I have a suggestion ... that would involve inviting me too.
Not only do I believe the moon landings happened but the evidence is abundantly clear that prominent moon hoaxers including (but I'm sure not limited to) Bill Kaysing, Dave McGowan, Bart Sibrel and Massimo Mazzucco are agents and all their books and films are propaganda containing ZERO truth that refutes the moon landings.
I know that you, Leo and Miri don't believe - or at least doubt - the landings so I thought it might interest you to discuss the landings with someone who's just as hardcore in their disbelief generally ... just not on the moon landings - or at least my disbelief is of something different to the landings themselves, it's of the propaganda against them. What I find most interesting is that the 30-min BBC drama, The News-Benders, pushes out anti-moon landing propaganda even BEFORE the landings in 1968. Now that really takes the cake!
Very interesting chat and I like your words, Francis, which I don't remember now exactly, the equivalent of Miri's, "If you know their name, they're in the game." Something like, "If the media is telling you, it's serving their agenda."
So I put the very same challenge to you Francis that you speak of in relation to the official narrative. The official narrative says 3,000 dead, 6,000 injured on 9/11. What is your evidence for this claim or for any real death and injury?
If you are asking why I believe people died on 9/11 I can go through the tiresome process of providing the evidence. If you are asking for evidence that you will accept, you must first decide what evidence you would accept.
OK, so essentially 9/11 was a movie where even the destructions of the buildings were faked, eg, the vantage point of the filming makes no sense; the vantage point changes as the South tower comes down; the Chrysler Building which is 50-60 blocks up in midtown is shown nestled behind the twin towers; the mechanical penthouse crumples first before WTC-7 starts to come down which makes no sense if the building is weakened at the base; WTC-7 widens as it comes down which also makes no sense.
This means that we cannot interpret what we're shown as real without very clear evidence and I think right off the bat, in the footage we see of the people at the windows, the smoke looks as if it's being pumped from machines. Moreover, Simon Shack has shown clearly that the jumper imagery is faked. I don't think there's anything that tends to favour real over CGI for the people at the windows.
If all the other evidence available suggested that death and injury were real then we could accept that what we are shown of the people at the windows might show real people ... but none of it does, it all goes the other way: the reporter outside the hospital and trauma centre saying "no injured being brought in", not one of the 118 firefighter testimonies referring to the alleged deaths of their 343 colleagues plus being full of nonsensicality otherwise, etc
For death and injury to be real the evidence must triangulate and it absolutely does not in any shape or form. Moreover, it makes no sense to kill people for real in a psyop. A psyop is first and foremost about duping people - they don't do things for real unless they want them for real. When I had the "fake death and injury" epiphany after four years of study of 9/11 it occurred to me, "I see, they only do what they want for real and fake the rest because that's what a psyop is," and thus when covid came along and the signs of a psyop were there I immediately knew there was no virus (completely ignorant of what was being said in some quarters about their existence at all) because I knew they didn't WANT a virus, they only wanted us to BELIEVE in one.
They wanted us - all of us - believers and disbelievers of the terrorist narrative alike - to BELIEVE in death and injury, they didn't want it for real (although there was some propaganda suggesting they wanted certain people dead which I completely fell for), they only wanted our BELIEF in it.
Furthermore, they needed to involve way too many people to kill and injure people for real. I think we can count on Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) being a major player in the destruction of the World Trade Centre, a company very proud of their safety culture. You can propagandise and coerce thousands upon thousands of health professionals to inject people with toxic substances based on 200 years of fraudulent science but you cannot get demolition professionals to leave people behind in buildings for a terror story, that's not a thing.
I think you all seem great and as others have said it would be great to be able to have similar conversations with people we know.
As a general reflection, I wonder if you agree it helps to have been able to meet in person, or otherwise get to know each other outside a podcast/article - where you have been able to (obviously not always practical, with people living in different parts of the world) - given the general consensus that it isn’t easy to know who or what information to trust these days?
I’ve seen suggestions of an element of ‘controlled opposition’ even among the lesser known ‘awake’ community, with some commenters asking “how do we know you’re not controlled opposition?” etc.
‘They’ seem to have thought of so much, wouldn’t they also want to control lesser known but still influential voices where they can?
But a great conversation - it must be one of the worst inversions that people awake or waking up to what’s going on in this mad world might be considered ‘nut jobs’!
