Another heckler / gaslighter chimed in....
Jean Wyman
13 min ago
Teresa’s just leech. I try to not get too nego about People’s comments on here, but she routinely attacks Caitlin’s well made points in order to aggrandize herself. It’s tiresome and annoying. But also sad. There’s a couple of boys on this thread like that too. O well.
Teresa’s just leech. I try to not get too nego about People’s comments on here, but she routinely attacks Caitlin’s well made points in order to aggrandize herself. It’s tiresome and annoying. But also sad. There’s a couple of boys on this thread like that too. O well.
Reply
Collapse
Rob (c137)
Writes Robert's Occam's razor
just now
I followed Caitlin for a long time. I even have a few of her books which has really good poetry!
But I grew upset when we were facing the boot of the biomedical surveillance state.
I almost lost my job. Friends lost theirs.
Co-workers were coerced to take this rushed experimental shot. Some have lingering issues even to this day.
She gaslit us at the time, playing like it's not a big deal. I felt disappointed with others that did the same, Noam Chomsky, Chris hedges, Michael Hudson and others that coincidentally also went along with the 911 official story.
Am I wrong to be upset that after all this time of ignoring the issue, now she's saying how it's irrelevant?
That's like the mass media saying Vietnam is irrelevant because it's over.
I've been getting Jean's comments too, including the one where she (?) says that I weaponize her name. She, of course, is who I'm quoting in the article. At this point I'm certain it's either an insult-bot or someone being paid.
Thanks for posting on Caitlin's article. I didn't realize it was her post when I replied on the laptop of luxury class--I'm glad I didn't get too detailed.
I didn't even bother to write comments on her page because I found her a lost cause as she ignored this con-vid thing as if we didn't suffer... But how dare she bring it up as if we are the problem! Victim blaming, Narcissistic or sociopathic...
I believe the attitudes toward Sept. 11 you cite in Chomsky, Hedges, et al is a key to the responses to the 'demic and the injections. Edward Curtin, whom I greatly admire, wrote an article referencing them, saying that as intelligent as they are, they lack a certain imagination that prevents them from seriously entertaining any big "conspiracy theories."
I've also found that people reach the end of their revolutionary rope. I found it with Michael Parenti and with the person who transformed Bible research, John Dominic Crossan. In both cases, I could show them exactly how their research led irrefutably to the conclusion I'd drawn--something that changed the whole way of looking at it--but they couldn't see it. It's like the ability to change is an elastic that wears out and just can't stretch any more without snapping.
"And then there is the psychological effect of the Big Lie which is axiomatic in gaslighting. The paradox here is that the bigger the lie, the harder it is for the mind to bridge the gulf between perceived reality and the lie that authority figures are painting as truth. I believe that the prospect of being deceived evinces a primitive emotional response on a par with staring death in the face. We are hard-wired to fear deception because we have evolved to interpret it as an existential threat. That’s why deception can elicit the same emotional response as the miscalculation of a serious physical threat. Lies told to us don’t always bear the same cost as a misjudged red light, but the primitive part of the brain can’t make this distinction and we rely on cerebral mediation for a more appropriate but delayed response. And in the long run, the lie is often just as dangerous as the physical threat. Many government whoppers – ‘safe and effective’ – do cost lives.
To avoid the death-like experience of being deceived, a mental defence is erected to deny that the lie is happening."
I talk about that, how it's easier to lie big than to lie small, in one of my YTs before I did Substack. The person's own cognitive dissonance does the work for you of "They couldn't possibly get away with that!"
Thanks for the link to that website. Speaking of Chris Hedges and JFK, have you seen this interview with John Kiriakou? Specifically, you can jump to the obligatory "throw it in at the end" blurb starting around minute 32. What all knowing smugness by both of them, particularly Hedges:
The Eeyore of sanctimonious political analysis. That's precious. Will watch the episode. I also liked your metaphor in the comment referencing Michael Parenti about coming to the end of the "revolutionary rope." I do distinguish between the various voices. Coming to the end of that rope, maybe spiritually and physically, is probably very apropos for Parenti, who I have looked up to way more than Hedges and Chomsky when all were "at their best." I'm not sure the latter two had much revolutionary rope to begin with. Parenti, in writing, has politely ridiculed Chomsky for his "stand" on (lack of) deep conspiracies.
