The photo of Patsy Stevenson staring at the camera being held by the faceless ‘policemen’ looks like it should be the poster to advertise a TV series.
Sadly most people are still completely taken in by all the staged events and images in the media. Their initial emotional reaction to a media story prevents them from analysing any of the ‘facts’ related to the story.
Your catchphrase ‘if it’s in the media, it serves the agenda’ (or words to that effect 😄) sums it up perfectly.
This is an excellent series of articles and the links provide great references, thanks Francis.
"...no need for a trial and evidence will not be heard in court." This reminds me when my suspicions began to be raised, way back in the 90s. The Port Arthur "massacre" made a huge impact on Australia. The operation succeeded because, despite the hugely ambitious death toll, the organisers did not try to reveal too much or provide too much visual material, (unlike the farcical mosque shooting in Christchurch). The bizarre expressions and eyes of an alleged perpetrator who is never tried are all you need.
Which leads me to the question I've been asking lately: Are events done badly on purpose? If anything is too silly they can always delete it after its impact. The hero fighting the terrorist with a narwhal tusk has now been eliminated from accounts of the 2019 London Bridge attacks. Are they calculating our gullibility while concealing their actual capabilities?
A question I ask myself a lot too. They may deliberately make it look bad for a variety of reasons. Gullibility as you say and that it's the standard required to move the masses (dissenters get drowned out and egregious bits deleted). Humiliation for those that go along with golf on the moon etc (ego prevents them from acknowledging how badly they've been duped. Maybe to weaponize those of us that see as well, to create a polarity in the population and entrenched combative dynamics? As mish match of all and more perhaps.
I did try to lay out my thoughts on the matter (fictionally) in the latest post at my own substack. No link, because that seems impolite.
My big decider was the Parsons Green bomb which couldn't even damage itself. It prepared me for the London Bridge event, when the corpse of the terrorist got bored and sat up, apparently requiring a ridiculous back-fill of the narrative. (Maybe that, and the narwhal tusk, seemed excessive at the time...yet the public swallowed it anyway. Or maybe it was all on purpose?)
I think there is always a lot of 'on purpose' going on here. The most glaringly obvious point being that all the 'evidence' of these instances of possible fakery are released/leaked into the public domain by the very perpetrators themselves. So the real question we should be asking is 'what is the purpose of their releasing the evidence?'. Or 'why do they release it' or 'what are they hoping to achieve?'
I think when we consider the intended audience - i.e. the conspiracy theory subculture - the answer gets a little closer. It's certainly not intended for the general public, as they don't notice and will simply believe the official narrative anyway. So it's clear to me this is about messing with the subculture. There are a lot of reasons for doing that of course, one of which is to discredit them in the eyes of the public. Another is to allow their other agents to incriminate themselves (cf. RDH and his trial) leading to this or that law. The other is to focus the members of the subculture away from important subjects and onto a 'fake events narrative', which is continually reinforced and eventually leads to the scepticism about everything, even real events. In this way it creates a 'learned helplessness' (like the torture scene in 1984), where even people who are supposed to be intelligent and questioning and dissidents etc. simply can't believe or trust anything anymore.
So there is a much, much deeper strategy going on here, and for obvious reasons none of the cognitive infiltrators (agents) will ever discuss that. Because they are the ones who deliver this strategy and reinforce it. The entire strategy would collapse if the subculture just turned right round and looked the devil in the eyes, so to speak. Or the devil's guardian, even.
On a positive note, they wouldn't go to all this trouble if they didn't feel threatened by members of the subculture asking impertinent questions. In many ways, the entire cognitive infiltration programme is about preventing solidarity and a united dissident front, let alone an organised and passionate and energetic dissident front which cooperates to wake up the general population.
I will take a look at your recent post shortly! I don't think Francis would mind you posting a link though. I've seen lots of people post links to their own articles and I think it's a good thing. It's part of the mutual help thing. I've done it a few times myself.
Great comment btw, aligns very strongly with my own thoughts. Polysemy is the most important word I learnt in 2020.
The various media avenues have every conceivable story for people to throw their belief behind, with the internet and an infinite amount of information it makes me think of these Fighting Fantasy books I played with as a kid, choose your own adventure things with dice. (Incidentally they came from the guy behind the prophetic Illuminati card game)
The whole wretched system is utterly corrupt, of that, I've no doubt.
We're living in a World that's been hijacked. Stolen away from us.
The worrying thing for me is: was it always like that; have we never
really known anything different.? just a pile of twisted, bent out of shape
crap, since time immemorial.
Certainly since the inception of the Fed Reserve
The CFR. and the ADL. Big steps made to seriously whip our sorry arses inio shape.
I now rely solely on my instincts. I'll feel my way into articles, pieces written, podcasts,
and fabulously elaborate missives from the so-called Alt. Media. ... Normies, Truthers,
Conspiracy Theorists, Medical Freedom [?] Movements, substackers [unless they've
passed my personal litmus test]... don't really mean shit to me. Until I think it's feasible,
and relatively wholesome. Then it gets into my inbox.