Hi Louise, Yes it definitely helps to meet in real life to get a feel for someone, as Miri and Leo and I have done. I have considered how extensive the propaganda network is in my articles on lockdown and on victims or actors. During lockdown every level of celebrity and online influencer was harnessed and paid to push the fake vaccine project. So the question, 'how do we know if someone is controlled?' is a valid one, and we must always employ our critical faculties.
Hey, I LOVED this chat. I resonate with all three of you and whenever I watch your podcasts/interviews or read your substacks I find myself nodding in agreement. I always pick up some new concepts or little nuggets to muse over some more. I find it a bit of therapy that there are others who experience the world in similar ways. I would welcome more recorded chats in the future. I like the way this is set up as three like minded people just chatting and exploring opinions. I have a good community of people around me here and we frequently do something similar whenever we meet up (which is often) so will be sending this across to them too. Thanks a lot!
I really got a lot from your chat, you mentioned that you would be interested in listener suggested topics. I live only 14 miles from Southport and lived there for many years and my wife was born there and also lived there until adulthood, we both know the town and the area extremely well and still have family ties there. What is not discussed in the MSM or indeed from what I can see in the alternative media about the Southport murder incident last year is the impossiblity of the actual logistics and timetable of the event based on the times given in the media, it simply does not add up in reality that someone could travel from the address of the assailant to the destination of the attack and carry out the attack and subsequently be apprehended by the police in the time they have stated. I recommend that you look into the times and geography of the locations and I think you will be left in no doubt that what I have stated is correct, which then brings the entire media version of the event into question.
Hello Dean and thanks for the feedback. I took a deep look into Southport and without speaking for her I know Miri has significant questions too. I already lean very heavily towards your assessment and I'm confident the three of us could all bring our considered opinions to the table re Southport. It's a great suggestion, appreciate it!
The location of the event was not well known to locals, it is on a residential street, located behind a house in what was previously a large garden that has been converted into a commercial premises with a two storey building and car park with several businesses. I have never heard of the business unit nor have any of my family who live a mile away or indeed anyone else who I know from Southport had heard of it.The attacker arrived in a taxi and was dropped off in the street, not at the exact location, because the driver didn't know of it.
The event was publicised on specific social media and targeted at families who were 'Home educating' and was not known by the general public.
The authorities say that it was 'meticulously planned'. The attacker arrived on the scene as the event was ending and parents had arrived and were arriving to pick up their children. If it was ' meticulously planned', why would it be left with such a very fine time margin and with numerous parents in the area at the same time? The window of opportunity, based on the timeline we have been told is non existent. There are lots of obvious anomalies that are too obvious to ignore.
Hi Francis, thanks for your comment. I have some more details on the time question which you may find interesting.
The journey by car from the address in Banks were the attacker was seen pacing around at 11.30 to Hart Street in Southport is 4.5 miles with a minimum time of 13 minutes, not allowing for traffic delays, the taxi arriving, dropping off and walking down the street to the driveway entrance, then walking the 25 meters to the unit and walking up the stairs, finding and entering the room, which could in all probability add on several minutes. The Police were called at 11.47, only 17 minutes from the attacker being seen in Banks, would 17 minutes be sufficient time for all of this to have taken place ? In ideal timeframe circumstances it only allows the very narrowest of margins for it to happen, quite literally seconds, is it really feasible? Nobody, from what I have seen has questioned this.
Great conversation. Well done all. Something to consider: Yes these crisis actor websites exist and are easy to access for all but mixing them up with real events without proper evidence or proof is the issue. Richard D Hall and Ole Dammegard do it all the time, they show images of a clearly faked set up and mix them up with real events to mess with people’s minds and plant doubt on purpose. The big juicy clues are left deliberately for conspiracy theorists to think they’re clever and to throw them off the scent. It’s very useful for the ‘elite’ to get us to dismiss real events as fake and to move on. I don’t understand why you don’t look at it from that angle. Also Leo condemning Robbie Parker for a fleeting smile is everything that is wrong with this side of the fence. That’s not evidence. His daughter Emilie is still dead. Most people act inappropriately when in shock. Alex Jones misled his audience on purpose. Children were killed at Sandy Hook. Richard D Hall misled his audience on purpose. There was a bomb and real people died at the Manchester Arena. They weren’t crisis actors. It’s incredibly important that we get this stuff right and consistently so or we lose all credibility. And ultimately that’s the aim of the game.
Thanks for your feedback Aisling. Obviously we disagree, though I always listen to all positions (aware that no one can be sure they let alone we are correct). Though to that, the we or our side of the fence, I have no desire to be part of any egregoric collective or occupy any position within the Overton. Whenever I encounter things such as 'we know' or 'our' side. I prefer to reframe it as what do 'I' know or what is 'my' position.