I love Parenti, to be clear! I once put on a fundraiser for the pirate radio station my show was on and he was the speaker. We did a big dinner at a Sri Lankan restaurant and I had a chance to talk with him at it. Referencing his excellent book on Julius Caesar, I brought up some of my research on Jesus as a Roman invention. He wouldn't hear of it. Dismissed it entirely. Not possible.
I still did an extremely flattering intro of him for the event. But that seemed like the end of his rope.
It's a really good book. Turns out everything you thought you knew is upside-down, as is Parenti's wont. There was a nearly 100 yr old woman given the place of honor across from Parenti, so she could hear. Sometime after, the woman's daughter told me her mom said, "I don't know about the guy but that woman sitting next to him was so smart, she just kept coming back with point after point that he didn't have any answer to." So that was some satisfaction ;-)
Controlled op is really thrown around liberally. I can't stand the Assange stand on Sept. 11; I thought he looked uncomfortable even having to deal with the question. But Mike Pompeo vowed and succeeded to basically destroy him anyway. I DO now hold Sept. 11 and JFK's murder as "benchmarks," but I still won't call Assange controlled opposition. John Pilger in 2003 or 2004 told me at a talk/book signing that he thought 9-11 Truthers were a "distraction." But I don't think he's "controlled opposition." Chris Hedges is a gatekeeper; but I'm not going to call him "controlled opposition." Noam Chomsky is what he is AND worked and stayed with MIT, a known CIA institution, for an entire career. For me, he would be my guess for most likely "winner." No one knows for sure, but throwing the term around so broadly seems pretty self-destructive for us. As some commented today elsewhere, when will the "Woody Harrelson is controlled opposition" memes start piling up?
I think he should be free. They got him on bs charges.
For all we know assange could have just been that clueless to think that the official story was good enough.
But I guess I had more to expect from someone who has been exposing lies and corruption. In my mind, someone that helped reveal war crimes and saw how whistleblowers got screwed....
But there's a second possibility. He knew 911 was more than they told us, but he's afraid of the backlash. In that case, WikiLeaks could have held back information, to protect them from being shut down instantly under some crazy emergency power of the USA.
In that case, what WikiLeaks and he says is limited.
Not a limited hangout like working for the CIA, but limited by what is safe and acceptable to talk about. Compromising makes you compromised.
The irony is that he still got imprisoned, but for a dumb technicality. I guess the lesson is that when you compromise with psychopaths, you lose more than if you called them out fully.
And that 'technicality' was contrived, with the woman coerced into making the charge and prevented from withdrawing it. It was his leak of military operations that they imprisoned him for, and if it hadn't been that excuse they would have found another.
But maybe you're confusing the function of Wikileaks, which is a venue through which whistleblowers could anonymously publish leaks. He's not, as he always emphasized, an investigative journalist. He doesn't go out and find info, info finds him. He may not have come to the same realization as us on 9/11 but Wikileaks doesn't say anything, it just gives a venue to convey.
The technicality that I was upset about is the espionage act and the hacking charges. They're desperate to scare other journalists.
I also have an issue with WikiLeaks doing slow leaks lol.
Just think if people who had anonymous information to leak about the jabs or the contracts, how would we know that WikiLeaks decided to sit on it? Same for 911.
Now we're honoring Seymour Hersh for his reporting, which could very well be false... But it forces us into a false binary.
Another heckler / gaslighter chimed in....
Jean Wyman
13 min ago
Teresa’s just leech. I try to not get too nego about People’s comments on here, but she routinely attacks Caitlin’s well made points in order to aggrandize herself. It’s tiresome and annoying. But also sad. There’s a couple of boys on this thread like that too. O well.
Reply
Collapse
Rob (c137)
Writes Robert's Occam's razor
just now
I followed Caitlin for a long time. I even have a few of her books which has really good poetry!
But I grew upset when we were facing the boot of the biomedical surveillance state.
I almost lost my job. Friends lost theirs.
Co-workers were coerced to take this rushed experimental shot. Some have lingering issues even to this day.
She gaslit us at the time, playing like it's not a big deal. I felt disappointed with others that did the same, Noam Chomsky, Chris hedges, Michael Hudson and others that coincidentally also went along with the 911 official story.
Am I wrong to be upset that after all this time of ignoring the issue, now she's saying how it's irrelevant?
That's like the mass media saying Vietnam is irrelevant because it's over.
Or Iraq or Libya or Afghanistan....
