Flabbergasted wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 04, 2021 1:41 pm
This is a very short clip from an interview Milo Yiannopoulos gave to Michael Voris. It´s behind a paywall so I filmed it with a cell phone instead of linking to the source.
Why am I posting this? Well, Milo speaks about how the globalists handle their adversaries, although at this point the victims he is referring to are politically conservative thinkers (and orthodox Catholics) who one might dismiss as dupes in the vaster geopolitical divide-and-conquer game ... though perhaps not entirely.
Milo's following was growing exponentially when the establishment decided to pull the rug from under his feet by accusing him of pedophilia (of which he was actually a victim). According to him, it doesn´t matter what you believe or say or post on the internet, but only how effective you are at converting others
This brings up the question of how the Nutwork deals with those who discover their psyops and expose them. It seems that by and large they leave them pretty much alone, covering them with a mantle of silence and using Google algorithms to prevent too many people from learning about them. There are not many credible examples of media fakery researchers who were whacked in dark alleys or dragged to court and sent to prison like another Zündel. Does that mean the damage wreaked is not extensive enough to make the red lights flash? Are not enough people "converted"? Is it even psychologically possible to "convert" a sufficient number of people?
Dear Flabbergasted, interesting video and post. I watched with no prior knowledge of who this is and became immediately suspicious because of his terrific emphasis on the left right divide and a mention of FOX news.
I don't really think there is any practical difference between left or right or between Republican or Democratic. This much must be clear from the most recent British election that was decided by the media on the basis of claims that dogged Jeremy Corbyn for perhaps 3 years and had absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever
. Those claims were the timeless classic of 'antisemitism'. To understand that no basis in fact exists in this case you have to look at a few aspects:
1.) Jeremy Corbyn's personal and political record (exemplary and unchanging over decades).
2.) Jeremy Corbyn as a person was a modern Jesus and politically unable to be awarded an Nobel Peace Prize (because he deserved it)!
3.) His stance on prickly proftable problematic issues (vehemently pro Palestine and anti-war).
4.) The medias stance across platforms on Jeremy Corbyn was totally unified, which should alert one to a problem!
5.) Those who spoke up for him and said it was a joke (Chomsky and Finklestein) were completely ignored by the media!
6.) The volume of claims and accusations started as a trickle and developed into a torrent just before the election took place.
I think Corbyn and his 'brother' on the other side of the Atlantic (Sanders) are part of an old guard who actually believe in issues, have an ideological position and do care about the improvement of those they are elected to serve. Modern politicians are quite a different breed and know early on how to play the game, survive, ascend, please, get sponsored, make coin and then exit the political scene through the revolving door into private practice and make more coin. Then, once bored, ignored and lonely, they enter back into the political scene and make more coin being paid to push positions encouraged from their prior employee and so it goes on.
Maintaining the facade of party politics is desperately important to maintain the notion of democracy! This idea of 'one man one vote' has been running for over a hundred years and is one of the key methods that citizens are able to bolster their sense of worth and involvement in the system with which they have significantly less
understanding, power and control. This facade is key to people's ego and sense of identify in the West. If you remove it, you start to pull away at an important core belief in a sense of self. Look at Israel's rhetoric when scarifying Palestine. They always state, "We are the only democracy in the Middle East", an ultimate platitude that conveys great power as a rhetorical device! It translates as, 'we are better than these fetid barbaric states and we are one of you'. Democracy is identity.
I draw attention to Corbyn in a sense because his reality collides with your Milo character. It does not matter who you bat for, if your message is undesirable then the message you convey must stop or your audience must be made to stop paying attention. Had Corbyn delivered the same message, but batting for the other team, the outcome would have been the same. I agree 100% with the core idea, that the threat is about how many people you are able to reach, persuade, enliven and not what you say!
Having a few dissenters is good as it gives a semblance of freedom and plurality of views, which in reality does not exist.
In terms of converting people, it is possible, but as this forum has acknowledged time after time...conversations take massive amounts of energy to achieve and can often be only temporary! You must have a willing interlocutor and they must be 'ready'. The best one can hope for is to start a tiny little fire and hope it takes light. In terms of converting on a large scale, this is a power reserved for the belief system of modern media apparatus!