I seek a space where a community of autonomous individuals with differing opinions thrash it out if needs be to arrive eventually at an objective truth that all independently arrived at and agree upon.
Obviously language can work against us and in hindsight many of us at times perhaps don't word things as we should and I will always seek to develop and hone my language.
But I don't believe Robbie Parker lost a child that day or that there was a bomb and I remain open to being wrong (maybe we even went to the moon and there was a deadly disease in 2020). When things are proved to my satisfaction I will switch my opinion and retract.
I know there's a very big show going on, but I'm no longer part of the audience, I'm observing the phenomena. We all have our own ways of navigating this mess and like attracts like.
Genuinely appreciate your feedback though, good luck with it all. If my opinion ever changes I'll make sure I let you know, best.
I loved your conversation, would definitely tune in again - great to hear intelligent voices bring their insights to a wider audience. We need it so badly. I use the term this side of the fence loosely - basically people who know there are false flags and that we’re being conned by our governments on a whole range of issues. There’s plenty of room for disagreement within that space. Who’s a crisis actor? Who’s for real? As far as I can see there’s a concerted campaign to undermine real victims and dismiss them as crisis actors. That’s my angle from this side of the fence. I’m concerned that no valid proof has been produced to support the claim that Robbie Parker’s daughter is alive, or didn’t die that day in Sandy Hook. There’s no proper evidence to support the theory those killed and injured in the Manchester Arena bombing were crisis actors - zero connections to any of these crisis actor websites mentioned in the conversation. This is a huge problem. The ‘evidence’ Richard D Hall produced was speculative at best, misleading at worst using untrustworthy methods like statement analysis and comparing the Omagh bomb to the aftermath in Manchester (totally different impacts). I examined his output with an open mind but was horrified with what I found. Anyway I could go on. You’re a natural broadcaster btw. Great to have this topic discussed one way or another. The truth will out!
We can disagree convivially on some of the details until we each reach a surety for ourselves, but I can easily agree with the overarching sentiment you espoused and I'm grateful you're participating in the conversation.
Although, I’ve kind of switched off to anything in the news. The false reality becomes more theatrical week by week. Maybe its a coping mechanism to just zone out. Second guessing is exhausting. I’m following your advice and just living each day.
I’m convinced the Daily Mail comments are as fake as the names they’re posted under (ironic I know given my ‘anonymous’ account). Are they just a bellwether to see what is being believed mixed in with the 77th to drive and misdirect? I can’t even get on there anymore unless I pay to reject cookies. Same with YouTube links, I have to sign in to confirm I’m not a bot. Probably a good thing if I’m not consuming shit online.
If substack disappears, please come to my house with Miri and chat to Leo from my front room. Think I’d go insane without conspiracy realists. Or do a subscriber chat. I do like things like AKT and seeing human connection.
Thanks Shouty. I suppose we have to be wary of comments we see online given that it is known that governments use bots and agents to steer the discussion both online and in real life. Thanks for the invitation, although presumably if we can speak to Leo in Borneo from your front room we'll still be able to speak to him elsewhere. What's AKT?
Haha, I know that! I was just anticipating not being able to access substack one day and needing a fix of in person normality. I often write things that make sense in my own head but confuses everyone else.
AKT- Abi’s Kitchen Table. It’s always interesting to watch people bounce off each other.
I have a suggestion ... that would involve inviting me too.
Not only do I believe the moon landings happened but the evidence is abundantly clear that prominent moon hoaxers including (but I'm sure not limited to) Bill Kaysing, Dave McGowan, Bart Sibrel and Massimo Mazzucco are agents and all their books and films are propaganda containing ZERO truth that refutes the moon landings.
I know that you, Leo and Miri don't believe - or at least doubt - the landings so I thought it might interest you to discuss the landings with someone who's just as hardcore in their disbelief generally ... just not on the moon landings - or at least my disbelief is of something different to the landings themselves, it's of the propaganda against them. What I find most interesting is that the 30-min BBC drama, The News-Benders, pushes out anti-moon landing propaganda even BEFORE the landings in 1968. Now that really takes the cake!
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/priming-the-disbelievers-the-moon
Very interesting chat and I like your words, Francis, which I don't remember now exactly, the equivalent of Miri's, "If you know their name, they're in the game." Something like, "If the media is telling you, it's serving their agenda."