I've been getting Jean's comments too, including the one where she (?) says that I weaponize her name. She, of course, is who I'm quoting in the article. At this point I'm certain it's either an insult-bot or someone being paid.
Thanks for posting on Caitlin's article. I didn't realize it was her post when I replied on the laptop of luxury class--I'm glad I didn't get too detailed.
I didn't even bother to write comments on her page because I found her a lost cause as she ignored this con-vid thing as if we didn't suffer... But how dare she bring it up as if we are the problem! Victim blaming, Narcissistic or sociopathic...
I believe the attitudes toward Sept. 11 you cite in Chomsky, Hedges, et al is a key to the responses to the 'demic and the injections. Edward Curtin, whom I greatly admire, wrote an article referencing them, saying that as intelligent as they are, they lack a certain imagination that prevents them from seriously entertaining any big "conspiracy theories."
I've also found that people reach the end of their revolutionary rope. I found it with Michael Parenti and with the person who transformed Bible research, John Dominic Crossan. In both cases, I could show them exactly how their research led irrefutably to the conclusion I'd drawn--something that changed the whole way of looking at it--but they couldn't see it. It's like the ability to change is an elastic that wears out and just can't stretch any more without snapping.
Yeah, also the JFK assassination!
(From https://leftlockdownsceptics.com/alleged-cia-involvement-in-jfk-assassination-goes-mainstream-so-now-what/ )
"And then there is the psychological effect of the Big Lie which is axiomatic in gaslighting. The paradox here is that the bigger the lie, the harder it is for the mind to bridge the gulf between perceived reality and the lie that authority figures are painting as truth. I believe that the prospect of being deceived evinces a primitive emotional response on a par with staring death in the face. We are hard-wired to fear deception because we have evolved to interpret it as an existential threat. That’s why deception can elicit the same emotional response as the miscalculation of a serious physical threat. Lies told to us don’t always bear the same cost as a misjudged red light, but the primitive part of the brain can’t make this distinction and we rely on cerebral mediation for a more appropriate but delayed response. And in the long run, the lie is often just as dangerous as the physical threat. Many government whoppers – ‘safe and effective’ – do cost lives.
To avoid the death-like experience of being deceived, a mental defence is erected to deny that the lie is happening."
I talk about that, how it's easier to lie big than to lie small, in one of my YTs before I did Substack. The person's own cognitive dissonance does the work for you of "They couldn't possibly get away with that!"
The Reality Puzzle & Propaganda Playbook: https://youtu.be/X__TdauN95M
Thanks for the link to that website. Speaking of Chris Hedges and JFK, have you seen this interview with John Kiriakou? Specifically, you can jump to the obligatory "throw it in at the end" blurb starting around minute 32. What all knowing smugness by both of them, particularly Hedges:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhyQRc1vzkg
That is a mind-blowing clip! I keep going deeper and deeper into the psy-ops within the psy-ops on JFK, but they're not even descending to rung one!
I talk about the smug Hedges, who I call the Eeyore of sanctimonious political analysis, in this episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/muskrat-love-and-anarchy
The Eeyore of sanctimonious political analysis. That's precious. Will watch the episode. I also liked your metaphor in the comment referencing Michael Parenti about coming to the end of the "revolutionary rope." I do distinguish between the various voices. Coming to the end of that rope, maybe spiritually and physically, is probably very apropos for Parenti, who I have looked up to way more than Hedges and Chomsky when all were "at their best." I'm not sure the latter two had much revolutionary rope to begin with. Parenti, in writing, has politely ridiculed Chomsky for his "stand" on (lack of) deep conspiracies.
I love Parenti, to be clear! I once put on a fundraiser for the pirate radio station my show was on and he was the speaker. We did a big dinner at a Sri Lankan restaurant and I had a chance to talk with him at it. Referencing his excellent book on Julius Caesar, I brought up some of my research on Jesus as a Roman invention. He wouldn't hear of it. Dismissed it entirely. Not possible.
I still did an extremely flattering intro of him for the event. But that seemed like the end of his rope.
Wow, that must have been a great dinner! I've had the Julius Caesar book in my "cart" forever. Will get to it eventually.
It's a really good book. Turns out everything you thought you knew is upside-down, as is Parenti's wont. There was a nearly 100 yr old woman given the place of honor across from Parenti, so she could hear. Sometime after, the woman's daughter told me her mom said, "I don't know about the guy but that woman sitting next to him was so smart, she just kept coming back with point after point that he didn't have any answer to." So that was some satisfaction ;-)
They're clearly useful idiots. They say the right conspiracies and ignore the inconvenient ones.
