of that. So I’m talking about the petty BS, mostly based on people’s subjective opinions and not any actual fact, that actually has affected people badly–their jobs, their reputations, their income. A man in France came on to some woman at a party. Isn’t that what you do at parties? She later sued him for “harassment” or something. She lost. I think people are starting to turn their backs on the over-reaction stuff, and I know for a fact that Al Franken regrets leaving the Senate. His only sin was being tacky and having locker-room humor. Nothing more. He wasn’t about to attack somebody or rape somebody. He was displaying some crude humor. Who here has not done that in their life? I know I have, in droves. So I’m not talking about small things we can ignore like someone being irked if we say Merry X-mas instead of happy holidays. (And even THAT could turn into trouble, like if it happened at work, and the person wasn’t Christian and decided to report you to HR for emotional distress) I’m talking about vendettas against people because other people don’t agree with your opinion. Or they find out something less than stellar about your background (who the hell HAS a stellar background? Nobody!) and manage to get you fired or to cause similar problems (this happened to the cartoonist for Ren and Stimpy recently; I think he prevailed in the end).
Apart from the troubles arising from our new lives in this technological world, though, the added surveillance factor WILL help shine a light on darkness and the terrible things people do–I agree about that. Of course! From cops to civilians to women and children–take Hawley, for example, yelling inside the Capitol Building about “Violence isn’t the answer, violence is wrong! But we must plow forward and contest the certification!” and then later the fantastic, great cell phone shot surfaces of him giving a “power” sign to the rioters outside. People can’t get away with all that crap anymore–not as easily. But we are going to lose some of our freedoms, too–we have lost them–as the screws turn tighter and tighter on what is acceptable and what is not. I just hope they start loosening up before they get TOO tight and we can’t go back. We don’t want to enter 1984 territory, right? Or have we dipped our big toe into Big Brother’s tidal pool already……