So I put the very same challenge to you Francis that you speak of in relation to the official narrative. The official narrative says 3,000 dead, 6,000 injured on 9/11. What is your evidence for this claim or for any real death and injury?
If you are asking why I believe people died on 9/11 I can go through the tiresome process of providing the evidence. If you are asking for evidence that you will accept, you must first decide what evidence you would accept.
OK, where evidence is shown to be faked:
Memorial photos and bios - https://fakeologist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/9-11-9-the-Vicsim-Report.pdf
Jumpers - https://septemberclues.org/jumpers.shtml
Photos of alleged injured - none of these look convincing and easily fit "drill" injured
Miracle survivor stories - no credibility
Firefighter testimonies - no credibility (https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/nonsensicalities-in-the-911-firefighter)
So unless you have convincing evidence of any of the above I wouldn't accept it.
There are people trapped in the windows here, falling, and where they landed:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170531193942/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PadMqjRj_CI&gl=US&hl=en
Here you can see people trapped in the windows.
https://youtu.be/bbrXwipdUFE?si=zmK6eVHYwkxPkpSY&t=164
Here you can see people trapped, waving, falling and where they landed
https://youtu.be/8tgQ75GxAZk?si=JowUCkm47gkUUR11&t=363
3 minutes into this you see where the jumpers landed.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200214103928/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXhpKoFev8c
Thanks, Francis.
OK, so essentially 9/11 was a movie where even the destructions of the buildings were faked, eg, the vantage point of the filming makes no sense; the vantage point changes as the South tower comes down; the Chrysler Building which is 50-60 blocks up in midtown is shown nestled behind the twin towers; the mechanical penthouse crumples first before WTC-7 starts to come down which makes no sense if the building is weakened at the base; WTC-7 widens as it comes down which also makes no sense.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-movie
This means that we cannot interpret what we're shown as real without very clear evidence and I think right off the bat, in the footage we see of the people at the windows, the smoke looks as if it's being pumped from machines. Moreover, Simon Shack has shown clearly that the jumper imagery is faked. I don't think there's anything that tends to favour real over CGI for the people at the windows.
If all the other evidence available suggested that death and injury were real then we could accept that what we are shown of the people at the windows might show real people ... but none of it does, it all goes the other way: the reporter outside the hospital and trauma centre saying "no injured being brought in", not one of the 118 firefighter testimonies referring to the alleged deaths of their 343 colleagues plus being full of nonsensicality otherwise, etc
For death and injury to be real the evidence must triangulate and it absolutely does not in any shape or form. Moreover, it makes no sense to kill people for real in a psyop. A psyop is first and foremost about duping people - they don't do things for real unless they want them for real. When I had the "fake death and injury" epiphany after four years of study of 9/11 it occurred to me, "I see, they only do what they want for real and fake the rest because that's what a psyop is," and thus when covid came along and the signs of a psyop were there I immediately knew there was no virus (completely ignorant of what was being said in some quarters about their existence at all) because I knew they didn't WANT a virus, they only wanted us to BELIEVE in one.
They wanted us - all of us - believers and disbelievers of the terrorist narrative alike - to BELIEVE in death and injury, they didn't want it for real (although there was some propaganda suggesting they wanted certain people dead which I completely fell for), they only wanted our BELIEF in it.
Furthermore, they needed to involve way too many people to kill and injure people for real. I think we can count on Controlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) being a major player in the destruction of the World Trade Centre, a company very proud of their safety culture. You can propagandise and coerce thousands upon thousands of health professionals to inject people with toxic substances based on 200 years of fraudulent science but you cannot get demolition professionals to leave people behind in buildings for a terror story, that's not a thing.
https://www.controlled-demolition.com/about-us-explosives-controlled-demolition-implosion/safety/
I think you're way off on every point you have made.
OK, but perhaps you could say why. Maybe just start with one point that you think is way off.
Yes, more please
Really great conversation. Both enjoyable and a good use of time! Thanks
Thanks Dan.
I think you all seem great and as others have said it would be great to be able to have similar conversations with people we know.
As a general reflection, I wonder if you agree it helps to have been able to meet in person, or otherwise get to know each other outside a podcast/article - where you have been able to (obviously not always practical, with people living in different parts of the world) - given the general consensus that it isn’t easy to know who or what information to trust these days?
I’ve seen suggestions of an element of ‘controlled opposition’ even among the lesser known ‘awake’ community, with some commenters asking “how do we know you’re not controlled opposition?” etc.