But there's a guy that really got on my nerves and even though I want him free, assange actively covered for 911, where hedges just avoids it.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/rXoXAmtshO95/
He also said similar things on democracy now, saying that WikiLeaks is going to expose the banks, which is more important. That didn't happen!
How to spot a limited hangout:
https://off-guardian.org/2018/01/04/how-to-identify-cia-limited-hangout/
If Assange is staying in character as controlled op, he deserves an Emmy. That would be the most commitment to a role I've ever seen.
Controlled op is really thrown around liberally. I can't stand the Assange stand on Sept. 11; I thought he looked uncomfortable even having to deal with the question. But Mike Pompeo vowed and succeeded to basically destroy him anyway. I DO now hold Sept. 11 and JFK's murder as "benchmarks," but I still won't call Assange controlled opposition. John Pilger in 2003 or 2004 told me at a talk/book signing that he thought 9-11 Truthers were a "distraction." But I don't think he's "controlled opposition." Chris Hedges is a gatekeeper; but I'm not going to call him "controlled opposition." Noam Chomsky is what he is AND worked and stayed with MIT, a known CIA institution, for an entire career. For me, he would be my guess for most likely "winner." No one knows for sure, but throwing the term around so broadly seems pretty self-destructive for us. As some commented today elsewhere, when will the "Woody Harrelson is controlled opposition" memes start piling up?
Well, his dad did kill JFK ;-)
Agreed that controlled op is overused, including by myself.
I think he should be free. They got him on bs charges.
For all we know assange could have just been that clueless to think that the official story was good enough.
But I guess I had more to expect from someone who has been exposing lies and corruption. In my mind, someone that helped reveal war crimes and saw how whistleblowers got screwed....
But there's a second possibility. He knew 911 was more than they told us, but he's afraid of the backlash. In that case, WikiLeaks could have held back information, to protect them from being shut down instantly under some crazy emergency power of the USA.
In that case, what WikiLeaks and he says is limited.
Not a limited hangout like working for the CIA, but limited by what is safe and acceptable to talk about. Compromising makes you compromised.
The irony is that he still got imprisoned, but for a dumb technicality. I guess the lesson is that when you compromise with psychopaths, you lose more than if you called them out fully.
And that 'technicality' was contrived, with the woman coerced into making the charge and prevented from withdrawing it. It was his leak of military operations that they imprisoned him for, and if it hadn't been that excuse they would have found another.
But maybe you're confusing the function of Wikileaks, which is a venue through which whistleblowers could anonymously publish leaks. He's not, as he always emphasized, an investigative journalist. He doesn't go out and find info, info finds him. He may not have come to the same realization as us on 9/11 but Wikileaks doesn't say anything, it just gives a venue to convey.
The technicality that I was upset about is the espionage act and the hacking charges. They're desperate to scare other journalists.
I also have an issue with WikiLeaks doing slow leaks lol.
Just think if people who had anonymous information to leak about the jabs or the contracts, how would we know that WikiLeaks decided to sit on it? Same for 911.
Now we're honoring Seymour Hersh for his reporting, which could very well be false... But it forces us into a false binary.
https://off-guardian.org/2023/02/21/nordstream-2-seymour-hersh-feeds-the-fake-binary/
I'm not worried though. I used to joke:
MAKE TRUTH COOL AGAIN
The last few months has opened many up to things that we knew for 2 decades...
I was even surprised to see that woody harrelson and Bill Maher question germ theory.
https://odysee.com/@Sigh-Yawp:1/minty:7
We're past the baby phase of being bottle fed slow leaks from "outsider" journalists...
Now of course he's fked. He has no voice.
I don't know if he expected getting locked up.
I'm surprised that kiriyaku was also naive about JFK and 911 , even after his ridiculous jailing.
A helpful response and my retort lol
Victory Palace
Writes The Victory Palace Poetry Stack
3 hr ago
Agreed. Can’t help but wonder what the real motivations are here.
1
Reply
Collapse
Rob (c137)
Writes Robert's Occam's razor
just now
Maybe not a motivation but a lack of motivation.
They pretend that we're the crazy ones for seeing more scams than they do.
And yet they proclaim how people are so ignorant to the scams that they see.
Hipocrisy is the currency of the privelaged.