There's a link here [Deffo pertinent to what Francis has written here: fantastically well, btw]
by Dammegard on a Delingpole pod. More concerned about the minutiae and fine detail
that is employed in setting up these macabre false flag events [as some, here have mentioned].
And it's utterly fascinating. I can imagine so much of it being constructed: like a film set.
But yet I'm still a tad ambivalent about old Ole.?? .. My prerogative, I guess....
Believe only two thirds of what you see, and only three fifths of what you hear....
Or Something to that EFFECT .!!? https://tinyurl.com/mt8xmku3
Anybody who still believes these fake/contrived events are real is no dissident.
The photo of Patsy Stevenson staring at the camera being held by the faceless ‘policemen’ looks like it should be the poster to advertise a TV series.
Sadly most people are still completely taken in by all the staged events and images in the media. Their initial emotional reaction to a media story prevents them from analysing any of the ‘facts’ related to the story.
Your catchphrase ‘if it’s in the media, it serves the agenda’ (or words to that effect 😄) sums it up perfectly.
This is an excellent series of articles and the links provide great references, thanks Francis.
Excellent content 👍
Thank you for this information. More pieces to the puzzle. The Father of Lies is afoot, indeed!
"...no need for a trial and evidence will not be heard in court." This reminds me when my suspicions began to be raised, way back in the 90s. The Port Arthur "massacre" made a huge impact on Australia. The operation succeeded because, despite the hugely ambitious death toll, the organisers did not try to reveal too much or provide too much visual material, (unlike the farcical mosque shooting in Christchurch). The bizarre expressions and eyes of an alleged perpetrator who is never tried are all you need.
Which leads me to the question I've been asking lately: Are events done badly on purpose? If anything is too silly they can always delete it after its impact. The hero fighting the terrorist with a narwhal tusk has now been eliminated from accounts of the 2019 London Bridge attacks. Are they calculating our gullibility while concealing their actual capabilities?
A question I ask myself a lot too. They may deliberately make it look bad for a variety of reasons. Gullibility as you say and that it's the standard required to move the masses (dissenters get drowned out and egregious bits deleted). Humiliation for those that go along with golf on the moon etc (ego prevents them from acknowledging how badly they've been duped. Maybe to weaponize those of us that see as well, to create a polarity in the population and entrenched combative dynamics? As mish match of all and more perhaps.
'Concealing their actual capabilities' is a very astute point, methinks.
I did try to lay out my thoughts on the matter (fictionally) in the latest post at my own substack. No link, because that seems impolite.
My big decider was the Parsons Green bomb which couldn't even damage itself. It prepared me for the London Bridge event, when the corpse of the terrorist got bored and sat up, apparently requiring a ridiculous back-fill of the narrative. (Maybe that, and the narwhal tusk, seemed excessive at the time...yet the public swallowed it anyway. Or maybe it was all on purpose?)
I think there is always a lot of 'on purpose' going on here. The most glaringly obvious point being that all the 'evidence' of these instances of possible fakery are released/leaked into the public domain by the very perpetrators themselves. So the real question we should be asking is 'what is the purpose of their releasing the evidence?'. Or 'why do they release it' or 'what are they hoping to achieve?'
I think when we consider the intended audience - i.e. the conspiracy theory subculture - the answer gets a little closer. It's certainly not intended for the general public, as they don't notice and will simply believe the official narrative anyway. So it's clear to me this is about messing with the subculture. There are a lot of reasons for doing that of course, one of which is to discredit them in the eyes of the public. Another is to allow their other agents to incriminate themselves (cf. RDH and his trial) leading to this or that law. The other is to focus the members of the subculture away from important subjects and onto a 'fake events narrative', which is continually reinforced and eventually leads to the scepticism about everything, even real events. In this way it creates a 'learned helplessness' (like the torture scene in 1984), where even people who are supposed to be intelligent and questioning and dissidents etc. simply can't believe or trust anything anymore.
So there is a much, much deeper strategy going on here, and for obvious reasons none of the cognitive infiltrators (agents) will ever discuss that. Because they are the ones who deliver this strategy and reinforce it. The entire strategy would collapse if the subculture just turned right round and looked the devil in the eyes, so to speak. Or the devil's guardian, even.
On a positive note, they wouldn't go to all this trouble if they didn't feel threatened by members of the subculture asking impertinent questions. In many ways, the entire cognitive infiltration programme is about preventing solidarity and a united dissident front, let alone an organised and passionate and energetic dissident front which cooperates to wake up the general population.
I will take a look at your recent post shortly! I don't think Francis would mind you posting a link though. I've seen lots of people post links to their own articles and I think it's a good thing. It's part of the mutual help thing. I've done it a few times myself.
Great comment btw, aligns very strongly with my own thoughts. Polysemy is the most important word I learnt in 2020.
The various media avenues have every conceivable story for people to throw their belief behind, with the internet and an infinite amount of information it makes me think of these Fighting Fantasy books I played with as a kid, choose your own adventure things with dice. (Incidentally they came from the guy behind the prophetic Illuminati card game)