‘They’ seem to have thought of so much, wouldn’t they also want to control lesser known but still influential voices where they can?
But a great conversation - it must be one of the worst inversions that people awake or waking up to what’s going on in this mad world might be considered ‘nut jobs’!
Hi Louise, Yes it definitely helps to meet in real life to get a feel for someone, as Miri and Leo and I have done. I have considered how extensive the propaganda network is in my articles on lockdown and on victims or actors. During lockdown every level of celebrity and online influencer was harnessed and paid to push the fake vaccine project. So the question, 'how do we know if someone is controlled?' is a valid one, and we must always employ our critical faculties.
Hey, I LOVED this chat. I resonate with all three of you and whenever I watch your podcasts/interviews or read your substacks I find myself nodding in agreement. I always pick up some new concepts or little nuggets to muse over some more. I find it a bit of therapy that there are others who experience the world in similar ways. I would welcome more recorded chats in the future. I like the way this is set up as three like minded people just chatting and exploring opinions. I have a good community of people around me here and we frequently do something similar whenever we meet up (which is often) so will be sending this across to them too. Thanks a lot!
Thank you, Gareth. I'm glad you liked it.
I really got a lot from your chat, you mentioned that you would be interested in listener suggested topics. I live only 14 miles from Southport and lived there for many years and my wife was born there and also lived there until adulthood, we both know the town and the area extremely well and still have family ties there. What is not discussed in the MSM or indeed from what I can see in the alternative media about the Southport murder incident last year is the impossiblity of the actual logistics and timetable of the event based on the times given in the media, it simply does not add up in reality that someone could travel from the address of the assailant to the destination of the attack and carry out the attack and subsequently be apprehended by the police in the time they have stated. I recommend that you look into the times and geography of the locations and I think you will be left in no doubt that what I have stated is correct, which then brings the entire media version of the event into question.
Hello Dean and thanks for the feedback. I took a deep look into Southport and without speaking for her I know Miri has significant questions too. I already lean very heavily towards your assessment and I'm confident the three of us could all bring our considered opinions to the table re Southport. It's a great suggestion, appreciate it!
The location of the event was not well known to locals, it is on a residential street, located behind a house in what was previously a large garden that has been converted into a commercial premises with a two storey building and car park with several businesses. I have never heard of the business unit nor have any of my family who live a mile away or indeed anyone else who I know from Southport had heard of it.The attacker arrived in a taxi and was dropped off in the street, not at the exact location, because the driver didn't know of it.
The event was publicised on specific social media and targeted at families who were 'Home educating' and was not known by the general public.
The authorities say that it was 'meticulously planned'. The attacker arrived on the scene as the event was ending and parents had arrived and were arriving to pick up their children. If it was ' meticulously planned', why would it be left with such a very fine time margin and with numerous parents in the area at the same time? The window of opportunity, based on the timeline we have been told is non existent. There are lots of obvious anomalies that are too obvious to ignore.
Interesting Dean, thank you for the insight.
Hi Francis, thanks for your comment. I have some more details on the time question which you may find interesting.
The journey by car from the address in Banks were the attacker was seen pacing around at 11.30 to Hart Street in Southport is 4.5 miles with a minimum time of 13 minutes, not allowing for traffic delays, the taxi arriving, dropping off and walking down the street to the driveway entrance, then walking the 25 meters to the unit and walking up the stairs, finding and entering the room, which could in all probability add on several minutes. The Police were called at 11.47, only 17 minutes from the attacker being seen in Banks, would 17 minutes be sufficient time for all of this to have taken place ? In ideal timeframe circumstances it only allows the very narrowest of margins for it to happen, quite literally seconds, is it really feasible? Nobody, from what I have seen has questioned this.
Enjoyed the chat. Please do more x
Great conversation. Well done all. Something to consider: Yes these crisis actor websites exist and are easy to access for all but mixing them up with real events without proper evidence or proof is the issue. Richard D Hall and Ole Dammegard do it all the time, they show images of a clearly faked set up and mix them up with real events to mess with people’s minds and plant doubt on purpose. The big juicy clues are left deliberately for conspiracy theorists to think they’re clever and to throw them off the scent. It’s very useful for the ‘elite’ to get us to dismiss real events as fake and to move on. I don’t understand why you don’t look at it from that angle. Also Leo condemning Robbie Parker for a fleeting smile is everything that is wrong with this side of the fence. That’s not evidence. His daughter Emilie is still dead. Most people act inappropriately when in shock. Alex Jones misled his audience on purpose. Children were killed at Sandy Hook. Richard D Hall misled his audience on purpose. There was a bomb and real people died at the Manchester Arena. They weren’t crisis actors. It’s incredibly important that we get this stuff right and consistently so or we lose all credibility. And ultimately that’s the aim of the game.
Thanks for your feedback Aisling. Obviously we disagree, though I always listen to all positions (aware that no one can be sure they let alone we are correct). Though to that, the we or our side of the fence, I have no desire to be part of any egregoric collective or occupy any position within the Overton. Whenever I encounter things such as 'we know' or 'our' side. I prefer to reframe it as what do 'I' know or what is 'my' position.
I seek a space where a community of autonomous individuals with differing opinions thrash it out if needs be to arrive eventually at an objective truth that all independently arrived at and agree upon.
Obviously language can work against us and in hindsight many of us at times perhaps don't word things as we should and I will always seek to develop and hone my language.
But I don't believe Robbie Parker lost a child that day or that there was a bomb and I remain open to being wrong (maybe we even went to the moon and there was a deadly disease in 2020). When things are proved to my satisfaction I will switch my opinion and retract.
I know there's a very big show going on, but I'm no longer part of the audience, I'm observing the phenomena. We all have our own ways of navigating this mess and like attracts like.
Genuinely appreciate your feedback though, good luck with it all. If my opinion ever changes I'll make sure I let you know, best.
I loved your conversation, would definitely tune in again - great to hear intelligent voices bring their insights to a wider audience. We need it so badly. I use the term this side of the fence loosely - basically people who know there are false flags and that we’re being conned by our governments on a whole range of issues. There’s plenty of room for disagreement within that space. Who’s a crisis actor? Who’s for real? As far as I can see there’s a concerted campaign to undermine real victims and dismiss them as crisis actors. That’s my angle from this side of the fence. I’m concerned that no valid proof has been produced to support the claim that Robbie Parker’s daughter is alive, or didn’t die that day in Sandy Hook. There’s no proper evidence to support the theory those killed and injured in the Manchester Arena bombing were crisis actors - zero connections to any of these crisis actor websites mentioned in the conversation. This is a huge problem. The ‘evidence’ Richard D Hall produced was speculative at best, misleading at worst using untrustworthy methods like statement analysis and comparing the Omagh bomb to the aftermath in Manchester (totally different impacts). I examined his output with an open mind but was horrified with what I found. Anyway I could go on. You’re a natural broadcaster btw. Great to have this topic discussed one way or another. The truth will out!
We can disagree convivially on some of the details until we each reach a surety for ourselves, but I can easily agree with the overarching sentiment you espoused and I'm grateful you're participating in the conversation.
Brilliant. Please do more!
Thank you, Martin. We plan to.
Loved this 👏🏻🙂
Thanks Lynn. I'm glad to hear it.
Maybe an interview with David Hughes would be more productive? Whoever next? Aisling O' ?
Enjoyed this - you're all good individually and as a group - very natural - thank you.
Thank you.
Seance is consent.
Seance?
Definitely do it again 🙏
Although, I’ve kind of switched off to anything in the news. The false reality becomes more theatrical week by week. Maybe its a coping mechanism to just zone out. Second guessing is exhausting. I’m following your advice and just living each day.
I’m convinced the Daily Mail comments are as fake as the names they’re posted under (ironic I know given my ‘anonymous’ account). Are they just a bellwether to see what is being believed mixed in with the 77th to drive and misdirect? I can’t even get on there anymore unless I pay to reject cookies. Same with YouTube links, I have to sign in to confirm I’m not a bot. Probably a good thing if I’m not consuming shit online.
If substack disappears, please come to my house with Miri and chat to Leo from my front room. Think I’d go insane without conspiracy realists. Or do a subscriber chat. I do like things like AKT and seeing human connection.
Thanks Shouty. I suppose we have to be wary of comments we see online given that it is known that governments use bots and agents to steer the discussion both online and in real life. Thanks for the invitation, although presumably if we can speak to Leo in Borneo from your front room we'll still be able to speak to him elsewhere. What's AKT?
Haha, I know that! I was just anticipating not being able to access substack one day and needing a fix of in person normality. I often write things that make sense in my own head but confuses everyone else.
AKT- Abi’s Kitchen Table. It’s always interesting to watch people bounce off each other.
Yes would love more . Like all of you x
Thanks Emma. That's great x